House debates
Wednesday, 11 October 2006
Questions without Notice
Workplace Relations
2:25 pm
Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on how reforms to the labour market allowing employers and employees more choice have strengthened the economy? Is the Prime Minister aware of any proposals to roll back elements of this reform and what is his response?
John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I can inform the honourable member for Canning that the progress so far under the new Work Choices legislation—and it is just over six months, so it is relatively early days—is a lot better than we were told by the Labor Party would be the case. Since Work Choices was introduced, over 117,000 AWAs have been signed. In September, over 27,000 AWAs were signed, which was a 46 per cent increase on the average uptake per month in 2005. Additionally, over 1,000 employee collective agreements have been signed since Work Choices began, covering over 48,000 employees, and there have been 800 union collective agreements signed, covering over 240,000 employees. But most important of all, despite the predictions that the world would come to an end, the sky would fall in, there would be mass sackings, wages would be slashed and generally there would be a pestilence all across the land, what has happened is that 175,000 new jobs have been created.
The member for Canning asked me for my response. I think I can say that is my response—but, more importantly and more interestingly, what is the response of state Labor governments to the policy of the opposition leader to tear up workplace agreements? I know that the Premier of the state from which the member for Canning comes, Western Australia, made it very clear when he was in China with me in June of this year that he was not the least bit interested in following the Beazley policy of tearing up Australian workplace agreements. He leads the largest mining state, if I can put it that way, in the country and he knows the critical importance of Australian workplace agreements to the mining industry of Western Australia. He knows they need those workplace agreements to get maximum choice and maximum productivity.
But this—how shall I put it?—recalcitrant trend amongst state Labor governments has now spread to Victoria. Yesterday, Mr Hulls, a senior minister in the Victorian government, was asked on seven occasions whether he supported the Beazley policy of tearing up AWAs, and he refused to do so. Listen to this for a disingenuous reply from a state Labor minister—a disingenuous reply. This is what he had to say. The Victorian industrial relations minister, on seven occasions, refused to endorse Mr Beazley’s policy, and he included in his refusal the following words: ‘Look, I haven’t got exactly the quotes that Kim Beazley said, so I don’t exactly know what he said.’ I do not think we are in any doubt. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, went to the ALP conference in June in New South Wales and he said, ‘I will tear up AWAs; I will tear up the government’s workplace agreements legislation.’ The truth is that Labor governments, faced with the need to cooperate with the business community of Australia, do not want a bar of the Beazley policy because they know that policy would be anathema to the future prosperity and development of this country.
2:29 pm
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is also to the Prime Minister and follows on from his answer to the previous question. Isn’t it the case that yesterday the Victorian Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Hulls, in addition to describing AWAs as an abomination, actually said:
I fully support the federal opposition’s industrial relations policy and nothing that has been said today contradicts that. If Kim Beazley abolished AWAs in the private sector he would have complete support from us.
Isn’t it also the case that yesterday Minister Hulls released this report which shows:
Only around a third of all workplaces dominated by individual arrangements have annual leave loading, overtime rates and weekend penalty rates available to non-managerial employees.
John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is the member for Perth asking us to believe what he says about industrial relations after his performance yesterday—
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Beazley interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The Leader of the Opposition!
John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Nothing can gainsay the fact that on seven occasions the minister was asked to endorse the Beazley policy and he ran for cover on each of those occasions. The truth is that anybody in government that wants the business community to invest in their state knows that the abolition of AWAs will drive business away from that investment.
2:31 pm
Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits of allowing employees a choice of a collective agreement or an Australian workplace agreement? Are there any specific examples of the benefits of freedom of choice?
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the member for Deakin for his question and reiterate to him and to the House that this government is committed to providing both employers and employees with the flexibility to choose suitable employment agreements for their workplaces. I was asked about any specific examples. I was interested to read last night that AAP, the news service, reported that the member for Perth was completely unaware that Martin Donnelly Electrical Services had offered its employees the choice of a collective agreement or an Australian workplace agreement.
On Monday the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth went down to a construction site here in Canberra and sought to—and in fact did—publicly defame an Australian business. They did that, as was shown yesterday, without establishing the facts of the case whatsoever. They accepted the spin of their union masters in this case and launched an unwarranted attack on Australian business.
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They went down there and sought to trash the reputation of an Australian business. In the last couple of days we have seen what has become the standard modus operandi of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Perth, and indeed the Australian Labor Party. On Monday when they went to this site an ETU official said to the Leader of the Opposition:
The pressure is all on you. You are our skipper. We are behind you. We are behind you with the ruck. You are our front row forward.
The pressure is certainly on the skipper today because unfortunately—
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Lalor is warned!
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
for their skipper, the Leader of the Opposition, and his first mate, the member for Perth, sunk the boat yesterday. He publicly confirmed that he was unaware of the facts. You would think after yesterday’s performance that the member for Perth would have the decency to come in here and fess up today. But it is worse than that, Mr Speaker. The company in question, Martin Donnelly Electrical Services, has released a very interesting statement. In part they say that Martin Donnelly Pty Ltd—
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Beazley interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Leader of the Opposition just interjected and said, ‘You always accept the employers rather than the employees.’ In other words, he is saying to me and to the House that you just accept one side. That interjection was very interesting in the light of this statement which said that MDPL ‘have on three separate occasions contacted the member for Perth, Mr Smith. Unfortunately he has not responded to our request for MDPL to present their side of the story’. What hypocrisy!
Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Plibersek interjecting
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order, the member for Sydney and the member for Perth! The member for Perth is warned and so is the member for Sydney.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They go on to say that a spokesman for MDPL said ‘they were dismayed that the member could present information in parliament as factual without an understanding of the AWA’. They also say that MDPL are a small, local, family-oriented company with a firm commitment to their employees. The irresponsible statement of the Labor Party will have a long-term effect on the viability of the company and ultimately their 43 employees’ future.
Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms King interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They are prepared to trash the reputation of a business here in Canberra and affect the viability of the employment of 43 people in Canberra and somehow come here and pretend that they are the friend of the workers. What hypocrisy!
Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Bowen interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is another interesting fact that, again, the member for Perth was totally unaware of. They say that it is bewildering that although the union has been ‘appointed bargaining agent for several of our employees, they have not made any contact with our office to discuss any issues regarding the AWA. We believe the union is more concerned with their own survival than the wellbeing of our employees’.
That is too true. So we have had the member for Perth sink the boat of his skipper yesterday. He ought to have the decency to apologise not just to this House and to the people of Australia; he ought to have the decency to apologise to this company and their 43 employees. It is no wonder—I will finish on this note—that business in Australia has no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party. They have shown through this example that they are prepared to traduce the reputation of a business and to trash business in Australia. That is economic vandalism and this man should never, ever be given an opportunity to put that into practice.
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Members are holding up their own question time.
2:38 pm
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and follows on from his answer to the previous question and his reference to the AAP report and a collective union or non-union agreement. Isn’t it the case that Martin Donnelly employees in Canberra unanimously expressed a preference to negotiate a collective agreement some four months ago? Isn’t it the case that the 22—not the 10 or 12—Martin Donnelly Electrical Services employees who continue to refuse to sign the AWA are still expressing a preference to negotiate a collective agreement and that that constitutes more than 50 per cent of the workforce? Isn’t it the case that as late as 2 pm today neither the sparkies who are working at the building site nor their union representative had been informed that any sort of collective agreement, union or non-union, was on the table, union or non-union? Minister, why don’t you just take the Prime Minister on one of his walks, less than 500 metres down the road, and let the sparkies themselves tell you they do not want your AWA?
Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Blair is warned.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The facts completely betray the argument put by the member for Perth, and that is pretty typical in arguments put by him. The reality is that many of these employees have taken up the offer made by the company because they are up to $150 a week better off.
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If they are $150 better off, why don’t they all take it?
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Keep compounding it, Stephen; just keep going, mate. You are doing a great job of burying yourself and your party on this issue. Keep going. Let us take a couple of claims that were made by the member for Perth. Let us go back to the facts and not your rhetoric. There were no guaranteed pay increases during the life of the AWA—this is what the member for Perth said; completely false, ‘I don’t like the facts’.
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. This question was about whether or not the workers had sought a collective agreement and whether he was aware—
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that the member for Perth asked a lengthy question. The minister had only just begun to answer it. The minister is in order.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is amazing how, having come in here yesterday, the member for Perth wanted to detail a whole series of facts to prove he was right. As soon as I raised the facts that proved he was absolutely wrong, he wanted to run away, and the Leader of the Opposition is trying to save his sinking ship. He said there was no pay increase. In fact, there was a 10 per cent pay increase over two years—5.5 per cent in the first year and 4.5 per cent in the second year. He said that payment of overtime is at the sole discretion of the employer—again, wrong. In the conditions of employment, it says, ‘Overtime will be paid for at the rate of time and a half for the first three hours and double time thereafter’—set out in black and white in the conditions of employment.
He said:
Under the collective agreement, there is a tool allowance of $12.50 a week.
Under the current collective agreement there is a tool allowance of $12.50 per week. There is no separate tool allowance in the current collective agreement. He said, ‘Under the current collective agreement, there are electrical certification allowances and ACA registration allowances payable each week.’ In fact, they have only ever been payable on the occasion when the employee was qualified in that regard. So, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and they are just four of the matters raised by the member for Perth yesterday.
On the substance of the question, I go back to the statement by Martin Donnelly. He says: ‘We want either a non-union agreement or an AWA. In fact, under our AWA, employees are going to be around $150 a week better off and I cannot see what people are complaining about. The workers obviously are not.’
Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Snowdon interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Lingiari is warned.