Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of delivering fairness and flexibility to Australian workplaces?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noticed that the question was greeted by scoffing from the member for North Sydney. I thought those opposite said that Work Choices was dead. It seems to be undergoing a slight case of resurrection on the part of certain members opposite, led courageously by the member for Bradfield. The member for Bradfield, the former Leader of the Opposition, is a principled man who stands by the principles to which he and his party have been historically committed, unlike those who have taken, it seems, a more opportunistic course of action in recent times. Furthermore, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has voted on 12 occasions in support of extreme Howard government industrial relations laws, but that seems to have changed yesterday—or at least we think it has changed. I am still quite interested in the distinction between not supporting legislation on the one hand and not opposing it on the other. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could give us a dictionary definition of the difference.

For those opposite, I am sure the consideration of this in recent days has been a unifying factor in the joint party room, but again I commend the member for Bradfield for at least sticking by the principles for which that side of politics have stood for the better part of a decade and now pretend that they have walked away from. We know one fact for certain: when it comes to the interests of working families, given half a chance, Work Choices will be back, inflicted upon working families across Australia because that side stand for those principles on industrial relations, just as we on this side of the House stand opposed to those principles.

The first thing I would do is to commend the work of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister has shepherded through an extensive consultation process with unions and with business leaders across Australia a very complex piece of legislation to produce a fair, balanced and flexible industrial relations system for the future. When you have both business and unions coming out in support of this piece of IR reform, I say you have it about right, and the House should record its thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for the excellent job that she has done.

The bill establishes a stronger, enduring safety net through the National Employment Standards and modern awards for all Australian workers. Furthermore, the bill ensures that any workplace agreement must make all employees better off against the relevant award minimums. Furthermore, the bill also ensures that all employees, including in the three million workplaces with fewer than 100 employees, are protected from unfair dismissal. The safety net that we are building also protects employees’ entitlement to redundancy pay in the very difficult experience of losing their job. The Fair Work Bill also underpins ongoing business investment. It is a much simpler piece of legislation than Work Choices. Work Choices delivered, as the member for North Sydney will well remember, 600 pages of legislation.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So does yours.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have 600 pages against their 1,500-page Work Choices legislation. If you want to make the difference between 1,500 pages on the one hand and 600 on the other, I would say that most people could understand the difference. Small businesses will have the confidence to employ new staff with the balanced fair dismissal laws and, by encouraging productivity based enterprise bargaining, the fair work legislation will over time foster both productivity growth and wages growth, to the benefit of both employers and employees and to the long-run benefit of economic growth and job creation.

Beyond the detail of the legislation, what this is about is a question of principle. For a long time, we on this side of politics have stood for fairness in the workplace. For a long time—a very long time—those opposite have stood for a set of industrial relations laws which would rip away basic conditions from working families. That is why, when they got half a chance with control of the Senate, they did it; they ripped those conditions away. Each one of those sitting opposite who were in the parliament at the time stood up here and voted for the passage of Work Choices. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, did exactly the same, and now he pretends he does not believe in those principles. As the Treasurer said before, with the member for Wentworth, the Leader of the Opposition, watch not what he says but what he does. What he did on 12 occasions was to vote for this extreme industrial relations legislation. What he said yesterday is that he will not do it again, and I think the people of Australia would understand the difference between those two sets of principles. The difference is clear on this, and working families across Australia know this very well. At last we have the prospect of fairness and balance in the workplaces of Australia, which gets the balance right between working families and workers, and their employers on the one hand against the Work Choices regime that it has replaced. But, if those opposite ever chance to be back on this side of the House and in government again, we know for certain, given the debate that goes on internally, that this political posturing which they have engaged in, which says that they will not bring in Work Choices again, is purely that—political posturing. Any return to the treasury bench would guarantee a return of Work Choices, however they may posture on the way through.

I would say to the House, and through the House to the nation at large: working families under the legislation which has been introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister will have a fair and balanced set of laws for the first time in a long, long time. The only way to ensure that those laws are properly passed is for them to gain speedy passage through the Senate and for those opposite not to engage in the normal double-timing tactics that they have engaged in in the past, pretending to be supporters one day but in their heart of hearts resolving to oppose it when next they get the chance to do so.