Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer to media reports of the minister's letter to the Fair Work Commission, welcomed by the New South Wales Rail, Tram and Bus Union. Can the minister explain to the House why he has intervened in the New South Wales rail dispute in support of unions and further strikes?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. First of all, it's not unusual for ministers for workplace relations to write to the Fair Work Commission—not unusual at all. It's not unusual for them to write to the Fair Work Commission in order to update the Fair Work Commission on what's happening with legislation. Later today we will debate the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. The Fair Work Commission received two letters from me in advance of that coming to the House, letting them know, because it had an impact on their workload. It's a completely normal thing to do. In fact, Andrew Stewart, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Law, said only today:

There's nothing unusual or inappropriate about the minister writing to the Fair Work Commission to indicate that there are going to be some changes to the law which will potentially affect the way in which the commission does its work. It's something that actually happens quite routinely.

The difference, though, between the letters and correspondence that used to go to the Fair Work Commission and what goes to the Fair Work Commission now is a big difference.

So when, for example, the former minister, Christian Porter, wrote to the Fair Work Commission, he wrote to them to be able to cut penalty rates. That was how he wrote to them. When each time came around—I've written four times. I've written to them with respect to the annual wage review; the aged-care wage review; family and domestic violence leave; and with respect to unilateral termination of agreements. On all four times, none of those were letters that the previous government would have written. I get that, because all of them advance wages and conditions—every single one—and did so, particularly with the annual wage review and the aged-care review, in areas that disproportionately helped narrow the gender pay gap. Both of them.

So with respect to the specific letter that the member asks about: first of all, I don't know what application from the New South Wales government she's referring to because there isn't one on that issue. It actually doesn't exist, so I'm not exactly sure what I'm meant to be intervening on. But if you look at the timing of this versus the timing of the letters that went with respect to family and domestic violence leave, on each case the Fair Work Commission was advised once a decision of government had been made. That is the respectful thing to do; that's the appropriate thing to do. Those opposite might not be used to concepts where people are notified of something that is relevant to them. I'm sure Josh would have loved a letter being told, 'By the way, I'm Treasurer too'! I'm sure there's a whole lot of notification, that respectful notification, where those opposite think, 'Maybe that should have happened previously.' But what has happened here is completely orderly and the right thing to do.