John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for Workplace Relations. Can the minister confirm recent reports that three men were sacked in Victoria after one of them smirked at his boss and that a 16-year-old employee was made redundant from a Sydney juice bar only to be re-employed two days later on significantly lower wages? Is the minister aware that one of the three men sacked has three young children to support and was quoted as saying:

I had a lump in my stomach. [I was] shell-shocked. I need my money, I’ve got a mortgage.

Haven’t both of these events occurred since the government’s new industrial relations laws took effect on 27 March? Isn’t it now clear that some employers are taking advantage of the new laws to fire employees that they do not like or as a means of cutting their wages? How are these sacked workers better off under the new laws?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before these changes occurred, every week within Australia there were 40,000 terminations of employment, and 12,000 of those were involuntary. So it is not surprising that the Australian Labor Party can come into this chamber and refer to a few examples, given that we know that before the legislation came in 12,000 were occurring each and every week.

In relation to the specifics of Senator Hogg’s question, I indicate to him that I am not aware of the specific examples to which he is referring. However, the sparse hint of information provided in relation to the circumstances might suggest that these are matters in which the Office of Workplace Services would be very interested. I would encourage every single Australian worker, if they believe that they have been unfairly or improperly dealt with by their employer, to avail themselves of the opportunity of ringing up the Office of Workplace Services and ascertaining what their rights are.

The recent example of the abattoir at Cowra was very instructive to the Australian workforce. The trade union movement sought to make a song and dance about the situation and were unable to effect any outcome for the workers but, once the Office of Workplace Services became involved, the workers were all back in work again. That shows the Australian workforce that the Office of Workplace Services, which we set up, has more punch and pull than the now discredited trade union movement, which represents only about 20 per cent of the Australian workforce. The Office of Workplace Services represents all workers, whether they are union members or not. It is not surprising that more and more Australian workers are turning to the Office of Workplace Services to get good, effective industrial outcomes rather than going to certain elements of the trade union movement.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm how many terminations that have occurred since the new laws took effect the Office of Workplace Services is currently investigating? How many of these investigations have been triggered by the minister? Are the outcomes of these investigations made public? And what options are open to employees where the investigations find that they were unlawfully dismissed?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that question there were a whole host of questions. The good news for Senator Hogg is that we have Senate estimates very shortly and undoubtedly those questions can be explored in that environment. It will not surprise anybody in this chamber that I do not have—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is appropriate for the minister to tell a senator who asked a legitimate question in question time that they can ask it in estimates, which is coming in a few weeks. I know the government has grown arrogant with its power in the Senate, but surely it is not appropriate for a minister to brush off a serious question about the rights of employees in this country that directly relates to his primary answer about the work of the office by saying to the senator that they have no right to have the question answered at this time. I ask you to ask the minister to properly deal with the question in accordance with the standing orders of the Senate.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is absolutely no point of order. It is perfectly proper for a minister to refer to the opportunity for a senator to ask questions in estimates. Senator Abetz was given four minutes to answer. He still has not finished his answer. The Labor Party are interrupting the answer they sought. It is perfectly proper for him to refer to the opportunity at estimates.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said many times, and as other presidents have said, I cannot instruct a minister on how to answer questions. I can just remind him that he has 38 seconds of his answer left. If he wishes to add to his answer, he may.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within 22 seconds I went through that which the Senate heard. I was just embarking on saying that it would not surprise those listening that I do not have that specific detail. But, rather than making it available at Senate estimates, I will take it on notice.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.