Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Abetz. Is the minister aware of any new allegations of workers being dismissed as a result of the government’s workplace relations policy, Work Choices? If he is, I further ask: what is the government’s response to these allegations and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

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

I thank Senator Ferguson for his enthusiastic commitment to job creation and fairness in the workplace. First of all, let me remind honourable senators that an extra 77,000 full-time jobs have been created since Work Choices came into being. So, rather than people being dismissed wholesale, they are being employed.

I am aware of a number of alleged instances of Work Choices being used to unfairly dismiss people—allegations misrepresented and twisted by those on the other side and the unions for what they see as their cheap, short-term political gain. There was of course the Cowra abattoir issue, which was leapt upon by Labor and the unions but found by the independent umpire, the Office of Workplace Services, to be a genuine case of redundancy. Redundancy was an accepted concept in industrial relations well before Work Choices. In other words, nothing changed other than Labor’s attempt to spin. In fact, in five cases highlighted by the unions and the ALP in their advertising campaign, it was found once again by the independent umpire that the assertions made were wrong.

I was asked if I was aware of any new allegations. I can see Senator Marshall getting a bit twitchy, and I know why. I am aware of a new allegation. It is the case of one Dianne Rich, allegedly unfairly dismissed by her employer as a result of evil Work Choices. This is what the employer said about the dismissal: ‘We have a bona fide redundancy here.’ Then, to make the point even stronger, he had to use an expletive. This person continued that he would not be backing down from his position that Ms Rich was losing her job because of a restructure.

Let us have a ‘who said it?’ Who said all that? Who was the employer? None other than Senator Marshall’s mate Dean Mighell, the Victorian head of the Electrical Trades Union.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I deliberately said that so that it gets on the record that Senator Marshall does not consider him to be a mate. That will make for interesting meetings! I am not going to comment on whether Ms Rich’s dismissal was justified for operational reasons because that is a matter for others. What this case demonstrates is Labor’s duplicity. It is a case of, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ When a Cowra abattoir unfortunately has to, for operational reasons, make people redundant, the union says, ‘No, you’re not to believe them, albeit that the Office of Workplace Services said it was a genuine case.’ But, if the Electrical Trades Union does it, it is all okay and it is all to be believed—exactly the same way as they say a union like the shoppies in South Australia can trade away penalty rates but individuals are not allowed to do it. The media union is allowed to trade away public holidays but individuals are not allowed to do it. It is a classic case of Labor once again saying, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’

For the benefit of our nation we are willing to take the tough decisions for the long-term benefit of the workers in this country. Do you want to know the first thing workers actually want? It is a job. Under Labor, one million of our fellow Australians—(Time expired)