Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister outline to the Senate how the Howard government is providing further protections and a stronger safety net for Australian workers? 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 Adams for her question and I note that she is a strong advocate for the state of WA. I understand that state may well be changing its name very shortly to AWA because of the great popularity of AWAs in WA! Today’s labour force figures show that unemployment in Australia has now reached a 33-year low of 4.4 per cent. Last month 49,600 new jobs were created, which means 326,200 new jobs have been created since our new industrial relations system came into law and 85 per cent of those are full-time jobs.

The Howard government recognise, unlike those on the other side, that the most important safety net any government can provide to its citizens is the opportunity to have a job, and the evidence is that we are doing just that. But we also recognise that there should be appropriate and strong protections for those who work whilst not being a disincentive to employment. It is all about getting the balance right. That is why we enshrined in law for the first time a number of minimum conditions which cannot be traded. These included annual leave, 10 days personal leave and a maximum 38-hour working week. Do you know what else we did? We introduced a minimum wage. That is something which the Labor Party forgot to include in their industrial relations policy when they announced it a short time ago. The basic component of any remuneration package is surely the basic minimum wage, and that is what Labor left out. Talk about incompetent and talk about not being ready to govern.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Sterle will withdraw that statement.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that statement.

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

It was never the intention of our legislation that workers should be able to trade off conditions without fair and adequate compensation. That is why the Howard government are moving to buttress the safety net by ensuring—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The noise is intolerable.

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

You are quite right. Senator George Campbell, shouting across the chamber is disorderly and I ask you to come to order.

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

It was never the intention of our legislation—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Mr President, I know the opposition do not want to hear the answer, but the simple fact is that we as a government are committed to the potentially vulnerable workers who are earning less than $75,000 per annum and we want to ensure that they are fully protected. It is going to be very interesting to see—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

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

Order! Senators on my left!

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

whether those loud people on the other side will actually support our extra safety net provisions. Mr President, I was asked about alternative policies. The Labor Party announced their IR policy last weekend, and since that time we have seen seven changes to their policy—one every second day.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Campbell, you are warned and so are you, Senator Wong. I have repeatedly asked you to come to order and you have refused to obey the chair.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: just in case my mum is listening, can you make sure you refer to ‘Senator George Campbell’?

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

The problem with this sort of policy on the run is that Ms Gillard and I, let alone poor Mr Rudd, never have any idea what the Labor Party policy is. Take compulsory bargaining fees, for example. Labor’s policy last weekend endorsed this compulsory unionism, and Ms Gillard affirmed that on radio. Now she is trying to tell us that bargaining fees have never been part of Labor’s policy. Well, which is it? Take your pick, although it is likely to change again tomorrow. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, I refer you to the Industrial Relations Commission’s recent decision that, under Work Choices, a company can sack a worker and readvertise the same job on a much lower salary. The commission revealed that, under Work Choices, it does not have to consider whether a valid reason existed as long as the sacking was for ‘operational reasons’, which is much broader than the ‘operational requirements’ which used to apply. Minister, given that Minister Hockey has publicly expressed alarm and admitted that this was not the intention of the legislation, will the government act to tighten Work Choices to prevent other employers engaging in sham redundancies and sacking Australian workers to save money?

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

Can I say that, in general terms at least, Family First takes a very considered approach to matters of industrial relations, unlike those on the other side. When Family First raises an issue such as this, I am prepared and the government are prepared to look at it and consider what the outcomes may be in relation to our legislation. We have never said that our legislation is perfect. We have always said that we are willing to finetune it and consider any changes that might need to be made. That is why we moved amendments to our legislation before it was enacted and after it was enacted. As a government we have a great record of listening to the needs of the community and we will continue to listen and will continue to see what is required to ensure that we get the balance right in relation to our industrial relations system. Clearly, what we had in the past was a system that was so overregulated that there was a huge disincentive to employment. The latest figures brought out today indicate that our deregulation has allowed literally hundreds of thousands of Australians, who in the past would not have had the benefit of employment, to gain employment.

I note with some interest that the people of France have made a decision overwhelmingly supporting a presidential candidate who is committed to the deregulation of the labour market. The interesting thing is that, whilst we were debating Work Choices, the two examples that I continually used of overregulated labour markets and which those over there championed were in fact France and Germany, with high unemployment rates. The French people themselves have now acknowledged the need for deregulation. I simply say to those opposite in particular that, with our current regime, we are still more regulated than the UK labour system, under Tony Blair, and we are still more regulated than the labour system in New Zealand, under Helen Clark, a Labour Prime Minister. What it shows is that we are willing to take a sensible, balanced approach, and that is exactly what we will do when we consider the full impact of the decision to which the honourable senator refers.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what message do you have for the sacked Melbourne dad of two, Andrew Cruickshank, who was his family’s sole breadwinner and was out of work for five months after his employer, Priceline, dismissed him and readvertised his job with a much lower salary? How is Mr Cruickshank better off under Work Choices?

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

The honourable senator has referred to a specific example of a Mr Cruickshank. I understand that in that situation the commission disagreed and held that there was no evidence that the operational reason was a sham. The significant financial loss of $17.2 million and the subsequent restructure resulted in the dismissal of 32 employees. So the particular example to which the honourable senator refers unfortunately does not make his case. Nevertheless, I am not willing to dismiss out of hand the honourable senator’s concerns, and, as with all things, we as a government will continue to monitor very closely to see if any finetuning is needed. But Mr Cruickshank does not make the honourable senator’s case.