Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his abiding interest in reform of the workplace relations system in Australia. Indeed I have seen some media reports of the ACTU beginning what it has called its ‘naming and shaming’ campaign. The target of the union vilification is a small Melbourne construction company that operates in the construction sector both commercially and domestically. This morning on AM the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, attacked this company and Work Choices because of three employees who were made redundant.

Let me deal with the facts in this case rather than the wild rhetoric that has come from the ACTU. Firstly, these employees were indeed made redundant because of a downturn in work in the commercial building sector in Melbourne. Indeed, that is what the owner of the firm said on AM this morning. He said:

Our work is predominantly sporadic anyway at the best of times.

So here is a business dealing with sporadic work in the commercial sector and it has actually offered work in the domestic sector to these employees. Secondly, I am advised, even as I am speaking here, that arrangements for the redundancy provisions for these workers are being undertaken now and that these workers will get their full redundancy payout. The Office of Workplace Services, which I spoke about yesterday, has been boosted and will ensure that that provision does indeed operate.

The third fact is the most telling in relation to this matter. We have had Mr Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, on national radio this morning and in the press saying that these redundancies are as a result of the Work Choices legislation. The reality, the fact, is entirely true. These redundancies are the result of a certified agreement, certified in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 4 April 2003. One of the parties that took that agreement to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to put these provisions in place was none other than the CFMEU. If Mr Combet were going to be honest, he would be saying that what he is complaining about is an agreement put in place by the CFMEU for the building construction industry in Melbourne. But he is not saying that and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Worse than that, there have been redundancies under this agreement over the couple of years since it has been put in place. Have we heard one word from Mr Combet or the Leader of the Opposition about previous redundancies under this agreement? This shows that this is a despicable campaign on the part of the ACTU. I remind the House that last year we had the President of the ACTU on the Lateline television program saying: ‘What I need for my campaign is the family of a worker who has been injured or maimed. That would help our campaign.’ This is outrageous. It is despicable. That is the first thing that can be said about this. The second is that this proves from the very outset—the very first case raised by the ACTU—that you cannot believe what they say. No doubt we will see more claims like this over the coming days as they trawl through to try to find more, but the very first case is an agreement with the CFMEU—what hypocrites!

See this speech in context