Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

You will recall that earlier today I commented on the union’s campaign against the government’s Work Choices laws and how they are resorting to personal and unscrupulous methods to exert pressure on the duly elected officials of this place. First it was my husband and now it is a known associate of mine and personal friend and fellow Liberal Jim Aitkin. Kentmore Pty Ltd is a business that sold real estate in the Blue Mountains area until mid-2005, when, in financial difficulties, it looked like closing. It was purchased by Jim Aitkin on 1 July 2005. The office’s real estate director, Gail Austins, earned around $60,000 in the 12 months to 1 July 2005, when the business was purchased by Jim Aitkin real estate. I can imagine that any employee in that situation would not want to lose their job through a business closing, and I imagine that they would not want to earn less than they were earning, but I do not think that any employee in that situation in June 2005 would consider asking for a 100 per cent pay rise.

Jim Aitkin is a very astute businessman. He has been very successful and he was confident that he could turn that real estate agency around. He has won numerous western Sydney awards for business, including the 2005 awards. He has continued to perform strongly in a buoyant real estate market and, particularly in the last year, his real estate agency has gone ahead when the real estate market has been at rock bottom. Thanks to the New South Wales Labor government’s taxes, charges, levies, land taxes, vendor taxes and everything imaginable, the New South Wales real estate agency market has been completely killed. Due to Jim Aitkin’s methods in real estate, any employee of his is certainly on more than $60,000 a year.

All of Jim Aitkin’s real estate directors are on the real estate state award—a noncompulsory commission structure. This is one that is issued by the Real Estate Employers’ Federation. He does not offer AWAs, but my strong recommendation to Jim Aitkin, due to the union’s concerted campaign on him, is to take on any future employees under AWAs. I am reliably informed that Jim Aitkin has not used the AWA system but has been very happy to have the pay scales and structures he has always used, which have seen him awarded these numerous awards. He has very loyal staff who have stood up for him and by him in all his ventures in life, including politics. He has had a turnover of staff in the last six years of six people in a very busy real estate practice which has five or six offices and I imagine over 50 or 60 staff.

His staff are very loyal. They have been completely vitriolic in their comments about the union’s campaign. They are absolutely livid that this ex-employee has brought the union along to disrupt the workplace and paint them in a bad light, as if they were some poor schmucks who somehow worked for less than anyone else in the real estate market because they happened to work for Jim Aitkin. They are very happy to work for Jim. They find themselves in the top wage bracket all the time due to the commissions that his real estate agency is able to secure. They are very happy in business with him, which has resulted in his turnover of six people in six years.

The union’s targeting of Jim is just extraordinary. Just for the Labor opposition’s benefit, I will elucidate this even further. An employee cannot be sacked for refusing to negotiate, make, sign, extend, vary or terminate an AWA. However, under the law, if you are a job applicant your prospective employer can make the offer of a job conditional on signing an AWA. That is the law. If an employee feels that they have been coerced into signing a workplace agreement they should contact the Office of Workplace Services. This is an organisation independent of government. It does not run political campaigns like the unions do. If the union’s power is being whittled away they do not take action against elected representatives and their family and friends. The Office of Workplace Services can investigate and prosecute any breach of the Workplace Relations Act with regard to coercion and duress. Employers face fines of up to $33,000 if prosecuted. There are also transitional arrangements under these laws but they only apply for businesses sold after Work Choices was introduced at the end of March 2006. This business was transferred under the old system on July 2005. (Time expired)

See this speech in context