Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister about Spotlight’s AWA. I refer to a statement today by Mr Patrick McKendry, the Chief Executive of the National Retail Association, about Spotlight’s AWA. I quote:

Far from being defensive about it, the National Retail Association applauds it because we think a lot of other retailers will follow Spotlight’s lead.

Why doesn’t the Prime Minister just fess up to the start of his 2c an hour race to the bottom?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Perth will know, I made it very clear when the legislation was introduced that in relation to the conditions of employment there were those that were stipulated as part of the Australian standard. They related to hourly rates of pay, to annual leave and to all the other things that were listed in that standard. On issues such as penalty rates I indicated that, if people were covered by an award, then the award provisions would apply. In relation to other matters such as employment under an AWA, the question of whether penalty rates would apply would be a matter that had to be specifically addressed. If those issues were not specifically addressed, then the default position would be the adoption of the provisions under the relevant award in relation to matters such as penalty rates. It remains the case that, if the lady mentioned in the honourable gentleman’s question believes she was terminated because she did not sign an AWA, she can make a complaint to the Office of Workplace Services.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of recent media reports about the operation of Work Choices on a Melbourne construction site? If so, what is the government’s response?

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

I thank the member for Casey for his question and for his ongoing interest in this subject. Last month there were reports in the media that workers on a building site in Melbourne were docked four hours pay after they stopped work to take a collection for the widow of a deceased colleague. At the time, it was claimed by the union concerned, the CFMEU, that this had occurred due to Work Choices. This matter was investigated by the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner who, after his investigation, issued a determination on the matter.

What the commissioner found about this case was interesting. He found that the CFMEU site representative and the CFMEU organiser had both attempted to manoeuvre the employer, Hooker Cockram, and other contractors into a position where they were obliged to deduct four hours pay. He found that the CFMEU site representative engaged in unlawful industrial action and that the CFMEU organiser aided and abetted the contravention by this representative—in other words, this report of the Building and Construction Commissioner found that the CFMEU had shamelessly manipulated the workers concerned. That is what an independent report found.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It is interesting that they do not want to hear. They want to be part of the allegations, but they make as much noise as possible so as not to hear what an independent inquiry found. This is what the ABCC found:

One of the purposes for taking the action appears to have been to gain publicity for the CFMEU’s views about the new work choice relations laws.

What we have here is the CFMEU being prepared to use the workplace death of a colleague to pull a political stunt, something which is appalling but not surprising. It is not surprising because the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, said last year: ‘I need a mum or a dad of someone who has been seriously injured or killed for my campaign. That would be fantastic.’ That was an appalling statement. We now have another appalling incident.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms King interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat is warned!

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

I do not think it could be put better than what Neil Mitchell, the morning presenter on Radio 3AW, said this morning:

Do not trust the CFMEU. If you are a member of that union, wake up to yourself. They claim concern about workers killed on the job, and then they use their bodies and their families to play politics.

He concluded in his comment:

It is sickening.

Instead of the interjections we get from the Leader of the Opposition and others opposite they ought to join me and the government in condemning this absolutely pathetic stunt.

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows from the answer he gave to the previous question from the member for Perth, when he reiterated something he said to the House on 31 October last year. That was:

... in the absence of explicit provision to the contrary there is a default provision in the new policy which will guarantee delivery of the award provisions in relation to penalty rates and loadings.

I also refer to clause 20 of Spotlight’s AWA, which provides:

… this … expressly excludes the operation of protected award … conditions in relation to, incidental to and/or … with respect to:

• rest breaks;
• incentive-based payments and bonuses;
• annual leave loading;
• public holidays;
• loadings for working overtime or shift work; and
• penalty rates, including for work on public holidays;

Isn’t it the case that the government’s legislation enables the Prime Minister’s so-called default provision and these conditions to be sold down the river at the stroke of a pen for the princely sum of 2c an hour?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that is no. The situation is, as I said last year—and the government was totally open about it when the legislation was brought forward—that, with matters relating to penalty rates, if somebody is covered by an award, the award provision obtains. If somebody is not covered by an award, it must be specifically addressed. In the absence of it being specifically addressed then the default provision applies, and that default provision represents the terms and conditions that are in the award.

The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues can ask, as they undoubtedly will, as many questions as they choose on this issue and indeed on any other issue. But nothing can alter the fact that, when we changed the workplace relations laws 10 years ago, they said unemployment would go up, wages would go down, people would be humiliated, people would be sacked, their lives would be destroyed, their families would be destitute, their marriages would break down, they would resort to violence against their friends, they would become unsociable and they would become enemies of society. Ten years on, do we have those situations in Australia? No. Ten years on, we have real wages that have gone up by 16 per cent, versus a lousy 1.3 per cent under the former government. We have seen unemployment at a 30-year low, and we have seen international economic bodies say that the wages and remuneration of production workers in this country compared with the rest of the world are second to none.

I have said it before and I will say it again: my guarantee to the workers of Australia is my record. My record over the last 10 years is of service to the workers of Australia, service that the Labor Party could only dream of giving to those men and women of our country.