Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The minister has outlined the success of Australian workplace agreements and the numbers of Australian workplace agreements. Would the minister please outline for the House whether there are any threats to the continuation of these agreements.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I note that by the end of the year nearly two million Australian workers will have willingly signed agreements under the new workplace relations regime and nearly one million workers will be on Australian workplace agreements. These laws were introduced because it is important for the Australian economy to remain competitive with the rest of the world. Economic reform does help to deliver a stronger economy.

Of course, the Labor Party and the union bosses were predicting Armageddon when these laws were to start, nearly a year ago. We remember the former Leader of the Opposition saying that there would be more divorce when these laws came into effect. I can reassure him that there is not more divorce in Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that these laws would be bad for the economy. I can reassure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the economy has continued to have reasonably strong economic growth over the last 12 months.

Sharan Burrow said, ‘Children won’t see their parents at Christmas.’ I can reassure Sharan Burrow that parents did see their children and children saw their parents—and saw Santa Claus as well—at Christmas. Bill Ludwig from the AWU said, ‘Our children will be going to school with bare feet because parents can’t afford shoes.’ I can assure Mr Ludwig that our children are going to school with shoes. Mr Speaker, it went on and on. There was none better than Bill Shorten, who said it would be ‘a green light for mass sackings’.

Bill Shorten is coming into this place to unfairly dismiss the member for Maribyrnong. And now we have Greg Combet, part of the Rudd-Gillard-Combet combo. Greg Combet wants to replace the poor old member for Charlton. Leave her alone! The member for Charlton worried about our unfair dismissal laws. The member for Charlton votes against our laws and then seeks to rely on them, because the Labor Party is the party for union bosses; it is not the party for workers. Seventy per cent of its frontbench are ex union officials, former ACTU heads like the member for Batman; the member for Hotham, right next to him; and the member for Throsby, who is here. And now we have Greg Combet wanting to come in, and Dougie Cameron up in the Senate—have I missed any?

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

Bill Shorten and Richard—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bill Shorten—I have had a strike—and Richard Marles in Corio. The member for Corio will be going for unfair dismissal as well, using our laws. The Labor Party is the party for union bosses and union officials. The coalition has the parties that go in to bat for the workers, better wages and real jobs.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and follows his answer to my previous question. Will the minister give the Australian people one reason—just one reason—why his government will not direct the Office of the Employment Advocate to recommence the analysis of Australian workplace agreements and to publicly release it?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because, with the introduction of AWAs and the changes made under our laws a year ago, no-one has shown me a formula that allows you to compare apples with apples.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The minister has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know this is beyond the thought process of the Labor Party, but, under the Labor Party’s old rules, if you took the Labor Party—

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Swan interjecting

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

The member for Lilley!

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Swan interjecting

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

The member for Lilley is warned!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you took the Labor Party’s approach—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

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

The deputy leader is on very thin ice.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’d better go and stand over that side—put her through it! The fact of the matter is this: if you have an AWA, that trades off penalties for higher wages—and bear in mind that Greg Combet said that he regularly traded off penalty rates. So I ask the question: why is it okay for Greg Combet to negotiate a worker’s penalty rates away, but it is not okay for the worker to negotiate on their penalty rates?

That is where the Labor Party does not understand the aspirations of everyday Australian workers, those workers who want to be able to negotiate with an employer. Some of those workers will want to have job sharing and shift sharing. There is a whole raft of women in particular who want to go back to work but want to be able to work from home. They want to be in a position where they can have some flexibility in the workplace. The fact of the matter is that you can have a penalty provision but it might be the case that it is never accessed because an employer never lets an employee access the penalty rates. But there might be a bonus pool involved for the staff, at the end of the financial year. That bonus pool might have a value, and we do not know whether it is accessed or not. So the question is: how do you compare apples with apples? If the Labor Party thinks that the solution is to have a one-size-fits-all approach—which is the Labor Party’s approach—to workplace relations that goes in to bat for the union bosses, we reject it and the workers of Australia reject it.