Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 4 May, in which he said in relation to his changes to Work Choices:

The economic circumstances of the firm can be taken into account, the employment opportunities and experience of the individual employee can be taken into account ...

Prime Minister, were the changes to Work Choices as explained with those words intended to go into operation on 7 May? Was a different policy announced this morning in media reports on this matter which referred to the fact that in the government’s legislation only companies facing a short-term crisis that might send them broke would get a limited exemption? What are the specific circumstances that relate to your exemption under changes to Work Choices? Has the legal definition of those circumstances changed in the last three weeks?

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

The legislation will be introduced this afternoon and there will be an explanatory memorandum provided.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the appropriate procedure to be followed with regard to allegations that companies may have unfairly treated their employees? Is the Prime Minister aware of cases where that procedure has not been followed?

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

I thank the member for Cowper for his question. There is a procedure that should be followed, and that procedure is that, before conclusions are reached and serious allegations made, concerns about alleged mistreatment of workers by businesses should be referred to the Office of Workplace Services—soon to be known as the Workplace Ombudsman—so that those allegations can be investigated. I can certainly confirm that this procedure has been followed in relation to a company called WorkDirections and, hopefully, the investigation by the office will determine whether any mistakes of a dishonest or honest kind have been made. I notice that, in relation to that company, the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday sought to provide an explanation, although that explanation has in recent days been significantly disputed by the previous owner of one of the businesses taken over. These matters will be dealt with in the course of the investigation. Although any conflict between what the Leader of the Opposition said last Thursday and the reality is a matter he has to deal with, I do not seek to add anything other than to make the observation that this issue should be dealt with by the Office of Workplace Services.

Can I say that the treatment of this case is in very stark contrast to the treatment of other allegations that have arisen over recent months. I think the most notorious example of a different treatment occurred last week in relation to the Lilac City Motor Inn, owned by two struggling and courageous people, a small business man and woman, Mr and Mrs Doolan. In that case a newspaper reported a story making allegations about the AWA at the Lilac City Motor Inn in Goulburn. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition conducted a doorstop interview and then rang into the John Laws program and said, ‘John, I was ringing about this situation with the Lilac City Motor Inn and the Australian workplace agreement.’ Then, over the weekend, we were treated to a denial of the undeniable, with the claim being made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she never attacked the Lilac City Motor Inn. The truth is that she did. The Leader of the Opposition does not escape censure on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition also conducted a doorstop, and he said:

I read the report in the Telegraph about the AWA which is being introduced by the HMAA and I think that example, in itself, points to the continuing problems of Mr Howard’s unfair industrial relations laws.

Through you, Mr Speaker, I make the observation to the Leader of the Opposition that there was no allowance made here for an honest mistake. There was no allowance made here for the fact that there might be a decent explanation for this. We can get an idea of the reaction of the owners of the motel. Bear  in mind that this is a couple who started the business only a couple of years ago. They started a small business in a drought affected city and, as a result of the publicity given, fanned and exaggerated by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they have received emails from as far away as Norway. One of the owners of the motel, Don Doolan, said on the Friday night Channel 9 news when he was confronted with the claim by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she was not personally attacking him:

By her—

meaning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—

saying she wasn’t personally attacking me, well, what was she doing? She’s using my motel as an example to get political leverage.

Given those words, I say to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there has been a lot of anguish around the kitchen table in the Doolan household over the last few days. This is a couple who started with nothing, who have toiled to build up a small business. They have won the esteem and the affection of their employees and they should not be subject to disgraceful attacks by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We have heard a lot over the past few days about a lot of things, but this issue has nothing to do with modern marriages and it has nothing whatever to do with conflict of interest; it has everything to do with the hypocrisy and the double standards of the Australian Labor Party.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that a mother working in a retail shop under the Victorian Shops Award would currently receive at least 14 days notice of a change in her roster? Prime Minister, if that hardworking mother were today offered an Australian workplace agreement, couldn’t that award condition be stripped away from her, despite your changes to Work Choices? Prime Minister, is it fair for a mother who needs to arrange child care to be subject to sudden roster changes?

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

I say in reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have grown accustomed to checking the facts of anything put to me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and in this case I will do the same thing. I would invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to extend her concern about those mothers to the mothers who are involved in running small businesses like motels. The opposition might also extend it to any mothers who might have been caught up in the attack that was made on 9 October last year on Martin Donnelly Electrical Services, a local small business electrical outfit in Queanbeyan, when the Leader of the Opposition and her predecessor as spokesman on industrial relations matters conducted a press conference at the site of the new Prime Minister and Cabinet office building, at which they alleged that the workers were being forced onto AWAs which slashed wages. They did not ask any questions. They did not go to the Office of Workplace Services. They did not allow for some kind of honest mistake. The then Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth asked questions on this matter in question time. In particular, the member for Perth alleged that the AWAs removed a range of allowances for overtime and bonuses and all sorts of other things. On that occasion I said I would examine the matter and on the following day I was able to report to the House that every single allegation made by the member for Perth was completely false—every single allegation, not even an honest mistake. Every single allegation was completely false. I borrow a phrase used by the Treasurer on many occasions. On this issue I say to the Australian Labor Party: thy name is hypocrisy.