Kym Richardson (Kingston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House how the new fairness test will help ensure fair compensation for workers when making workplace agreements? Are there any contracts which the fairness test will not cover, and are there any alternative views of what compensation is fair?

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

The fairness test legislation passed by the House of Representatives yesterday ensures that employees will receive fair compensation for trading off penalty rates, public holiday pay and other conditions. This compensation will most often be paid as a higher rate of pay. The fairness test will apply to all collective agreements and Australian workplace agreements that pay less than $75,000 per year. The fairness test will not apply to individual common-law contracts—and these are the Labor Party’s proposed replacement for nearly one million Australian workplace agreements. So this government now has a fairness test for individual agreements, and the Labor Party will not have a fairness test for its individual common-law contracts.

We also have an independent umpire, the Workplace Authority, that ensures workers get a fair deal. The Labor Party relies on the employer alone to ensure workers get a fair deal. But what the last week has revealed is that the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is acceptable to trade away all award entitlements for 45c an hour. The government has waited for the past week for the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to say that 45c an hour is not fair. But what we have heard are words about conflict of interest and domestic arrangements that have nothing to do with the issue of policy. These are the facts. Since last Thursday’s revelations about the WorkDirections employment contracts, the Leader of the Opposition has said that WorkDirections underpaid their staff because of award classifications inherited from the previous owner. They have based this defence on a statement by the company, which makes the same claim. They have said the company made an honest mistake. We do not dispute that and, appropriately, this matter is being investigated by the Office of Workplace Services. But the Leader of the Opposition has sought to misrepresent this important policy debate by claiming that everything has been an honest mistake. This is simply not true. The fact is—and it still stands—that there is a separate issue of policy here, and that is that WorkDirections reportedly offered agreements to its staff which contained 45c extra for trading off all award entitlements.

The Herald Sun revealed last Friday a signed copy of a letter which contains these contracts. Remember that the Labor Party’s defence is that the wrong award classifications were used, not that these 45c contracts were fair. These are two separate issues. The Leader of the Opposition has deliberately—and quite cunningly, I believe—moved the debate away from the fairness of these contracts and towards the inheriting of award classifications and other domestic arrangements. The Leader of the Opposition has engaged in a week of distraction to avoid answering whether or not he thinks the 45c contracts that were offered were fair.

I raise this issue because a report in today’s Australian presents details of the tactics employed, which are very similar to the tactics employed by Hawker Britton. I table that document. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to make this a debate about other issues when in fact, from a policy perspective, the Leader of the Opposition, in his industrial relations policy, wants to tear up one million Australian workplace agreements and replace them with individual common-law contracts. It is a political trick. The Leader of the Opposition did not offer the owners of the Lilac City Motor Inn the services of Hawker Britton. It is Labor Party policy to push workers onto individual common-law contracts, and the Leader of the Opposition has some explaining to do about whether 45c an hour is fair compensation.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made an offensive comment about the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and she should withdraw.

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

I did not hear the member. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made an offensive remark then she will withdraw.

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

To facilitate the House, I withdraw.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it was a foul and offensive remark and it should be withdrawn without qualification.

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw without qualification.

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

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

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

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.