Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the bingo-playing Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of any allegations of employers breaking the workplace relations laws? Minister, would you inform the House what measures can be taken to punish employers who do the wrong thing by their employees?

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 Bass for his question and note that I had a very enjoyable time in Tasmania last week. I visited the member for Bass, the member for Franklin and a number of others. I did not happen to catch up with Kevin Harkins, though, which was a little disappointing.

There are more than one million employers in Australia—and, whilst the vast majority of employers do the right thing by their employees, there will inevitably be bad employers out there, just as there are bad employees. This government has put in place very strong protections. The fairness test ensures that penalty rates cannot be traded away without proper compensation. The Workplace Authority checks all the new agreements. That does not happen with the Labor Party’s 45c-an-hour contracts. The Workplace Ombudsman goes after employers who do the wrong thing, but there will always be some bosses who try to get away with breaking the law.

My attention has been drawn to the transcript of an interview on the ABC late on Friday night. It was a very interesting interview, I might say. It was an interview with Cassie Whitehill. Cassie Whitehill said:

It was the last working day before Christmas, so it was a Friday. It was the day after our Christmas dinner and I got a call to the office. … I went in with my friend …

But her boss:

… asked her to leave the premises while he spoke to me for two minutes and I went into his office and he closed the door and just said, “I’m terminating your employment.”

I said, “Why?”. He said, “I don’t have to give you a reason. Don’t try and back me into a corner.”

I said, “What are the reasons?”‘ He said, “I’m not telling you why. That’s just the way it is.”

He said, “I want you to resign on the spot.”

I said, “I’m not going to resign.”

He said, “I want you to sign a deed of release to say that you won’t bad mouth us or sue us or anything.”

I said, “I’m not signing anything.”

Then he went on to offer a week’s pay and she said, ‘I’m not signing.’ What sort of boss would treat an employee like that? The boss was not from the Lilac City Motor Inn—we remember what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did to them—or a painter on a government ad or something. Who was this boss who sacked this employee and would not give her reasons? It was the secretary of the Australian Services Union. And you know what, Mr Speaker? That man, Sean Kelly, is the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania. So the president of the Labor Party in Tasmania goes and sacks an employee, gives no reason and tells her to get her friend out of the office so there is no record. The ABC interviewer went on to ask whether Cassie went to the union’s head office. Cassie said yes. The interviewer asked, ‘You were not offered union support to be in the office with you?’ Cassie said no. The interviewer continued: ‘Or any other workplace support? And you were told you were sacked on the spot and no reason had to be given?’ Cassie said, ‘Yes, that’s right.’ It is an alarming case. Cassie Whitehill has had a pretty tough time. Her mother was terminally ill in palliative care, and a few days afterwards, very sadly, she lost a child through a miscarriage. The ABC pointed this out. The interviewer asked: ‘So in December last year you lost your job, you lost your baby and you lost your mum?’ She said, ‘Yes, all in the space of five days.’

Cassie called Simon Cocker, the head of the union’s peak body, Unions Tasmania. She said:

The same day I was dismissed, I phoned Unions Tasmania and spoke with Simon Cocker and he advised me there wasn’t much he could do but if I wanted to I could take it to the anti-discrimination tribunal …

Mr Cocker said the union has no role in the internal affairs of any other unions. I found that hard to believe. The head of the ASU is sacking one of his employees, but I thought, ‘If she goes to the ASU, she might get a response.’ So I did not go to Kevin07 this morning; I went to the ASU website. I wondered, ‘What do they do when it comes to unfair dismissal?’ The ASU website says:

The ASU handles many cases of unfair dismissal each year. Generally we obtain a better outcome ...

That is what the ASU say. They did not lift a finger for Cassie.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It is under state law as an incorporated organisation. Unions Tasmania did not lift a finger for Cassie. Cassie went on to say:

I wasn’t going to go down without a fight. I emailed the national secretary of the ASU. He didn’t respond at all. I emailed Kevin Rudd. He did respond and said he was passing the matter on to Julia Gillard, but I didn’t hear anything back from her either.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She’s been closed down.

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

That is right; she has been closed down. So we have Cassie, who feels as though she has been unfairly dismissed and may be subject to duress—according to Peter Patmore in the same interview—and subject to bullying. And what happens? She goes to the union and they do not want to know about it because she is not a member. She goes to Unions Tasmania and they do not want to know about it. The state government responsible for these laws in Tasmania did not want to know about it. She goes to the Leader of the Opposition and he does not want to know anything about it, and she goes to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and she does not want to know anything about it.

We have in place the Workplace Ombudsman. We are prepared to stand up for the workers. We will not be intimidated by the Labor Party and their dirty tricks campaign. We will stand up for individual workers, and we will investigate this case. The Labor Party, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, should put aside their hypocrisy and get rid of the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania, who has acted in this deceitful way. The Leader of the Opposition should change his policy so that he is not beholden to the union thugs.

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. I refer the minister to his statement today that the Workplace Ombudsman would investigate allegations made by a young worker, Mr Gebert, that he was underpaid—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

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

Member for Mackellar!

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

I will start again. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer the minister to his statement today that the Workplace Ombudsman will investigate allegations made by a young worker, Mr Gebert, that he was underpaid by an actor in the government’s Work Choices ad about young people. Is the minister aware of new allegations made by another worker, Mr Graham, about the same actor in the government’s Work Choices ads? Is the minister aware of the matters raised by Mr Graham’s father, which include:

It would amount to filling the boys with alcohol and then not having the money to pay them for wages. This went on—not paying them the full amount of money for the hours worked that they should have been paid for.

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

Order! The member will come to her question.

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

I am. Mr Graham also said that when the son went looking for his underpayment he was frightened. Minister, will you investigate through the Workplace Ombudsman these allegations about the actor in your Work Choices advertisements?

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

We will investigate all allegations, including Cassie’s, under state labour laws, where the unfair dismissal laws would apply to the union movement. We are happy to investigate these matters, and we do it responsibly. When an allegation is made, about any individual, we will have the matter investigated. That is why we set up the Workplace Ombudsman.

The Labor Party do not have a policy on anything. They do not have a defence policy, a health policy, an education policy, a trade policy, a tax policy, a small business policy, a climate change policy or a finance policy. They do not have any policy, apart from their half-baked industrial relations policy framework, which says nothing about a workplace ombudsman. In fact, they say that they are going to abolish the Workplace Ombudsman. Where would Cassie go to get help then? Where would the children involved in these allegations go to get the matter thoroughly investigated? The Labor Party have a policy to abolish the Workplace Ombudsman. Do you know why? It is because they want to channel everyone through the union movement, so that the union bosses are the only arbiters of fairness in the workplace—the union bosses that represent only 15 per cent of the private sector workforce, the union bosses that are represented by the 70 per cent of the Labor Party frontbench who have come out of the union ranks.

The Labor Party are so hypocritical when it comes to these issues that they are prepared to stand up for the people in their own ranks who have potentially been breaking the law, yet they are prepared to go after other individuals in this forum and outside of the chamber.