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

I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s inappropriate use of funds and process in advertising industrial relations reform while failing to protect fairness in Australian workplaces

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is nice to be back with you in the House of Representatives. Since this parliament last sat, the Howard government has had a flood of polling—all of it bad. How do we know that? We read about it every day in the newspaper. It is becoming a new ritual for Australians: you get up in the morning, you get your newspaper, you turn to the back pages for the sporting results, you look on the quiz pages for the solution to yesterday’s crossword, and you turn to the front of the paper and read the Howard government’s polling research. It is happening each and every day for Australians. You would have hoped that the response of a government to those clear messages from the Australian community about how stale it is and how much it has lost touch with the needs of working Australians would have been to get on with the job of governing in the hope of governing well so that it could demonstrate to Australians that it had a vision for the future.

What has been this government’s response? Well, it has been no vision for the future—we know that; no new ideas—we know that; and no pretence of governing well—we know that as well. Instead, this government has lurched for the advertising campaign and it has lurched for the politics of blame. We saw the blame game on display in this parliament throughout question time today. In answer to every question, a government minister or the Prime Minister got up and basically said: ‘It’s someone else’s fault.’ The politics of blame are undoubtedly going to be pursued every day between now and the next election.

What we have also seen in the period that this parliament has been in recess and what we continue to see on our TV screens is this government’s desperate attempt to convince Australians that its extreme Work Choices laws, which have hurt so many Australian families, are actually good for them. These Work Choices advertisements are everywhere you go. They are at saturation coverage on TV. You cannot turn on the TV to watch your favourite program without having these ads. You cannot open up a newspaper without having these ads in your face. You cannot sit in a bus shelter without having these ads beside you. Indeed, they are in local newspapers—so much in local newspapers that, in one edition of my own local newspaper, two separate pages had these advertisements.

The audacity of the government when it comes to these ads not only runs to the blanket coverage but goes to the fact that the theme of them is: ‘Know where you stand’. Well, Minister, sitting at the table there, if you believe that people are entitled to ‘know where they stand’, then I would like some challenges set for you in this MPI, because Australians are entitled to ‘know where they stand’ when they are judging this government at the next election—which we all know, in the ordinary cycle, will be in October. So, Minister, when it comes to telling Australian voters where they stand, we want, today, the following simple questions answered—the things you have covered up, to date; the things you have hidden from Australia. Of course, the trickiness of this government runs deep, and these things have not been exposed in the public domain. The first of them is the cost of this campaign. I was absolutely intrigued when the Prime Minister today jumped up at the dispatch box and said the amount of money that has been spent, to date, on these advertisements is $23 million. Of course he did not tell us how much is going to be spent in total—

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

We do not know.

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

but it is $23 million to date. The minister at the table is helpfully saying, ‘I don’t know,’ because what they are going to do is monitor these ads in the polling research, which we may or may not read in the pages of our newspapers, and it is only when they see a kick-up in that that they will lift the—he is nodding his head! It is going to be determined by the polling!

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

Thank you very much for that admission, Minister. The minister at the table has just admitted that the coverage of these ads, the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds, is wholly related to the polling prospects of the Howard government.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to verbal me, I will correct it. That is entirely untrue.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order. The minister has other opportunities to address that.

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

Apart from that startling admission that these ads are wholly hostage to the political fortunes of the Howard government, and we will see more of them if those political fortunes do not turn around, the interesting thing about the Prime Minister’s admission today is it is a complete contradiction—indeed, a complete repudiation—of what this minister said to this House on 22 May about the costs of these advertisements. On that day, when he was asked about the costs of these advertisements, the minister decided to belittle the Labor Party as if it could not read the budget papers.

I asked him what the government was going to spend on these advertisements, what the expenditure was going to be, and with a condescending tone he said: ‘Oh, get out the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Check in there the allocations for the public awareness services of the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate. If you cared about this, you should have asked about it at the time the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook was tabled. How could you not know that that is the source of the funds?’ This was the demeanour of the minister on that day, 22 May. Well, Minister, you have got a problem, and the problem is this: in your own words, the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook says that the government will provide $20.5 million over four years to raise public awareness of the services of the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate, now renamed the Workplace Authority and the Workplace Ombudsman.

Today in question time, Minister, the Prime Minister gave you up, because that statement cannot be true if the statement of the Prime Minister at the dispatch box today was true. One of you in this House has not accurately told the Australian people the truth about the expenditure on these ads. Honestly, you do not need to be a marketing guru to know that the saturation of these ads has been more than $20.5 million over four years—it would be $20 million in the last month! Indeed, the Prime Minister has confirmed that. So the minister on 22 May misled this parliament about the cost of these advertisements and, through this parliament, misled the Australian people. That is undeniable—it is undeniable on the Hansard record. And that is just the start of the trickiness and deceit when it comes to this campaign. Of course it does not end there, because the minister is going to get up and say: ‘This is an information campaign. This is about telling Australians what their rights and entitlements are at work.’ But we know that is not true either. This campaign was wholly revealed on Friday in the Australian newspaper as the product of polling, pure and simple.

When this parliament last sat, we knew that there was polling. Now we know more. There was an Open Mind preliminary research report on 20 April. There was another report on 24 April for developmental research for communications purposes. There was another report on 3 May. There was another report on 4 May—a final report. And there are two more reports that we do not know the dates of, but they are for the evaluation of the so-called ‘fairness test’. But what we now do know in the public domain about this research is that it is the polling that led to the advertising campaign. It was not the need to inform Australians about what their rights or entitlements at work were that led to this campaign; it was the polling. So express is this—it is so naked; it is so transparent—it is just remarkable. The polling report that was leaked indicates that advertising agencies were given the chance to suggest a marketable person to head the Workplace Authority. The report says:

Identifying an appropriate figurehead for this organisation will be critical.

It continues:

This is very much a public role, requiring an individual with a strong reputation for independence, commonsense and an empathy/understanding of the average Australian circumstances.

Then it canvasses names—Allan Fels, Bernie Fraser—of the kinds of people who could front this organisation. So we have not only a purpose designed advertising campaign to sell the government’s research but a purpose designed authority. The authority is not about helping people with their rights and entitlements. The ads are not about helping people understand their rights and entitlements. It is all about the foundation stone for an advertising campaign. This, pure and simple, has been disclosed in the pages of our newspapers as the product of the government’s polling research—nothing else. Nothing else was operating on the government’s mind when it came to this campaign. And once again, Minister, you know that it cannot be denied that it was a product of the polling.

Then there was the content of the campaign, because it was entitled ‘Know where you stand’. Minister, if Australians were going to know where they stood, wouldn’t you make sure that you had messages out there in the advertising like the following? An employee can still be offered a take-it-or-leave-it AWA as a condition of employment or promotion. Know where you stand, Minister. That is right, isn’t it? An employee can still be sacked for no reason or any reason and not have an unfair dismissal remedy. That is certainly true for people in businesses of under 100 employees. That is right, Minister; tick that box.

If a young worker is given an AWA that cuts award conditions—and they still can—then the parents can do nothing about it except tell their child not to take the job. That is true, Minister, isn’t it? Know where you stand. An employer can ask an employee to work on a public holiday and the employee cannot simply say no. They have to say why it is not reasonable for them to have the day off. Well, know where you stand, Minister; that is true as well. If every employee in a workplace wants a collective agreement the employer can just refuse and employees have no say. Know where you stand, Minister; that is true as well.

The so-called fairness test does not guarantee any compensation for employees losing important award entitlements like redundancy pay or rostering protections that help them balance work and family life. Know where you stand, Minister; that is true. The Workplace Authority has not made a dent in the pile of 55,000 agreements waiting to be assessed. Know where you stand; that is also true. Even though an employee might get a so-called fact sheet about the so-called fairness test, if they signed an AWA that stripped them of penalty rates, rostering and overtime last year, then you would do nothing about that. They are marooned. They are on that contract. Indeed, you encouraged employers to offer those sorts of AWAs through your Work Choices propaganda and, particularly, the example of Billy, who had a minimum wage job and lost all of his conditions for not one cent of compensation.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The deputy leader will refer her remarks through the chair.

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

So there we have it. Tell us about cost. Tell us what explains your comments versus the Prime Minister’s. Tell us about polling. Admit that this campaign is all about the polling. Tell us about content. Come clean on the things the campaign does not tell you about—the simple truths of your Work Choices law. Then, Minister, explain today, to us and the Australian people, how your campaign has gone from being a tricky, desperate, political manoeuvre by the government and degenerated into farce—because that is what has happened overnight. It was revealed overnight that one of the participants in the campaign—

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

Mr Hockey interjecting

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

This has been taken from your website. One of the participants in your campaign—a participant in an advertisement that is supposedly about the entitlements of young workers—stands accused today, from two sources, of not properly paying wages. Your campaign has degenerated into farce. What you did in the face of that was to pull this advertisement overnight. It is off the TV screens and off the website. It will be out of the newspapers. You pulled this advertisement in view of this gross embarrassment.

Minister, having not told Australians the truth about this campaign, and still refusing to tell the truth—I doubt you are going to do it today—and having had it degenerate into farce overnight, why doesn’t the government simply do the right thing today? Doing the right thing is not a predisposition of the Howard government but why don’t you try and do the right thing today, and instead of just pulling this one advertisement why don’t you pull all of them off the TV screens? You have admitted that you are going to keep them on in the desperate hope that they impact on your polling. Why don’t you do the right thing—pull these advertisements off the TV screens, out of the newspapers and out of the bus stops? If you want to have party political propaganda on the TV screens then pay for it. Pay for it through the Liberal Party. Why don’t you do the right thing and, in this MPI today, tell us the history of the cost and the polling, and tell us the truth about the content? Acknowledge that this, today, has degenerated into farce and get it off our TV screens. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before calling the minister, I remind members on both sides that this is not a discussion across the table. The matter of public importance will be debated, like all other debates, through the chair.

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

You could see the faces of those in the Labor Party drop today when the Leader of the Opposition got up and said $37 million and the Prime Minister responded with $23 million. All of a sudden they lost all the helium in their balloon. That is because they talk it up. They want to convey a sense of outrage. They are doing everything they can, through their paid-up lackeys in the union movement, to run fear and innuendo. Appropriately, the government is responding. The media buy, I am advised, from 20 May to date, is $23 million. That is entirely consistent with what the Prime Minister said and with what I have said.

The first phase of the campaign ran from the 20th to the 28th. There has been advertising from 4 July providing information about, in particular, the workplace relations fact sheet, which under the law has to go out to every employee in the federal system. So far, one million fact sheets have gone out from the Workplace Authority. More than 100,000 fact sheets are being downloaded from the Workplace Authority internet site. Calls to the Workplace Infoline have increased from around 15,000 a week before the campaign to over 20,000 a week now—in fact, in some cases there are above 5,000 a day. Overwhelmingly, the calls are for information. The largest number of calls is from employees checking their wages and conditions. Of course, the Labor Party wants the union bosses to be the only place where employees can go, and the only way you can get information or help from a union boss is by paying a fee. Referrals to the Ombudsman from the Workplace Infoline have increased. Since the introduction of the fairness test, nearly 90,000 AWAs, more than 1,000 collective agreements and 862 union collective agreements have been lodged.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition feigns outrage. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants us to pull out factual ads so they can be substituted not only with ACTU ads which are untrue, misleading and full of lies and innuendo but also with ads from the Victorian government or the Western Australian government—state Labor governments that are using state taxpayers’ money to run a campaign against the federal government on federal laws. And you know what? The state governments and the Labor Party are full of hypocrites. They could recall the power from the Commonwealth at any time—they could revoke their referral of power on the Corporations Law to the Commonwealth. But they are cowards and hypocrites. They are not prepared to tell the truth to the Australian people, not only about the laws as they stand but, significantly, about their alternative policies.

We had a good look at the ACTU ads. It is estimated that between January 2005 and June 2007 the ACTU spent in excess of $15 million creating fear and telling lies about the government’s laws. That is in addition to the over $3 million in production costs the ACTU have spent. That does not include the recent CFMEU campaign or the ETU advertisements on radio in Queensland. Old Dean Mighell from the ETU—kissy, kissy!—is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s good friend. The Victorian advocate recently admitted to spending $1.3 million on advertising, and the Western Australian minister for industrial relations would not in any way disclose how much the Western Australian government has spent.

Imagine if just before a state election the federal government funded ads telling people it was okay to drink and drive in Western Australia or it was okay to do 80 in a 60 zone in Victoria. That is what the state governments are doing with federal laws, our workplace relations laws. They are telling people that you can get away with what is unlawful activity. If we were advertising before an election in Victoria saying it was okay to do 80 in a 60 zone or in Western Australia saying it was okay to drink as much as you wanted and get on the road, the Western Australian and Victorian governments would be rightly outraged. That is what the state Labor governments, who are accruing $70 billion of debt, are spending their current taxpayers’ money on—running ads against the federal government on laws that they could claw back at any time in order to run a fear campaign that creates uncertainty in the community. And when we go to correct the facts, the hypocrites in the Labor Party tell us to stop.

Let us focus a bit on hypocrisy. Section 150B of the Workplace Relations Act says:

(1)

The functions of the Workplace Authority Director are as follows:

(a)

to promote an understanding of Commonwealth workplace relations legislation ...

So the Labor Party voted for a bill that directs the Director of the Workplace Authority to go out and promote the laws and now they criticise her for doing it. In fact, a cowardly Labor MP who refused to be identified engaged in smear and innuendo against a damn hardworking public servant, to the shame of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

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

What are you talking about?

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

It is here. I am happy to table the ‘Profiles’ section of the Sydney Morning Herald. An unidentified Labor MP said:

“Barbara’s a talented woman but she’s got about eight years above herself with this ... post.

“Obviously you only get such a leg-up if you give something in return.”

That is outrageous. What that smear and innuendo suggests—

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

Ms Gillard interjecting

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

They do not have the guts, because they are a bunch of cowards, to put on the record their allegations against a dedicated, loyal, hardworking public servant. Instead they go around the corner and ‘background’ journalists about a public servant doing something that is entirely within the Public Service Code of Conduct. At the same time they vote for the legislation that directs this woman to go out there and promote the workplace laws, and they come into this place like a bunch of hypocrites and say to all and sundry that somehow we are acting deceitfully in complying with the law.

A bit of truth needs to be put on the record here about the union advertisements which are running about Annette Harris and Spotlight. What people do not know about that ad is that Annette Harris—quite properly, because she was not happy—rejected the AWA that was offered. And do you know what? Annette Harris kept working at Spotlight. The ad suggests that Annette Harris was done over by her employer and forced onto an AWA. That is just untrue, because she rejected the AWA, rightly, and then continued to work for Spotlight for a number of months.

How about the ‘AWA cuts conditions’ ACTU ad? It says: ‘In the job contract they cut my pay by over $1,000 to do the same job.’ That may very well be unlawful. But is it legal to force an existing employee onto an AWA? That is the second ACTU ad that is untrue. The third ACTU ad is set in the boardroom. It says that we can cut all these wage rates for employees. Again, it is untrue. The fairness test ensures that an individual agreement that simply trades away penalty rates, overtime pay, shift allowances and public holiday rates is not legal. You must be compensated under the fairness test. In the fourth ACTU ad—dispelling the myths—a boss forces an AWA onto an employee. It is illegal to force an existing employee onto an AWA. The fifth ad: boss forces AWA—No. 2. The ad says: ‘I have been here for 15 years. If you think Australian workers and their families will be better off on individual contracts, think again.’ Well, I will tell you what: not if you are employed at WorkDirections. They offered 45c an hour as a trade-off for penalty rates. That is the Labor Party’s policy—individual contracts. They say it is okay to offer 45c an hour. You will be hearing a bit more about that in the lead-up to the election.

In the next ad—dispelling the myths—a boss sacks a mother because her children are sick. Again, it is against the law. But don’t let that stop the ACTU from running the ad. It is unlawful to sack someone because they are upholding their family responsibilities. In the next ad—dispelling the myths—a boss sacks a mum, No. 2. Again, it is unlawful to sack someone because of their family responsibilities. Boss sacks a mother in an additional ad from the ACTU—additional ad No. 3. All emotion and no fact and it is against the law.

‘Costing families’ is the new ACTU ad. All these ACTU ads—it is amazing. The ad goes on to say that John Howard’s IR laws are starting to bite. Higher wages, more jobs and the lowest strike level since records were first kept in 1913. It is damn right that our laws are biting. They are delivering more jobs at higher wages. Another ACTU ad is ‘Real people’. It will be interesting to see this. It features an abattoir worker at Cowra. The Workplace Ombudsman investigated the case of the abattoir worker and found that the ACTU’s representation of these workers did not add up. Again, it did not tell the truth.

And how about the ‘sitting ducks’ ACTU ad. It says that the Howard government said that the IR laws will not affect you—unless of course you have lost your unfair dismissal rights. Tell the President of the Labor Party that—you have given an individual contract. Tell the workers at WorkDirections that. Are you going for your first job? Your employer is cutting costs—you change your job. Again, in the last 15 months 365,000 new jobs have been created. Over 90 per cent are full time.

How about the ‘three generations’ ad. Again, it does not tell the truth. It talks of getting $11 an hour with no penalty rates, no public holiday rates and no protection from unfair dismissal. You cannot lose your penalty rates under the Howard government laws. Then there are the building industry laws. The CFMEU is running an ad saying that you can be fined up to $110,000. Workers cannot be fined or jailed for taking action because of concerns about an imminent risk to their health or safety. The CFMEU is lying.

In the Victorian Labor government ads on the workplace advocate, real Victorians talk about how they have been hurt by the federal government’s Work Choices laws. The Victorian government have not got the guts to take back power for workplace relations. Instead, they run ads in which they have a sham advocate. It is all part of the battle. The irony of it is that the Labor Party vote for us to have promotional campaigns and then they come into this place and go outside to the media and feign their outrage. The Labor Party is so concerned about the actors in the workplace relations ads that one of their own members, the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania, has allegedly sacked a worker against Tasmanian state laws. And no-one in the Labor Party, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has lifted a finger to help that worker. If it were someone who had been sacked by a small business, or by the Lilac City Motor Inn, or by some other organisation such as Spotlight, you can bet that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be out there crying to the world that it is outrageous that Work Choices has done that.

Then there is Sharan Burrow. Every time she goes on TV I say to myself ‘Amen’. Thank God for Sharan Burrow—she does not let us down. She is the new face of modern unionism. You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a Sharan Burrow in every workplace on the dark day that the Rudd Labor government comes into power. Sharan Burrow and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be out there in every workplace, followed by Kevin Reynolds, Kevin Harkins, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten and Dean Mighell. We want to keep the ETU candidates in the field. We want Kevin Harkins to stay as the Kevin Rudd endorsed candidate in Franklin so that the people of that electorate get to see who will control Kevin Rudd in government. For all the zero tolerance in the Labor Party, Joe McDonald is still proudly a member of the Labor Party and in fact renewed his membership only a short time ago. When it comes to these union thugs the Labor Party and the Labor leadership are weak, hypocritical and indecisive. They cower to the union bosses and the union thugs. That is why the Labor Party is built, owned and operated by the people who represent only 15 per cent of the private sector workforce.

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

That was quite a rant from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I would like to add a question to the minister on top of those from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he failed to answer. Minister, if you are so proud of these ads and you are so convinced that you are right, why don’t you front these ads yourself? Why don’t you have the courage not to hide behind a public servant and get out there and front these ads yourself? You are no more believable than you were in this chamber today. That is what you are worried about.

Over the course of the past few weeks we have again been bombarded by this government’s propaganda on the Work Choices legislation. Rather than recognise that they have got it wrong and gone too far with this legislation and rather than recognise that they have got the balance wrong, they are at it again—using taxpayers’ funds to try to convince people that it is not the government that got this legislation wrong. We could not possibly believe that this soft, cuddly, lovely government could be out there hurting workers. It is not the government that got it wrong; it is those nasty, bullying union bosses who have tricked the Australian public into believing that this legislation is wrong.

We see in this current Work Choices advertising how desperate this government has become, how desperate it is to turn the tide of opinion against the Work Choices legislation and just how willing it is to use taxpayer funds to do it. People across Australia have a right to be cynical about this government’s Work Choices message. They have a right to ask: ‘If this government is so proud of its Work Choices legislation—so convinced that it is the right thing to do—why aren’t they fronting the ad themselves and why aren’t they paying for the ad themselves?’ The Work Choices ads are a public relations campaign, not an information campaign. They are a public relations campaign for the Liberal Party, nothing else, and they should not be funded by taxpayers. Australian taxpayers did not ask for these laws. They should not have to bear the cost of advertising them.

The government has spent millions on advertising to sell these bad laws and its own research is showing that it is a complete waste of money. The reality is that no amount of government spin, no amount of money and no amount of PR can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. They are bad laws. They are hurting ordinary working Australians. They provide less protection for vulnerable workers, including young people, and they do exactly what the government intended them to do: drive wages down. No matter how many taxpayer dollars go into this campaign, the government will never convince Australian families that the laws are good for them, because they are not.

The current round of advertising has come particularly under the spotlight. First, there has been the controversial use of a senior public servant to front the ads. Not willing for the minister to be the front person for his own ads—the minister, perhaps, is concerned that people see him as too untrustworthy—the government is using a senior public servant to spruik its lines. Second, it has also been exposed this week that it is not the need to spread information about the new laws or a desire to ensure people know what their rights are under this legislation—limited as they are—but internal Liberal Party polling that has driven it to put these ads together. They are clearly party political ads based on party political polling. Today, we have seen a third issue raised with these ads. Accusations have been raised—and I note that at this stage they are just accusations—that one of the actors in the ad trying to convince parents that Work Choices does not make young people vulnerable to exploitation has been underpaying young workers. I understand that the government has rapidly pulled this ad from circulation, and so it should have. But what about the other ads? This pulled ad is frankly no more dishonest than the rest of them.

What I would like to see are the ads that never quite made it, the ones that were left on the cutting room floor. I would like to see the one where the government tries to reassure a worker in a business employing fewer than 100 people that he really cannot be sacked for operational reasons and that he still has rights to appeal against unfair dismissal. Where is that ad? Oh, that’s right: Work Choices does allow that so, oops, we had better not have that ad out there. Where is the ad that says that if you earn over $75,000 it is unlawful for your employer to deliver you an AWA that trades off significant entitlements for no compensation or compensation of only $1? Where is that ad? Again, the Work Choices legislation not only allows that but encourages that to happen. That is not an ad that the government wants to show.

The current debacle with these ads goes beyond the blatant waste of taxpayer funds. We now see that the government has hired somebody who is alleged to have underpaid a young worker. The government urgently needs to review this situation and determine whether it still believes that this person is an appropriate pin-up boy for its Work Choices legislation—although, when you think about it, perhaps he is exactly the perfect pin-up boy for this advertising campaign as he accused of engaging in exactly the sorts of activities this government was warned about when it first introduced the legislation.

This government has ceased to govern in the interests of working families. The Prime Minister has embarrassingly had to ask his cabinet: ‘Is it me?’ Prime Minister, it is you, but it is not just you; it is you and what you and your government have done to hardworking Australian families. These laws are a very large part of it. What do you expect hardworking Australian families to do? They trusted you with their livelihoods and trusted you not only to keep interest rates low but to protect them in their workplaces. Did you expect Australian families to praise you, Prime Minister, as you stripped them of their entitlements and conditions? Did you expect them to thank you when you took away their bargaining power and what limited protection they had? Did you really expect that they would cheer when you took away any remaining fairness and balance left in the industrial relations system? Why is the Prime Minister so surprised that people are unhappy with the Work Choices legislation?

The government did not need to commission Mark Textor to tell it that it is out of touch with Australian families. All it has to do is walk down the street of any suburb or town in this country and Australian families will tell it that. They will tell the government that they are worried about the impact of rising health costs on their ability to ensure their kids are getting access to the best health services, with GP costs doubling under this government; worried about what the rising costs of education means for the future of their kids; and worried about their children being placed in a vulnerable position as they enter the workforce for the first time.

Families are now struggling with record household debt. Australian household debt is now over $1 trillion. Australian households are now spending a record 9.3 per cent of their disposable income simply paying off the interest on their mortgage. Basics such as grocery bills have increased by around nine per cent over the past two years and are impacting on family budgets. And this government’s sole great economic reform this term—designed to boost the economy and make life better for working families—has been Work Choices, and when it failed to convince people they will be better off under the Work Choices legislation it did not do anything to fix it but, instead, went on a massive taxpayer funded marketing campaign. Work Choices, we understand, has in total cost $75 million so far, when we take into account the costs allocated to the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate, which has now changed. The initial round of week-long advertising after the introduction of the so-called fairness test cost around $25,000 an hour. On top of this, there has been advertising for private health insurance costing $27 million, advertising for superannuation costing $69 million and advertising for regional telecommunications costing $6 million—and the list goes on.

While the Howard government spends like a drunken sailor on advertising, Australian families have a right to question what else this money could have been spent on. In my own district there is the $90 million required to secure our water supply, which would avoid $180 extra per year on the water rates for Ballarat families. Families struggling to cope with record healthcare costs would have appreciated the relief. I am sure that those families who have their overtime and penalty rates cut will be asking why the government is telling them that they have to make a financial sacrifice for the good of the economy when the government is now the nation’s second biggest advertiser, outspending Harvey Norman, Woolworths and Nestle. I am sure families struggling to find the HECS fees for their kids this semester would appreciate increased government funding for university students. Investment in tertiary education has declined by around seven per cent under the Howard government, while student debt has tripled since 1996 to $13 billion. Is the Howard government really surprised that people think it is out of touch when it continues to spend millions of dollars of ordinary working families’ money on political advertising?

Simply put, the government’s Work Choices legislation is bad law. It does not provide protection to Australian workers; it removes protection. And now this government is wasting hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars in political advertising rather than reintroducing fairness into the workplace. The reality is that hardworking Australian families know that these laws are bad—they know that their penalty rates and take-home pay have been cut, and no amount of government spin will cover up the fact that the Howard government has got it wrong on workplace laws. Work Choices is bad for Australia, it is bad for the economy—but, more importantly, it is bad for working families in this country.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to enter into the debate on this matter of public importance. I have to say that the minister, in his reply to the MPI, outlined the case quite strongly, certainly in terms of the hypocrisy of the arguments that have been put by those on the other side and of the importance of having an adequate information campaign out there. The only reason we have this MPI today is that the government’s campaign to refute the misinformation, the lies, the distortion and the apprehension that has been created by the ACTU and the labour movement campaign is being effective. That is the only reason we are having this MPI: the Labor Party have come back after five or six weeks away and they have realised that the government’s campaign is biting through, that it is having an effect in countering the arguments of the union movement.

It is good to see that the member for Lalor is back in the chamber and raising the issues that are pertinent to her portfolio, but you would be hard pressed to know that she was out there during the six-week recess. She had been mothballed.

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

She was hidden away!

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was hidden away, while the presidential style campaign and the caravan was rolling along from state to state.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Byrne interjecting

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that it did go to the member for Holt’s electorate during the break.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it coming to yours, mate?

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m sure it will. The ALP today are criticising the government for funding a community education campaign on industrial relations reforms even though these reforms affect all working Australians. If you have legislation that affects all working Australians—and, more importantly, you have made amendments to that legislation in the form of the fairness test, which was passed in this chamber with the support of the other side—then you have the responsibility to make sure that you inform the public of the changes that have taken place. We know that the ACTU’s misinformation campaign did take hold. There is no question about that: it did take hold and there has been fear created by the union movement’s campaign. We have introduced a fairness test that has addressed some of the issues that have been out there. And it is important for us to get that information out there. I will detail in a while why it is important to do that.

Unlike the misinformation campaign, which has been funded by the unions for the ALP, the government’s ads are factual and do advise people of their rights. As the ALP well knows, we did introduce a fairness test, we did introduce protections and obligations, and it is important for employees and employers alike to understand their rights, their protections and their obligations.

The ALP clearly do not want people to know the truth about these reforms. We only have to go back to some of the heavyweights in the ALP to know why they do not want us to know the truth. Graham Richardson, an ALP stalwart, admits that they would do whatever it takes to get into power, including spreading lies and fear in the community. John Della Bosca, the New South Wales education minister, said, ‘I think this is a fight to the death, to the last drop of blood, and we have to do whatever we can’—in other words, whatever it takes by those on the other side to make sure that they create fear and apprehension out there in the community.

When questioned about the IR campaigns on the Insiders program the shadow Treasurer was asked, ‘Do you accept that the government does have a responsibility to explain the changes?’ Mr Swan’s response was, ‘It’s outrageous and not justifiable at all.’ He is clearly of the opinion that employees and employers alike do not deserve to be informed of their new rights and obligations under the new legislation. There is a lot of misinformation and a lot of myths in the community about workplace relations. This is deliberate, as the minister showed earlier when he went through all the union ads, including the Annette Harris story, and outlined where the myths and misinformation lie within those ads. So it is beholden on any government to make sure that that is rectified.

Most of the fear that we see out there has been generated by the ACTU and, in more recent times, by the state Labor governments—state Labor governments that are spending their state taxpayers’ funds on a campaign that has to do with federal law. They are running one of the most expensive and misleading scare campaigns in Australian political history. The ACTU are spending tens of millions of dollars trying to deliberately mislead employees about their rights. This is probably way out of date by now but we know that the ALP and union election war chest is around $100 million, which can be detailed: union campaign fund, $30 million; union finances, $27 million; ALP’s projected spending, $20 million; state government spending, $12 million; and projected donations from the union movement towards the ALP’s election war chest, $9 million. They have $100 million to spend, and they expect us to lie down and allow this misinformation, these lies and distortions, to be perpetuated. There is no way we are going to do that. We have a responsibility to the Australian community to outline the changes and the protections that are there. They claim that employers can just take away penalty rates without providing any compensation. That is not the case. Their ads say that it is okay to mistreat working Australians and claim there is nobody who can do anything about it. That is not true.

During the break I tested in my electorate some of the reasons that we need to have these advertising campaigns. I put out a small business survey. One small business person, a fairly educated individual who runs a pharmacy in my electorate, said:

I’m deeply concerned by the ideologically driven agenda which is designed to benefit small business owners at the expense of their employees. I value and respect my employees too much to make them sign AWAs.

If he had read the fact sheet he would know that he does not have to offer AWAs. If he had read the fact sheet he would also know that, if he did offer an AWA and it did not have reasonable compensation, it would be investigated by the Workplace Authority and would be unlawful. If a person of such an educated background can have this distorted view of what the legislation is all about, it is important for us to be out there and to make sure that we correct the information. These ads are essential to counter the lies and innuendo that have been put out there. But the Labor Party are not interested in having us correct the misinformation; instead, they want to see a situation continue where workers and business owners are deceived in Labor’s winner-take-all campaign.

Labor are willing to slag off public servants, teachers, students and anyone who might rock their ACTU campaign. But, like so many things with the ALP, you need only to scratch beneath the surface to find the real hypocrisy within. In question time today we heard one of these hypocritical examples when the Prime Minister got up in answer to a question from one of the opposition members regarding the Queensland education department. In Queensland, in the seat of Moreton, we recently saw a senior public servant, a paid public servant—unlike the Barbara Bennett case of a paid public servant—threaten teachers with sacking if they attended a function at their school with the Prime Minister. The same civil servant was also the convenor and chair of a public forum on the Your Rights at Work campaign. I have the poster here with me. It says: ‘The forum will be chaired by Patrea Walton, executive director, schools, south-east Brisbane.’ This was a senior civil servant in the education department—not in her capacity as a member of the union, though I am sure she is a member of the union, or in her capacity as a community representative but as a senior public servant in the education department—convening and chairing a public forum on the Your Rights at Work campaign.

The hypocrisy of those on the other side who have had a shot at Barbara Bennett, Director of the Workplace Authority, for appearing in the ads astounds me. They are willing to attack this public servant, Barbara Bennett, for appearing in the advertisements. She is a respected, independent authority on this issue. And, unlike the members opposite, she is there to help. It is disgraceful that those on the other side have been attacking her. Barbara Bennett and her staff are there to help employees and employers with advice and support. As long as the union bosses continue to deceive working Australians, we will need people like her out there. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity in supporting this matter of public importance to tell the House what the reality is for young people, as opposed to the reality portrayed in the government’s extraordinarily expensive and extensive advertising campaign. Members of the House may be aware that, during the break, in my electorate there was a case, known as the Chili’s case, exposed in the national media. In this case, the young people working at the Chili’s restaurant were required to do some quite extraordinary things, including bringing their own cash float for their shift. Also, on arriving for their shift, they were told to sit and wait, unpaid, until the store manager had decided that there was enough business going on for them to proceed to undertake their shift. There was also a requirement that, if someone had left the restaurant without paying, they were to reimburse the cost of those meals.

This case drew a lot of attention, not surprisingly. It seems quite extraordinary that young people—and these were, by and large, university students, trying to supplement their income by undertaking work—could be exploited in such a way. Given so much coverage in the media, the Workplace Authority undertook an investigation of this case. This highlighted for me, and for the young people in the area, a point that was made following the case raised by the member for Adelaide about a young gentleman in her electorate who had been poorly treated in a service station—that is, that the reality of the protections in this legislation is that, if you can get yourself national media coverage, you will get attention from the Workplace Authority.

Since the Chili’s case was exposed, I have had a number of other local examples brought to my attention that have resulted in very different outcomes. One example was that of a young woman who works for a video outlet who had been subjected to the exact same conditions as those experienced by the Chili’s workers—the only exception being that she was not asked to bring a float to work. When I talked to her parents about what was happening, it became clear to me that this case was identical in terms of turning up for shifts and then being told that there was not enough work and that she should go home or sit around unpaid. I said to her parents that they should raise their case, as the government’s advertising had suggested, with the Workplace Authority. And here is the big difference between saying that you have a protection in place and the reality of the operation of that protection. What do you think the parents said to me when I made that suggestion to them? They said, ‘But she still wants to work there, and we know that, if we make any complaint, if we ring the Workplace Authority and they identify the fact that we have made a complaint, she will be sacked.’ That may come through the form of, ‘Sorry, there are no more shifts available for you,’ but, to all intents and purposes, for that young person, it is a sacking. So I could not get them to make a complaint. That is the lie in the government’s ad. To say that there is a phone number you can ring to get protection is a lie when you know that protection of their right to complain has been removed. Young people and their parents know full well that, if they undertake those processes, those young people will not get continuing work with their employers.

The other example that came to my attention was that of a young person who, in fact, was sacked. He and his parents made contact with my office. What had happened with them? They had followed the advice of the ads and contacted the Workplace Authority. What was the outcome for him? He was advised by the Workplace Authority that it had nothing to do with them and he would have to undertake a case through the Industrial Relations Commission. It is a pity it took them so long to reply to him that it was outside the allowable time to register a case with the Industrial Relations Commission, because the authority itself had taken so long to provide that advice to him. I have indicated to him that he should still put in for a case and explain that the reason for the delay was that the Workplace Authority could not even give him enough protection to get an answer back so that he still had time under the guidelines to go to the Industrial Relations Commission. (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue of fairness in the workplace in this matter of public importance today because, to me, it is the peak of hypocrisy that the ALP should claim that this government has failed to protect fairness in the workplace. It is certainly the peak of hypocrisy for the ALP to believe that if they somehow dance to the tune of a union thug, or they dance to the tune of the ACTU, they will miraculously create fairness in the workplace. Since coming to this place I have been focused on creating opportunities for my region and the people who live within it. The figures show that we have succeeded in creating eight consecutive quarters of falling unemployment. What is unfair about that? What is unfair about eight consecutive quarters of falling unemployment?

In my electorate under Labor unemployment in 1994 hovered around 20 per cent. Who was protecting fairness then? The member for Cunningham talked about the reality for young people. I can tell you that in 1994 the reality for young people was sitting in the gutter with no opportunity. You would walk down the street and you would see young people in despair, young people with no hope of a job and young people with no idea about the possibility of a career. There was no protection by the Australian Labor Party and their industrial relations regime for those young people who felt abandoned by the Keating government and by the system.

I am pleased to say that those sorts of situations are being reversed. In my electorate today there is a much brighter outlook for our young people, and it is brighter because this government has put the settings in place that make it possible for employers to employ young people and older workers. It is encouraging employment, and that is what we are about—encouraging opportunity.

When you look back to 1994 and the 90s there were a million people unemployed nationally and 20 per cent unemployment on the coast. Does the Australian Labor Party think it is fair that the unemployment rate was 20.3 per cent in Bellingen, 19.8 per cent in Kempsey, 18.7 per cent in Coffs Harbour or 17.2 per cent in Maclean? That is the way it was in 1994. That is the way it was under the Australian Labor Party’s industrial relations regime. How did that protect workers? How did that engender fairness? Apparently, according to the Labor Party, this government is being unfair by reducing unemployment in Grafton, for example, to 6.7 per cent, or in Coffs Harbour to 7.7 per cent. If we look back to 1994 we had 18.7 per cent; now it is 7.7 per cent, and we still have more work to do. We still want to create more opportunities. We still want to get more people into work. When this government came to power there were only 710 apprentices in the entire electorate, and probably most of them were working for mum and dad. Now there are 2,200 apprentices—a 300 per cent increase. Apparently that is unfair. It is unfair, apparently, to triple the number of apprentices. Labor claimed these industrial relations changes would cause mass sackings. We know what the truth is. Like the truth in the government ads, this government has created mass hirings by its industrial relations changes—mass hirings nationally and mass hirings across the region which I represent. The removal of those job-destroying unfair dismissal laws has given small business the confidence to employ, to create jobs and to create opportunities.

More flexible AWAs mean that it is possible for firms to provide better services to the people that they serve and, therefore, create more jobs. Let us look at wages. Wages have gone up under this government by about 20.8 per cent in real terms, yet they fell by 1.8 per cent in real terms under Labor. Falling wages under Labor is apparently fair. Over 13 years of Labor, to reduce wages by 1.8 per cent in real terms is somehow fair. This is the peak of hypocrisy.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.