Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on the progress of award modernisation, which is important to the creation of a new, fair and flexible workplace relations system for all Australians? Will the minister detail how this process differs from previous approaches to award rationalisation?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for that question. I know of his deep concern for fairness in the workplaces of the working families in his electorate. Today the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is holding its first formal public consultations into our award modernisation process. This is the important first step in creating simple, workable and modern awards for Australian employers and employees for the future.

On this side of the parliament we have always believed that at work Australian workers should have a safety net on which they can rely and that awards are a vital part of that safety net. But, of course, awards need to be in a form for the modern economy. They need to be simple; they need to be fair; they need to be workable; they need to be flexible. We have asked the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to begin a process to modernise awards so that on 1 January 2010, when Labor’s new workplace relations system is fully operational, there will be simple, modern awards on which Australian employers and employees can rely.

This approach is a stark contrast to what has gone before. There was a period under the Howard government when there were attempts to simplify and rationalise awards. The first attempt to simplify awards came to nothing. It was a task that took too long and was ultimately a complete failure. The second attempt to rationalise awards actually did not get past the discussion paper stage, so nothing effective was done. But is it any surprise really that nothing effective was done to modernise awards when those opposite—who were in government and are now in opposition—do not believe in a safety net at work?

Whilst of course there has been much discussion of the divisions between those opposite, they do not know who should stay and who should go—whether the member for Mayo and the member for Higgins should be in this parliament or be outside it. They do not know who should lead the Liberal Party, whether it should be the current leader, the member for Wentworth or the member for North Sydney. No doubt there will be other starters—maybe even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You never know.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apart from it being extremely tedious to listen to—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Go to your point of order.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is relevance. There is absolutely nothing in the question that went to—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deputy leader has stated her point of order: it goes to relevance. The question asked for an update on award modification and how it differs from previous approaches.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the question of how it differs from previous approaches, our belief in modern, simple awards goes hand in hand with our belief that Australian workers should have a safety net at work, which is a sharp contrast to those opposite, who effectively believe in no safety net. No matter who ends up leading the Liberal Party, the one thing they are united on, when they cannot be united on who should be in the parliament or who should lead their parliamentary party—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is how much we hate Labor.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney is warned!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the member for North Sydney withdraw that.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no need to withdraw. I have warned the honourable member for North Sydney that his behaviour was completely and utterly disorderly.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a clear answer to the question we were seeking to have answered, haven’t we: the one thing that unites them. I am sure the Australian people will be very pleased to learn about that. Of course, beyond what the member for North Sydney said, the other thing that unites them is a belief in industrial relations extremism and the removal of safety nets. Australians should not be misled by any of the statements that have been made by those opposite on the question of Work Choices, because now we have it confirmed out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition that Work Choices continues to be the policy of the Liberal Party when he said so very clearly: ‘John Howard got it right on industrial relations.’ So it is a political party divided on so much, a political party where we have seen the political partnership of Abbott and Costello now replaced by Laurel and Hardy here, a political party that does not know whether it is coming or going. The one thing that it does know is it believes in industrial relations extremism and Work Choices, and if they ever have the opportunity it would be back.