Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, why is the award safety net important for Australian workers and what are the implications of statutory individual agreements? What other threats are there to working Australians’ pay and conditions?

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

I thank the member very much for her question. I know that she celebrated along with other members of this House on the day that we introduced the legislation that ended the making of award-stripping Work Choices Australian workplace agreements. That was a day to be celebrated because it meant that from then on Australians had the benefit of a safety net that they could rely on. Of course, that was necessary because Australians in 2007 spoke long and loud and said that they did not want Australian workplace agreements that could strip the safety net away.

As we stand here with the Fair Work system in operation as a replacement for Work Choices, there are no individual statutory employment agreements that can be made under the Fair Work system. The Fair Work system does not permit the making of any individual statutory employment agreements, a fact that has been continuously misrepresented by those opposite. Of course, under the new Fair Work system it has been a great relief to working Australians that they do not have to fear that today is the day they will go to work and have a basic condition like penalty rates ripped away. Many working Australians hoped that this fear was gone from their lives forever. Unfortunately, because of the extreme policies of the Leader of the Opposition, this fear is back.

The Leader of the Opposition says he should only be believed when he issues carefully scripted remarks. Presumably there could be no more carefully scripted remarks than his own book, Battlelines, in which he said, ‘Work Choices wasn’t all bad.’ Presumably he was making carefully scripted remarks to a business meeting when he said:

At four elections running we had a mandate to introduce statutory non-union contracts and we will seek to renew that mandate.

Presumably he was making carefully scripted remarks when he said—and this one is truly remarkable:

If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband. Notwithstanding all his or her faults, you find that he tends to do more good than harm.

That was none other than the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know who should be more insulted by that remark, working Australians or every Australian woman or all of them. ‘A bad boss is bit like a bad father or a bad husband. Notwithstanding all of his faults, you find he tends to do more good than harm.’

In his budget reply speech, which we also assume was carefully scripted, though given what later happened with the budget reply process maybe that is a big assumption, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to reintroduce Work Choices in the language of flexibility. Of course, we know that the word ‘flexibility’ when used by those opposite is a code word for Work Choices. It was the language that the former member for Flinders spoke in when he introduced the Work Choices legislation. Just in case we are in any doubt, the member for Curtin helpfully defined flexibility for us on radio recently. She said:

The fact is that there are workers now who are suffering under the new awards system. Because it’s bringing back penalty rates on weekends …

It is pretty clear what the member of Curtin means by flexibility. It is the flexibility to lose your penalty rates without a dollar of compensation.

I believe that there are some questions that the Australian people are entitled to get an answer to from the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously that answer will have to be in writing and carefully scripted. We ask for the answer to be produced that way. I think the Leader of the Opposition should give us an answer to the following questions. Under the Liberal Party, can an employer require you to sign a so-called flexible statutory individual employment agreement as a condition of getting a job? Under the Liberal Party, will you be able to terminate your so-called flexible individual statutory employment agreement at any time and go back to the award or collective agreement that would otherwise apply? These are important questions about the degree of risk that the Leader of the Opposition poses to the pay packets of working Australians.

We want the answer in writing because we know that, when the Leader of the Opposition speaks, he tries to use code to explain his intention about Work Choices. He tries to hide behind the word ‘flexibility’. On this, Australians are entitled to the gospel truth. Of course, the whole concept of flexibility for the Leader of the Opposition is not just about a codename for Work Choices. He is a man who believes in flexibility when it comes to the concept of telling the truth. This is a man that goes on the 7.30 Report and asks you to believe he is an honest man because he fesses up about his dishonesty under pressure. It is a curious definition of honesty. This is a man who wants you to believe that it is okay to say anything if you are cracking up under pressure. He does frequently. He does not believe that there is a problem with being such a phoney. Even for a man with such a flexible attachment to the truth, there is one gospel truth about the Leader of the Opposition and that is that he stands for the reintroduction of Work Choices. He is a risk to the pay packet of every working Australian.