Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of issues to deal with and, if I may, I will go through them in reverse order. As I understand it, in relation to Senator Murray’s three questions there will not be any categories of exemption. In relation to those that will be covered by this provision, it will only be those businesses that are currently covered by the federal system and, hopefully, businesses would be aware which category they fall into. The first question Senator Murray asked was in relation to the proposed document that is going to be gazetted. No, that will not be a disallowable instrument. That will be part and parcel of the Workplace Authority Director’s role. The director will be responsible for that particular document.

Having dealt with Senator Murray’s matters, I turn some attention to Senator Wong’s contribution. It is a very interesting contribution when you consider that the Labor Party has been out there condemning the prospect of a fact sheet. Ms Gillard has been out there saying that this would be a terrible imposition on small business and Senator Wong has echoed those comments, being highly critical of a workplace relations fact sheet.

Firstly, let us see what is actually being proposed. Under proposed subsection 154A there would be a requirement that the Workplace Authority Director gazette a workplace relations fact sheet setting out information about the Australian fair pay and conditions standard, protected award conditions, the fairness test and the roles of the Workplace Authority Director and the Workplace Ombudsman. I really do not know what the objection could be to employees being informed as to where they might be able to go if they have got difficulties or questions or issues in being advised what their protected award conditions are or what the fairness test means. It defies all belief from the party that allegedly champions the protection of workers—but of course the trade union movement especially in the private sector only represents a small minority of workers these days and overall they represent, I think, fewer than one in five Australian workers. So we are concerned as a government to ensure that information gets out to those 80 per cent plus of Australian workers who have made a conscious decision not to be a member of the trade union movement. What the Labor Party wants at all times is for no information to be provided to workers other than through the trade union movement. And when they have so spectacularly failed in getting the confidence of Australian workers I believe that it is appropriate that somebody like the Workplace Authority Director provides information and that that information is provided by employers.

The proposed subsection 145A(3) would allow regulations to prescribe other matters relating to the content, form or manner of providing the workplace relations fact sheet. Proposed subsection 145B would require an employer to take reasonable steps to provide each employee with a copy of an information statement within seven days of commencing employment. As a transitional measure proposed subsection 154C would also require employers to take reasonable steps to provide each existing employee with a copy of the fact sheet within three months of it first being gazetted. Proposed section 154D would allow a workplace inspector or an affected employee to apply to the Federal Court to impose a penalty on an employer for failing to provide a copy of the statement to an employee. That would be, I assume, a measure of last resort and voluntary compliance would be sought in relation to this information being provided to Australian workers.

Why is it that the government wants this fact sheet to be provided to Australian workers? For one simple reason: it is for their own protection and for their own good that they are fully informed as to their rights and entitlements. So it seems to me quite bizarre that the Australian Labor Party would be objecting to this. That got me thinking back to the Labor Party’s alleged 10 minimum standards. Remember that document Forward with Fairness, in which they had 10 minimum standards for the Australian workforce? There was one major omission: the minimum wage. Oops, a bit of an oversight! Here we are talking about the basic conditions of Australian workers, and the luminaries of the Australian Labor Party, in conjunction with the ACTU, forget to talk about the minimum wage. Nevertheless, in that Forward with Fairness document, at point 8 of the 10 points that missed out on the minimum wage—and I am still waiting for them to say that there are now 11 standards—the Labor Party policy on national employment standards says:

Employers must provide all new employees with a Fair Work Information Statement which contains prescribed information about the employee’s rights and entitlements at work, including the right of the employee to choose whether to be or not to be—

and here is the crunch—

a member of a union and where to go for information and assistance.

The only real difference seems to be that we will not be putting on the document potentially which particular trade union might be relevant to a person’s employment. Other than that, there is virtually no difference between what we are proposing and what is in point 8 on page 8 of the Labor Party’s so-called Forward with Fairness document. This is another example of opposition for opposition’s sake. I say to the Australian people—and I have said this so often now: do not listen to what Labor say; look at what they actually do. They condemn our policy but in fact they have a policy that is very similar, other than that they have the trade union element in it.

Whilst I am on that, could I simply invite those senators opposite who talk about government advertising to come out with a big stick against Premier Iemma, who, in the 11 months before the last New South Wales state election, spent $90 million on government advertising—and there was not a breath out of the Australian Labor Party. When Premier Beattie has his colour inserts and other inserts in all Australian newspapers, with a big smiling photograph of himself, there is not a single word of condemnation. When the state Labor government in my home state of Tasmania undertakes information campaigns, there is not a single word of criticism. This is another classic example of: look at what Labor do, not at what they say. What the Labor Party are basically saying is that state Labor government advertising is good and federal Liberal government advertising is bad. What is the difference? One is Labor and one is Liberal. By definition, it is very clear. I think the Australian people are more intelligent than that, and the assertions made by those opposite simply do not stack up.

What we are concerned about in these amendments is to ensure that Australian workers have protection and know where to go for assistance. That is why the government will be pursuing these amendments.