Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is like groundhog day time and again. I have never seen an IR scare campaign that the Labor Party can't get behind. Really, that is what is so sad and desperate when it comes to the modern Labor Party. I would like to support Senator Scarr in his comments. Potentially, what is the most disappointing part of the modern Labor Party is their inability to ever have a sensible discussion about reform. They are totally incapable of looking at any changes without running back to the old scare campaign tactics. I don't know why we are surprised. When you look at those opposite and those in the other place, at times you start to wonder and question whether or not it is la-la land that they live in when it comes to running a business, when it comes to employing staff. We know having ever run a business, having ever employed people, having ever faced the burdens of red tape—having looked at the challenges of being every part of a business from payroll to marketing to HR—is not part of their preselection criteria. We on this side know that those opposite and those who sit on the opposition benches in the other place have little to no understanding of the challenges of small business, and that is completely obvious when you look at the way they have politicised and tried to respond to the current COVID pandemic and to the efforts the Morrison government has made in securing small business's future and in ensuring that those small businesses are able to survive and rebuild on the other side of this pandemic.

Yesterday, watching Sally McManus be the spokesperson for Labor, the spokesperson for industrial relations reform, when we know there is not an employer that Sally McManus wouldn't like to see the back of, there seemed to be this disconnect when it came down to it. Labor want to talk about jobs, they want to talk about pay and conditions, but they just want to demonise all employers. There is an inability to accept from Labor that employers are the people who create jobs. We can support employers and ensure their businesses can succeed, we can cut red tape, we can make it easier for those businesses to do what they're good at—conduct their core business—so that more jobs will be created boosting the opportunities and options for all Australian workers. But, of course, 'options', like 'choice', is a dirty word for the Labor Party. Why do the Labor Party hate choice? Why do they think Australian workers are so incapable that they can't make a decision? What's better for them? Is it better to receive loadings, to continue working as a casual? Is it better to move to a permanent position?

But why do the Labor Party have so little faith that Australians and Australian workers are able to make that choice?

Why do they think it's appropriate to cut casuals' wages, if that's how they choose to remain, by on average $153 a week? I am looking forward to Mr Albanese, the opposition leader, coming out and explaining to workers why, whilst removing their choice, he determines they should take, on average, a $153 pay cut.

We know that this will be about choice; there will be an option for workers. We know that this flies in the face of the groupthink ideology so embraced by Labor that unions know best: 'Do as we tell you.' When we look at the behaviour of some of the union bosses, we know it's: 'Do as I say, not as I do. We know best for you. Big Brother will look after you; don't you worry about that. Don't challenge your little head with any of those independent thoughts.' But, again, we can't see a Labor Party here that's actually looking out for workers, because we know what it is about. It's only about one job in the country, and it's a job that's looking very shaky at the moment. This is all about the job of opposition leader Anthony Albanese. That's perhaps why now, after the industrial relations spokesperson for Labor, Tony Burke, came out, declaring that all Australians in insecure work should be able to take all their leave entitlements with them, at a cost to business of up to $20 billion a year, we see Mr Burke running away from that a little bit. Perhaps that's as he's trying to remain as supportive of his neighbour Chris Bowen as he looks to the future of his own career. (Time expired)