Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of comments from the minister for workplace relations on Lateline last night that anyone working in a business with fewer than 100 employees can be sacked simply because the boss does not like them? Under the government’s new system, wouldn’t the employee have no entitlement to redundancy pay and no right to appeal the termination? What is to stop an employer simply sacking someone and then offering them the same job on a significantly lower wage? Can the minister explain how this complete loss of employment security benefits the four million Australians working in small businesses, many of whom are struggling to pay off mortgages and raise children?

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

To assist the honourable senator and those who may be listening to the question that has been asked, I indicate that the minister said, ‘You can sack somebody provided it is not unlawful.’ Then he went on to make the other comment. So there is a legislative protection against unlawful sacking, which those opposite continually refuse to acknowledge. They refuse to acknowledge that important fact because they are concerned about running a campaign of political opportunism against Work Choices rather than engaging in the exercise of nation building that we are.

For the past decade, we have been engaged in the exercise of nation building and have seen more and more of our fellow Australians getting jobs and higher wages. What we are doing as a government is increasing and ramping that up even further so that more of our fellow Australians can get employment whilst being protected against unlawful dismissals. The reasons for unlawful dismissal include sex, race and sexual preference. Interestingly enough, I think one of the reasons it would be unlawful is if you happen to belong or not to belong to a particular trade union. But we know that is the offence that many people in the Labor Party get sacked for, because they happen to belong to the wrong trade union and therefore they are disendorsed. Just ask the deputy leader in this place, Senator Conroy, about the unfair dismissal attempts aimed at the member for Hotham and Mr Gavan O’Connor, the member for Corio—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former.

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

You are quite right, Senator McGauran.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left, shouting across the chamber is disorderly.

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

Mr Sercombe, the former member for Maribyrnong, was also disendorsed. Most interestingly, when the Labor Party introduced their unfair dismissal law experiment, do you know, Mr President, who the first parliamentarian was who fell foul of that law? Was it a coalition member or senator? No. They know who it was. It was none other than the then member for Bowman, Con Sciacca. What you have is the Labor Party preaching for political opportunism but not practising it themselves with their own staff or their own members and senators, who they regularly seek to disendorse simply because they happen to belong to the wrong trade union or the wrong faction. What the minister said last night on Lateline was very clear, and the unlawful protection guarantee is there for all workers.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We will try again and see whether we can get a straightforward answer from the minister. Can the minister confirm that under the regulations for the industrial changes an employee can be paid below the minimum wage if, over a 12-month period, they are on average paid the minimum rate? Won’t this allow employers with seasonal workloads to significantly cut wages in the off season, which may last six months? How does the government expect these employees, whose living expenses do not vary, to survive on less than the minimum wage?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds like another question to me.

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

The reason it was another question was that he had to concede ground after I exposed his misrepresentation of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party do in this place and in public. They assert something. When they are knocked down, they know they can no longer stand their ground. Do you know what they do? They shift ground.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind you of the supplementary question.

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

In relation to the supplementary question, when they are debunked in relation to one scare campaign, they simply move to the next false assertion. That is exactly what those opposite did in relation to the goods and services tax. It was so evil, according to Mr Beazley, that he was going to roll it back. He now of course fully embraces it. I suggest to those opposite that they fully embrace Work Choices and save themselves the embarrassment. (Time expired)