Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Can the minister confirm that under the government’s workplace laws, jury service provisions, such as make-up pay and leave entitlements, can be removed from employment contracts? Doesn’t this mean that employees who are called up for jury service face a severe financial penalty as their employer is not required to continue to pay them? Aren’t there already reports of jurors seeking to be discharged from hearings due to financial hardship? In particular, is the minister aware of the case in the New South Wales District Court where a juror had to be discharged on the second day of a three-week trial due to financial hardship, requiring a new jury to be assembled and meaning consequent delays to the hearing? Doesn’t this demonstrate that the government’s workplace laws not only undermine fairness in the workplace but also undermine the foundations of our justice system?

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

The short answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. State and territory legislation prescribes a range of provisions for jury service fees. Work Choices does not prevent state or territory jury service laws from applying. Work Choices preserves all existing jury service entitlements in federal awards. These existing award provisions will continue to apply to existing and new employees covered by these awards. Many awards provide for employers—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Wong!

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

Mr President, the interjections from those opposite will not make up for the lack of numbers at their rallies today.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I thought that would get them going!

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pretty poor effort, Penny!

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

Order! The Senate will come to order! Order, Senator Kemp!

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

Many awards provide for employers to make up the difference between the court attendance fees and the juror’s normal pay and provide scope for leave from work to attend court when required. In addition, jury service arrangements can also be negotiated between employers and employees through workplace agreements. For instance, latest data for current collective agreements reveal that half of all employees covered have negotiated jury service make-up payments. It is open to state and territory governments—and they are all Labor—to deal with any problems of availability for jury service—for example, by increasing attendance payments to jurors. So, as I set out earlier, the simple answer to the honourable senator’s question is no, and I have now outlined the reasons that the answer to her false assertion is no.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that under Work Choices an AWA can remove all entitlements to jury service? Isn’t it the case that the removal of these entitlements also undermines the job security of jurors? Isn’t this why at least one juror has already been sacked as a consequence of their absence from work due to their involvement in a long trial? Does the minister seriously think that employees being sacked for undertaking their lawful duty as citizens is a demonstration of what he said yesterday was the ‘wonderful impact’ of the government’s workplace laws?

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

I am delighted that the honourable senator does listen to some of my answers and I agree with her that Work Choices has been wonderful for the workers of Australia. What I invite her to do now is to listen to my last answer, and she will then get the answer that she is seeking.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know you are wrong.

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

I correct myself; she is not seeking that answer. She is not seeking that answer because she wants to continue to peddle the mistruths that she and the Australian Labor Party have absolutely set their minds on—to misrepresent that which has now delivered Australians over 200,000 new jobs and higher wages.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon. Senator Eric Abetz. My question is about a very important matter: Work Choices. The question to the minister is: what evidence is there with respect to the effects of Work Choices on jobs, wages, productivity and the level of industrial disputes in this country? How does this compare to the claims made by the Labor Party and the union movement with respect to the effects of Work Choices? Finally, if he wishes to share a comment on today’s rally that would also be of interest.

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

I thank Senator Barnett for his very important question. The facts are clear. The evidence is in: Work Choices is undeniably good for Australian workers and for their families. Let us look at the evidence—the undisputed evidence.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn’t matter how long you say it; it doesn’t make it true.

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

Order! Senator Lundy! Senator Lundy, come to order!

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Lundy, I asked you to come to order.

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

What they do not want to hear is that, under Work Choices, employment is up, unemployment is down—it is at an historic 4.6 per cent low—wages are up 16.5 per cent, industrial disputes are at the lowest level since records were kept in this country and, in the last year, productivity has increased by 2.2 per cent. This is the complete opposite of that which was so falsely prophesied by Labor and the union movement. So it is little wonder that the Labor-union scare campaign against Work Choices has stalled, just like Mr Beazley’s leadership has stalled.

Today, in a desperate attempt to confect community concern, the unions, the Greens and Labor organised what they claimed would be mass rallies. Like Senator Brown, they overestimated their support before the event and, when confronted with the actual results, with egg all over their face, they falsely went about trying to deny the expectations they had set. Even with a free Jimmy Barnes concert they could not fill the MCG. Let me say, as an aside, that it is a sad day when the man who originally performed this country’s classic song Working Class Man is corralled into campaigning against the fundamental right of all Australians to have a job.

So why the low turnout? According to the opposition spokesman, Mr Smith, it was because—wait for this—the trains were not running on time in Melbourne. Come on! What a lame excuse. You don’t believe that yourselves. So what was the excuse in Canberra? They do not have trains in Canberra, so guess what the excuse was: the buses were not running on time in Canberra. What were Senators Hutchins and Sterle, the trade workers union operatives in the Senate, doing? I wonder what they were up to. Possibly they were too busy undermining Mr Beazley.

I tell those opposite that it was not the workers who missed the bus; it was the Labor Party and the trade union movement who missed the bus. The workers were on the bus but, instead of getting off at silly rallies, they were getting off where all the new job opportunities have been created in this country. They are getting new jobs, they are getting AWAs and they are getting higher wages. The workers of Australia know that Mr Howard is their true friend because his actions, in creating jobs and higher wages, speak so much louder and more effectively than the empty rhetoric of those opposite and the trade union movement.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another dorothy.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dorothy is a dinosaur like you, isn’t she? Can the minister confirm reports that the National Water Commissioner, Mr Peter Corish, is under investigation for failing to lodge Australian workplace agreements made with his employees? Is it true that Mr Corish’s failure to properly register the AWAs was only discovered after one employee, Mr Brett Goodwin, complained to the Office of Workplace Services about underpayment of wages and was told that the agreement he had signed was never officially lodged? Is it also the case that Mr Goodwin is claiming lost wages of $71,000 while employed by Mr Corish under his phantom AWA? I ask the minister: what penalties apply to employers who fail to lodge agreements in the manner required under workplace law and what message does it send to other employers when government officials do not understand their obligations under workplace law?

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

I have been advised that the Office of Workplace Services is investigating Corish Farms Pty Ltd in relation to the claims reported in today’s press. It is important to let the investigation run its course before making any public comment on OWS deliberations or findings. However, I would like to make two important points. The first is that the Workplace Relations Act requires employers to lodge finalised AWAs with the Office of the Employment Advocate within seven days. Employers that do not fulfil this requirement risk significant penalties. Secondly, OWS investigations into Corish Farms emphasise that it is operating as an independent agency—an independent agency that Mr Beazley called ‘snivelling little liars’, if I recall. It operates free of the political influence claimed by certain members of the opposition and the ACTU.

I was asked about the importance of government officials abiding by workplace laws. I thank the senator for that. I think it is very important, and that is why it was such a disgrace that the first member of parliament to fall foul of Labor’s unfair dismissal laws was none other than a Labor member of this parliament, the former member Con Sciacca. If you want to dredge up these things, be my guest. What I do know is that the Office of Workplace Services is investigating this matter properly and appropriately and people can have confidence in the way it operates.

I also heard a snide interjection from those opposite about the importance of those that may be endorsed some time in the future abiding by the industrial laws of this country. That interjection came from Senator Kerry O’Brien. If that is so important, the Labor Party will now—immediately—in my home state of Tasmania disendorse Kevin Harkins, the Labor candidate for Franklin, who was mentioned so often in the Cole commission of inquiry into the rorts in the building industry. If that is the standard that the Australian Labor Party are setting, I invite them to disendorse Kevin Harkins by close of business tonight.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer but I note that he refused to comment on Mr Corish’s AWA, even though yesterday he was claiming that AWAs are superior and people on them get paid higher wages. Is the minister aware of comments by Mr Goodwin’s wife, Ms Kylie Schipper, that after the Office of Workplace Services was contacted she and her husband realised that the AWA with Corish ‘wasn’t worth the paper it was written on’? Isn’t Ms Schipper right, Minster, when she says, ‘If Mr Corish can’t get it right you have to wonder how many businesses out there are looking after their workers properly’?

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

I am delighted that Senator Forshaw was finally able to get up the wind to get out all of his supplementary question. In relation to AWAs, I simply say this: we as a government believe that AWAs are very effective and that is why so many Australian workers are signing up to them. The statistics are quite clear. The statistics are based only on those that are actually lodged in the proper legal way. If the allegation here is that it was never lodged and it never found its way into the system, then therefore its legality will undoubtedly be questioned. But I do not want to go there because I am not sure what the investigation will reveal. But the allegations as they have been made publicly would suggest that it is not the sort of AWA that would be lawful under our legislation, which gives confidence to the workers of this country that our regime is robust.