Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Can the minister confirm that, in addition to the government’s $55 million advertising blitz to promote Work Choices, market research was commissioned to test the public’s attitude to these laws? Can the minister confirm that at least $1.8 million was paid to Colmar Brunton, a research company, to undertake tracking surveys of the views of over 11,000 Australians? Hasn’t the government refused an FOI request for the survey results, stating that the surveys could not be released until they were seen by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications? Doesn’t this contradict evidence given by DEWR in Senate estimates in November 2005 that the results had already been sent to the ministerial committee? Minister, aren’t you hiding these embarrassing results because they confirm the massive opposition of the Australian public to your unfair laws?

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

One survey that I am aware of indicates there are 263,700 Australians that do know that Work Choices is working for their benefit and for their families. The Work Choices communication and education campaign is a work in progress. The campaign, including associated tracking research, is continuing and will run through until at least late 2007. It is general policy adopted by all governments of all persuasions, state and federal, that while a communication campaign is still active no campaign material, including strategy documents and research findings, are released publicly. As I understand it, that is the basis of the department’s decision to defer release of tracking research reports under the Freedom of Information Act until after an evaluation of the Work Choices communication and education campaign is finalised and considered by the government’s Ministerial Committee on Government Communications. This is expected to occur in late 2007.

The tracking research reports will be released once the campaign concludes. Freedom of information applications dealt with by the department are a matter for the department. It is therefore not appropriate that I comment in any detail about the matter. However, I do note that the freedom of information applicant in this matter, Mr Davis, chose not to exercise his right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the department’s decision to defer release of the tracking research reports—and undoubtedly the reason he did not appeal was that he fully understands the reason why and he had no ground to appeal, which of course should be taken on board by the honourable senator.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s just arrogant!

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

Order! Senator Lundy!

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

Can I say once again to the people of Australia: we did not undertake Work Choices because it was popular. We did not undertake tax reform because it was popular. We did not balance the budget because it was popular. Indeed, Senator Lundy and her crew tried to knock down the front doors of Parliament House, if I recall, with the trade union officials at the time. We do not go to the Australian people saying: ‘Look at our policies. Look how popular we are trying to make ourselves.’ What we say to the Australian people is: ‘You can trust us to make the tough decisions for the benefit and the future of this country.’ That is why we undertake the sorts of campaigns and the sorts of policies for tax reform and welfare to work reform—and I note, by the way, the Labor Party are now trying to say that they really do support welfare to work, but when you look at the detail they do not.

The simple fact is we have taken the tough decisions. So the senator’s concern that Work Choices may somehow be unpopular within the community is of course, if your assertion is right, disappointing for the government, but we do not undertake these changes in policies to make ourselves popular today. We do it as an investment for the future of this great country and for the working men and women and the young people of this country. Might I add that one of the statistics I was able to give yesterday on Work Choices was a 25 per cent reduction in the very long-term unemployed. They are the sorts of results you get when you take the public’s— (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Hasn’t the government also refused to release any further information about the content of AWAs, given that they show a reduction in working conditions for Australian men and women? Didn’t details released in May 2006 show that 100 per cent of AWAs removed at least one so-called protected award condition, and over 60 per cent cut penalty rates? Minister, if your government is so proud of Work Choices, why won’t you come clean with the public and release this information that was paid for by Australian taxpayers?

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

The answer to the first question is no. In relation to the statistic that the honourable senator quotes, you are selectively quoting some of the information provided to the committee. I have used this analogy before, that statistics are a bit like skimpy bathers: what they show is interesting, but what they hide is vital. What is vital in this debate is the benefits to Australian workers, and the benefit is 263,700 new jobs, real jobs—87 per cent full-time. That is the sort of benefit that the Australian people are getting.