Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The whole idea of flexibility is anathema to Labor and the sillier elements of the trade union bosses like Senator Cameron from whom we heard just a little while ago. But it is welcomed and sought after by workers and their employers alike. We are not discussing Work Choices here, we are discussing reports on the Fair Work Act in operation. The Labor Party contributions tonight have shown they are unwilling to defend their own Fair Work Act. They are willing to reach back to Work Choices and make comments about it, but they are unable to defend their own legislation.

Interestingly enough, this report shows that, whilst the basis for making a request under the legislation is bureaucratic and not conducive to harmonious workplaces, the evidence indicates, regrettably, a lack of knowledge about the possibilities. I would encourage the government to get people to know the possibilities. The report tells us that of the employers—and it is a pity Senator Cameron is no longer in the chamber to hear this—who received a request for flexible working arrangements, 91 per cent granted it without variation, eight per cent granted the request with variation and only one per cent refused. That confirms that most workers and employers are reasonable. They are happy to oblige and they are happy to cooperate. It debunks the divisive, class warfare jargon that Senator Cameron goes on with. I was nearly expecting him to break into Solidarity Forever to finish his speech.

Those times are long past, Mr Acting Deputy President. Even the Labor Party, in their own legislation, talk about flexibility, yet Senator Cameron comes in here and condemns flexibility. That made the case for us, as a coalition, that Labor will talk the talk of flexibility but cannot walk the walk of flexibility. It means that individual workers can decide for themselves what might actually be within their interest, without union bosses telling them what is good for them, and keeping in mind at all times that you can only have flexibility on the basis that the worker is better off overall. The worker has to be better off overall, so why would trade union bosses be against flexibility when it has the capacity to allow the worker to be better off overall? Why do they stand in the way? Because they are about power and self-aggrandisement, and not concern for individual workers. I commend the report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.