Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cameron today relating to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.

Senator Abetz today spoke about a 'time machine'. Listening to Senator Abetz today took me back to 2001, and statements by the then federal president of the Liberal Party; he described the Liberal Party as 'mean, tricky and nasty'. If there ever was an example of meanness, trickiness and nastiness, it was the Leader of the Government in the Senate today.

It also took me back to some critiques that were made by another federal president of the Liberal Party, Mr Brian Loughnane, when he said the Liberal Party should 'stop being ideological'. He said they were ideological. There is one area where this government is completely ideological: when it comes to working people. They want to rip away the rights of working people. They want to get rid of penalty rates. They talk about flexibility; and flexibility for the coalition simply means reducing wages, reducing conditions and forcing workers to have one-on-one negotiations with their employer.

Senator Abetz today spoke about my questions being 'silly, stupid and dumb'. Let me say this: I do not think it is silly to bring to the attention of the Senate that an Australian citizen was misled by a letter written personally to that citizen. I do not think it is stupid to defend the rights of an individual Australian citizen to take at face value a written reply to a question that they asked of a senior government figure. It is certainly not dumb to hold Senator Abetz to account for writing a letter to an individual worker who was concerned about ensuring that—if he was made redundant and if his company went bust—his family would get some support from the government.

What did Senator Abetz do? He wrote back to Mr Pierre Rault on 17 July—a pretty quick response for some politicians. He must have gone, 'I have got to stop this,' because he said, 'You have been somehow misled to believe that we are going to abolish the entitlements guarantee.' They are not going to abolish it. But then what did he do? He said, 'You can be assured that the coalition would not seek to do anything that would water-down these important protections for Australian workers.' Well not only are they watering them down but they are cutting them back to the core. Many workers in this country have agreements where they have negotiated redundancy entitlements with their employer of x amount of weeks per year. The maximum these workers will get under this government's proposal—as based on a lie to these workers—would be 16 weeks. I have to say to you that Senator Abetz went on to say, 'We were explicit in the policy. But for the changes proposed in that document, we would not make any other changes. We have not flagged any changes to the slightly modified entitlements guarantee that currently exists.'

This is a misrepresentation to that worker. It is a lie to that worker. And no matter how Senator Abetz tries to employ his legal training to be tricky in his responses, to talk about no retrospectivity, this is nothing more than a deception and a lie in writing to an Australian worker that was worried about his rights and his family's future. It is absolutely reprehensible that Senator Abetz would get up here and try and dodge his way around what is a clear and specific commitment. How can you trust this government with anything it says? And now the public know this government cannot be trusted; it is a government that was elected on lies. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just heard from Senator Cameron his attempt to fly through a time machine back to 2001. So let me take a trip back in time to last night or even to a few nights ago. Yes, it was tedious hearing the former Prime Minister talk about her hair, hearing the former Prime Minister talk about her make-up. But what did she say, Senator Cameron, that you might find very revealing? In fact, I correct myself. You will not be surprised to hear this. What did the former Prime Minister say in regards to her conversation with the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd? Guess what she said? 'A conversation went too long. I certainly fed hope. I should not have done that.' What we saw was a glimpse into Labor's DNA.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: relevance. It is quite clear that when we are debating, we are debating about Senator Abetz's response on specific issue. I understand that we can range widely but this is far far away from the issue before the chair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I do remind you of the question before the chair, which is taking note of the answer given by Senator Abetz to Senator Cameron's question.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. For those listening and for those in the audience, that was a point of order and a distraction because Senator Cameron does not want to hear. He does not want to go back one day in his time machine; he has to go back years in his time machine. Let me just repeat the quote and move quickly to the issue of industrial relations and of feeding false hope, indeed, feeding fear. What was that quote?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: relevance. Senator Smith has been spoken to in this matter and he is still digressing. The issue has got nothing to do with industrial relations and the question from Senator Cameron to Senator Abetz.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have reminded Senator Smith of the question before the chair. He has just informed me that he intends to very quickly come back to the question before the chair, and I hope that he would do so.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish take note went for 20 minutes because I would talk about the budget and about Labor feeding fear. But let me talk about industrial relations because we have heard it twice. We heard it yesterday and we have heard it today. Let us just reflect. What is that feeding false hope? What is that feeding fear in the context of industrial relations? We know the coalition has a plan when it comes to industrial relations reform. Let us reflect. I am going to do this in two parts. I am going to talk briefly about the coalition's plan and then I am going to talk about what Labor does not say.

The coalition has a reform plan to address greenfield agreements, which will stop rogue unions extorting unfair deals from employers. We have a plan that will close Labor's strike-first-talk-later loophole in the bargaining laws—laws that Labor refused to fix and that we had promised would never occur—and our plan will clarify individual flexibility arrangements confirming the way Labor promised they would operate under the Fair Work Act so that employees can only trade up, must genuinely agree to the arrangements and be better off overall.

Let us reflect, what does Labor not say? It does not say that those coalition industrial relations reform measures are endorsed by some people in Labor. You are feeding fear where there is no fear to be found. What did Paul Howes, former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, say? He said: 'I, Paul Howes, have no issue with coalition policy. There should be zero tolerance of any criminal activity.' That was an endorsement from Paul Howes about the coalition's industrial relations policy. Let us have a look at what Martin Ferguson, former ACTU president and former Labor cabinet minister no less, said. He said:

It should be seen for what it was: a mechanism that holds both sides to account and which can help deliver projects on time and on budget.

With regard to the Fair Work Bill, Mr Ferguson also said that:

… the changes are a step in the right direction, they are really quite modest.

What we have had the last few nights is an insight into Labor's DNA when the former Prime Minister said with regard to her conversation with Kevin Rudd that it was:

… a conversation went too long, I certainly fed hope. I shouldn't have done that.

We had a contribution from Senator Cameron today feeding fear where there is no fear to be found with regard to industrial relations reform. We had Labor trying to feed fear into South Australia and the submarine program where there is no fear to be seen.

Shamefully, we had Labor trying to feed fear into Australia's Indigenous communities where there is no fear to be had. What we have had is a glimpse into Labor's DNA, not from a Labor party member but from a former Labor Prime Minister. Shameful. Shameful. Shameful. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also take note of answers from the Minister for Employment to questions from Senator Cameron on the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and the government's election promise that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated.

Firstly, on the Fair Entitlements Guarantee: I want to begin with an endorsement of the current system, an endorsement by none other than the federal Liberal member for Braddon, Mr Whiteley, in the other place. In June this year when a large Tasmanian electrical company went into administration and around 100 Tasmanians lost their jobs, the Liberal member for Braddon said of the current Fair Entitlements Guarantee that it is 'a comprehensive government support system'.

You know what? He is actually correct, but I want to add one qualification—that is, that it is currently a comprehensive government support system. The proposals that Minister Abetz has released will leave the FEG as a shell of its former self. And why? Because Minister Abetz seeks to follow the Commission of Audit's recommendation and cap the maximum redundancy payment at four weeks pay per year for a maximum of four years—that is 16 weeks pay—when a worker may have worked at a company for a very long time.

Everything this government does is attack workers, conditions and productivity. Indeed, even as late as July last year, Minister Abetz had been assuring hardworking Australians that 'you can be satisfied that there is no risk to your entitlements'. As it predictably turns out, Minister Abetz was not being truthful in his letter to Mr Rout, an autoworker from Victoria. Minister Abetz noted in the letter that it was the Howard government that introduced the previous General Employees Entitlement Redundancy Scheme.

I want to remind those opposite that it was the closure of National Textiles, a company whose chairman was the brother of the Prime Minister, that triggered the previous GEERS system—hardly pure motives. The GEERS scheme was always insufficient, and I was proud to be part of the Labor government that enshrined the protection in legislation and enhanced that scheme. The initial scheme only guaranteed redundancy payments up to eight weeks pay, depending on an employee's length of service. This was despite many jointly negotiated workplace agreements that outlined redundancy payments well in excess of that.

Importantly, the average span of unemployment after a redundancy is much higher than two or four months. Many retrenched workers end up as long-term unemployed. I note that Minister Abetz's flagship program in our home state of Tasmania for long-term unemployed, the Tasmanian Jobs Program, has been an absolute failure. The latest figures released in August show that only 80 jobs have been created by this program. This is despite the minister announcing in December last year that the Tasmanian Jobs Program would create 2,000 jobs within two years. Eighty jobs in eight months is an abject failure and I note that, at this rate, it will take over a decade to reach the 2,000 jobs promised.

It is clear that instead of demonising hardworking Australian workers and breaking personal commitments, the Abbott government should be getting on with articulating a plan for creating jobs, because the current programs of this government are not working. Before too long, this government will heed the calls of it backbench. It will heed the calls of some in the business community and seek to bring us back down the road of Work Choices.

Every time we mention Work Choices, Minister Abetz tries to claim that the concept is dead, buried and cremated. Despite the obvious logical flaws in something being dead, buried and cremated, the public just aren't buying it. The public remember the horrors of individual contracts that wreaked havoc across this country from small towns to the big city—individual contracts ripped away hard-won and fair workplace entitlements and were an ideological pursuit to lower costs for business masquerading as productivity improvement.

Of course productivity is improved by achieving more with what you have got. It is not a concept that is necessarily related to cost. Workers are more productive when they receive quality training, when they are supported at work and when they receive adequate remuneration for their efforts. In some respects, Work Choices is the opposite of a productivity improving reform, because driving down wages and conditions only drives down effort and equality.

Australian workers are often the first to suggest productivity enhancing innovations in their workplace and they deserve a government that will look after their entitlements, if their company goes under, not a government that wants to pursue a race to the bottom. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to pick up perhaps from where Senator Urquhart left off but I have to go back to Senator Cameron's contribution first, because he reminded us of time machines. I think Senator Cameron is a little bit like a time machine. He reminds us of another time. He reminds us of a time when union leaders felt they ran this country—perhaps they felt they ran other countries as well. He reminds us of a time when unions used to dominate. That wasn't a good outcome for workers. It wasn't a good outcome for our economy. It wasn't a good outcome for wages growth.

Senator Urquhart just talked about driving down wages. What we saw under the last coalition government, in those 11 years, was wages continually rising strongly above inflation. We saw real wages growth.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it absolutely is true. We saw real wages growth. Senator Lines, who yaps away at the back always and has nothing constructive to say, is again trying to mislead with her interjections. She is trying to say there was not real wages growth under the Howard government.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There wasn't.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was. Have a look at the figures. In fact, I am reminded of a recent committee inquiry that we had about income inequality in this country. We were looking at the OECD numbers around real wages growth between 1995 and 2008. Guess who was in charge for almost all of that time? It was the Howard government, from 1996 to 2007. If you look at the table as to how Australia compares, we saw real wages growth across the income spectrum—far higher than virtually all of the OECD. We saw it for the bottom 10 per cent of income earners, we saw it in the middle and we saw it at the top. Shouldn't we be celebrating that, Senator Lines, rather than denying that it happened?

Senator Lines interjecting—

It did happen. Those are the kinds of policies that the coalition pursues and implements. Those are the results. But Senator Cameron and the Labor Party would like to take us back to a different place. They would like to take us back to a time when we saw real wages stagnate, when we saw soaring unemployment, when we saw low productivity, when we saw more and more days lost to industrial disputes. That was the former model. That is the time machine model. That is the Doug Cameron model where the unions are in charge. We reject that model absolutely, because we want to see growth in our employment and we want to see growth in our economy.

I think it is important in this debate to look at the comments of people like Martin Ferguson, because the comments of Martin Ferguson expose just how far back in time the current Labor opposition has gone and just how far back in time they would like to take this country. They would like to take us back to the time before the likes of Martin Ferguson, Bob Hawke and others were implementing changes that would help change our economy—which were supported and built upon by the coalition—but Doug Cameron would like to take us back before that. We are reminded by Martin Ferguson, who said:

It is time that some in today's union leadership recognised that their members' long-term interests are aligned with their long-term job security …

If the likes of Senator Cameron were to take more advice from wise elders within the Labor movement, such as Martin Ferguson—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

What is it about Martin Ferguson that the Labor Party so despises? Why do they despise him? He was a senior union leader and head of the ACTU. He served loyally and faithfully as a cabinet minister in the Labor government, and now he is giving some advice which the Labor Party rejects. That shows the time machine that Doug Cameron is in. That shows where Doug Cameron and the modern Labor Party would like to take us. They would like to take us back to the pre-1980s industrial relations system. That is not the way to see wages growth and prosperity in this country. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given today by Senator Abetz on behalf of the Abbott government. I have got to say that Australian workers are not fooled by the lies of the Abbott government. They are not fooled.

I want to look at the guarantees that the Abbott government gave to Australian workers—both in their platform and in the particular guarantee that Senator Abetz gave to a worker who took the time and the trouble to write to him. I have to say that I was really disgusted today to hear the disrespectful way that Senator Abetz treated the questions from Labor on behalf of that worker. It showed the government's real, true colours in that they do not really respect Australian workers and they clearly do not respect the role of trade unions.

Let me go to the Abbott government's policy document. When in opposition the coalition put out the coalition's policy to improve the Fair Work laws. There are no changes to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee anywhere in that policy document. In fact, I will quote from page 11 of that document. It says:

The details of the Coalition’s Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws are spelled out clearly in this document. Based on the laws as they stand now, the Coalition has no plans to make any other changes to the Fair Work laws.

That is their policy document. I think Australians, when they consider who they are voting for, have got a right to expect that a policy document of an opposition who wishes to be a government can be taken at face value—that what it says will actually be the truth. But, because we know Australian workers do not trust the Abbott government, one of the workers—Mr Pierre Raoult, who was referred to today—took it upon himself to write to Senator Abetz personally to seek his own clarification. Senator Abetz, in response to the letter from Mr Raoult, said, 'You can be assured that the coalition would not seek to do anything that would water down these important protections for Australian workers.' Yet we see a watering-down of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill—a watering-down of an uncapped redundancy to a redundancy capped at 16 weeks. That is a broken promise, it is watering down, and it is a lie given to the Australian public by the Abbott government. It is a lie. It is worse than a broken promise; it is a lie. You cannot say one thing in your policy documents and in personal letters to constituents when they write to you and then completely ignore that. So it is a lie by the Abbott government.

Senator Abetz went further. He said to Mr Pierre Raoult, 'We were explicit in the policy'—and I have just clarified that and read that into the Hansard; that is absolutely correct—and 'but for the changes proposed in that document, we would not make any other changes.' That is the guarantee Senator Abetz gave. For the Abbott government to move away from that today is a lie. It is a betrayal of trust. But Senator Abetz went further; he said, 'Accordingly, you can be satisfied that there is no risk to your entitlements.' Senator Abetz can be as cute and as clever as he likes, but this particular worker had genuine concerns about his entitlements.

Senator Abetz can say what he likes today, but the reality is that if the government is successful in prosecuting its changes to the fair entitlements guarantee and this worker's company goes belly-up next year and this worker has a redundancy expectation of greater than 16 weeks, guess what? He will not be getting them. It does not matter how Senator Abetz and the Abbott government want to lie, that is the truth.

Last week at the inquiry we heard evidence about all sorts of things the government is trying to carry on about. The reality is that the idea to reduce the entitlements came from their mates at the National Commission of Audit. We currently have a scheme which guarantees entitlements. It is not a welfare scheme. It is not a minimum scheme. It is a scheme which guarantees entitlements. The Abbott government needs to hold firm to its commitments. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.