Mr CIOBO (2:23 PM) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House how the government is boosting employment and protecting employees? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

Mr ANDREWS (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) —I thank the member for Moncrieff for his question. He and Australians will be aware of the government’s track record in boosting employment—some 1.6 million extra jobs since the Howard government has been in office and an increase in real wages of some 14 per cent. It is against this background that I note that the ACTU launched an advertising campaign over the weekend. Included in that campaign is an advertisement that implies workers with families could be sacked for refusing to work extra hours at short notice. The Workplace Relations Act will continue to provide protection against unlawful termination for discriminatory reasons. Set out in the Workplace Relations Act is a range of reasons which would make conduct unlawful, including religion, gender, union membership, pregnancy and family responsibilities—the very thing this ad was aimed at. The ad is quite wrong. Employers in Australia who terminate an employee for discriminatory reasons, including for family responsibilities, are liable for fines, penalties and compensation under the legislation. That is the first ad that was wrong.

The second ad which is being run by the ACTU is also wrong. It depicts an existing employee who has been employed for 15 years. The ad says of the existing employee that under the new system, ‘You can be forced onto an individual contract.’ Again this is wrong. It is and will continue to be unlawful under the Workplace Relations Act for an employer to use duress in forcing an existing employee onto an Australian workplace agreement. That is the law now and it will be the law in the future.

Furthermore—and this is how wrong this ad is—all employees who are offered AWAs have the right to have a bargaining agent appointed to represent them. This bargaining agent can include a representative of a union, and an employer must respect the decision by the employee and is obliged to deal with a bargaining agent under the law. What the ACTU ad failed to point out is that the man in question had the legal right to have a union official sitting next to him. He could have had Greg Combet or Sharan Burrow if they were interested in his situation, if they were interested in actually representing Australian workers rather than scaring them.

This goes to the point of what this campaign is about. It is a political campaign and it is a scare campaign. At a union rally in Sydney Mr Combet said, ‘What is going to be in the back of people’s minds when they are offered an AWA is: can I be sacked if I refuse to sign?’ In an ACTU press release on 2 June Sharan Burrow said, ‘Workers who refuse to sign may fear being sacked.’ What is the ACTU doing about this fear? Did it service its members by attempting to educate them about what the law actually says? Did it reassure workers in Australia that it will be unlawful for them to be sacked in such circumstances? Did it provide them with honest and accurate advice? No, no, no. This is simply a dishonest scare campaign from the ACTU. It is also a desperate campaign, given Ms Burrow said she would do whatever it takes. Obviously it involves insulting the intelligence of ordinary workers in Australia with blatantly incorrect information.

It is reported that the ACTU is expending $8 million on this campaign. It is obviously designed to promote as much fear as possible. If there are any further ads along these lines in this campaign then the bottom line is that no Australian worker can trust the word of the ACTU when it comes to explaining this legislation. It is all about scare. It is dishonest and it is wrong.