Mr STEPHEN SMITH (3:49 PM) —I move:

The Prime Minister will do anything or say anything to avoid the implications of the extreme industrial relations legislation that he has introduced into this parliament. In the run-up to the last election he told the Australian people nothing of these things. He did that deliberately, he did that advisedly and he did that to deliberately deceive the Australian public about his intentions in industrial relations. Not only did he not detail what he was proposing to do, when asked about these issues at the Liberal Party industrial relations policy launch he said there would be no changes, there would be no such thing as a single system, and the allowable matters would stay. And now that he has been caught out by the great concern of the Australian people, the Prime Minister and his minister will do anything or say anything in this place or outside of this place to avoid the repercussions on the ground that are occurring.

This particular case, the rebuilding of the new headquarters of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with the assistance of sparkies—electricians—employed by Martin Donnelly Electrical Services, started yesterday in question time. Two questions where the Prime Minister—

Mr Abbott —Let’s hear about the letter. Come on, tell us about the letter.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH —You’ll hear about the letter, Sunshine! Don’t worry about the letter; you’ll hear about the letter, all right. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister the following question:

That was the first substantive point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The real point here is that you have got sparkies—electricians—employed down on that site. They want to renew a collective agreement and the government’s law and the Prime Minister’s law and the minister’s law prevents them from so doing.

The second question was one that I asked:

that is reflected by the AWA, which I detailed yesterday and after question time—

which I detailed yesterday and today—

which I detailed yesterday and today in question time. Far from misleading either the House or the Australian people, after question time yesterday, as is my usual practice, I distributed to the media a detailed analysis of the AWA as compared with the collective agreement as I have done on every occasion that I have raised an AWA in this place. I detailed very many of those features after question time. I notice that the matters that the Prime Minister referred to did not, of course, deal with any of those matters which showed item by item that the AWA provision is inferior to that of the collective agreement.

The minister and the Prime Minister make much of the so-called letter of offer of employment, which was allegedly circulated, distributed or handed over with the AWA and I have a copy of one of those letters. It says:

and then it gives a particular grade. The letter goes on to say:

What does the AWA say about the bonuses and allowances that I referred to in question time yesterday and today? This is what the AWA says, and the letter says you are bound by this:

What is the key here? The key is ‘the company at its sole discretion from time to time’ determines the payment of these bonuses.

Mr Abbott —It has to be read in conjunction.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Exactly, and that is precisely what I have done. The government and the minister seek to rely exclusively on the so-called letter, which, frankly, does not take them very far. I rely completely on the letter and the AWA. What does the AWA do in respect of the three things that the Prime Minister says I misled the House about in question time yesterday and that the minister relies upon in his motion today? In my question yesterday the things I referred to—all of which are reflected both by the AWA and my comments—are that employees are required to sign an AWA that provides that the payment of bonuses, overtime, loadings, penalties and other allowances is at the sole discretion of the company. Guilty as charged. Case proven. What does 5(c) say? It says:

The letter should be read in conjunction with the AWA. What the Prime Minister and the minister seek to do in misleading, firstly, this House and, secondly, the Australian people is cherry pick the two or three things that they believe are advantageous to people on the AWA. Ask yourself this commonsense question: why is the employer absolutely refusing to allow the 20 sparkies at Martin Donnelly to exercise a choice and to choose a collective agreement rather than being forced onto an AWA? Is it because the provisions of the AWA are so fantastically superior to the terms and conditions of the current collective agreement? When you read the AWA—even if you read the AWA in conjunction with the letter on which you completely rely—those bonuses are at the sole discretion of the employer at any time the employer so wants. A multistorey allowance is removed and there is nothing in the letter which restores that. All of this occurs for the three-year life of the agreement.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the minister and the Prime Minister desperately try and pretend to the Australian public—‘These million AWAs, they’re absolutely terrific! They increase your wage and conditions!’—and nowhere will they tell the Australian public that the AWAs invariably drive people down to the so-called five minimum standards. Let us just have a look, as I did earlier, at some of the items of the AWA as compared with the collective agreement that the minister and the Prime Minister absolutely refuse to look at or draw attention to—unlike this document which I sent around to the media yesterday, which shows all the comparisons.

The AWA lasts for three years. In my notes, I say that the AWA is attached to an offer of employment letter. I told the media that and circulated that in my advice to them. The rate of pay for a grade 5A, which is the rate that I have referred to, is $25.31 per hour plus a productivity allowance; under the AWA, it is $30 an hour with no productivity allowance. There are six pay increases under the collective agreement; under the AWA, there is no guaranteed pay increase. Ordinary hours of work are 36 under the collective agreement and 38 under the AWA. Under the collective agreement, there is a tool allowance of $12.50 a week; under the AWA, there is no tool allowance. Under the collective agreement, personal leave is 100 hours per year; under the AWA, 76 hours per year.

The serial misleader here is the Prime Minister, who will do anything or say anything to avoid the adverse consequences of his ideological approach in this area. He knows that his is an attack upon the living standards of working Australians. He knows that his is an attack upon the values, virtues and characteristics of the Australian way of life. He knows that the Australian public is now hunting him, just as on this side of the House we are hunting him. The House should condemn him accordingly for being a serial misleader in this parliament and in public about the adverse consequences of his unfair industrial relations. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded?