Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation) (15:25): You know what, Deputy Speaker? I have to give it to the shadow Treasurer: his heart was almost in that. We see him in this chamber normally, at his best, yelling and screaming. At times, and I don't know how he does it, he gets very red—although, having seen him on the treadmill this morning, I now know! What I would say to all Australians is that the Fair Work Commission is a body set up by the Labor Party and staffed by the Labor Party. It was charged with independently four-yearly reviewing modern awards at the behest of the now Leader of the Opposition, who, when they changed penalty rates for some awards in 2010, whilst in government, made no reference to the quality of that commission or the need for it to be changed. When, in some restaurant awards in 2014, Sunday penalty rates were reduced from 200 per cent to 150 per cent, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister responsible at the time, said: We've always said that employment conditions should be considered properly and should be considered by the Fair Work Commission. People should submit reasons why you should seek to make changes to the employment conditions of Australia. The reason that the shadow Treasurer's heart isn't in it is that he is a member of the once-proud New South Wales Right of the Labor Party. Members of that party historically must be rolling their eyes today. I don't know if you like The Rocky Horror Picture Show—I do; I'm a particular fan. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr LAUNDY: The member for Chifley is one step ahead of me. We are stuck in a time warp. We've had the jump to the left, and the shadow Treasurer cannot get in a step to the right. He cannot get in a step to the right. This is the biggest hoax of all time in a campaign by the union movement, who are the puppeteers of those opposite. The shadow Treasurer, in his defence, is being dragged there. He's not a willing marionette, but—I tell you what—the opposition leader and the shadow minister are. It's not hard to see, when you look at time lines. We've heard. What are the issues? Penalty rates and casualisation of the workforce. Penalty rates I've spoken about. They talk about them when it suits them. Why? Because the union movement isn't happy with the committee, independent of government, which they set up, dealing with unions at the time in 2007, and launched in 2009. Casualisation—where did this thought bubble come from? Twenty-five per cent is the rate of casualisation today in the workforce, the same as it was two decades ago, but the Labor Party will have you believe it's a problem. No. An opposition member: What about labour hire? Mr LAUNDY: 'Labour hire,' the member from South Australia yells out. It is two per cent, the same as it was 10 years ago. Independent contractors are nine per cent—again, another pet thing of the union movement—the same rate as it was 10 years ago. Where did this come from? You start to see a trend here. On 28 July last year, Sally McManus urged the ALP to support amendments to the National Employment Standards to provide greater protection for casuals, including the right to request permanent part-time status. Lo and behold, six days later, on 4 August, Brendan O'Connor, the shadow minister, said: It's about recognizing that the labour market today does not look anything like the labour market of 30 years ago … Brendan, bad news: it does. It looks identical. But there we go; Labor Party adopting. Then, on 26 December, we get Sally McManus saying: The issue of casualisation, the casualisation of jobs, is going to be a key focus of the whole trade union movement next year in 2018. On 26 December—the same day this time—the member for Gorton said: We are examining the conversion. We do believe employers get an opportunity to employ people and see if that works in their workplace, we accept that. Casual work is the backbone for this economy for the people that need it. It gives them the flexibility. Ms Price: Uni students. Mr LAUNDY: Uni students. I've got two almost there. There are people that have caring responsibilities. It has a leave loading lodged into it, which the opposition always manage to conveniently forget. But then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January the Leader of the Opposition said in his National Press Club speech: So why are big companies keeping workers' wages low? … It's the same reason they try to turn every job they can into a casual job. What a load of rubbish! So something from Sally McManus's mouth on 28 July, which was a falsehood to start with, is echoed as official Labor Party policy on 30 January this year. Then we get the living wage thought bubble, which, to her credit, Sally McManus front-ran again, on 2 November. Then Brendan O'Connor again, on the same day, welcomed the suggestion. Then—surprise, surprise!—on 30 January 2018, Bill Shorten said in his National Press Club speech: The minimum wage is no longer a living wage. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The minister will refer to people by their— Mr LAUNDY: The Leader of the Opposition—sorry, Deputy Speaker. I do note that I have it on good authority from, I hope, a reliable source in the media that, at the National Press Club conference—probably a sign of how far to the left he was being dragged, to his credit—one notable omission was the shadow Treasurer. Mr Bowen: Wrong. Mr LAUNDY: You were there? I apologise if you were there. I was told by a journalist you weren't. Were you at the speech? Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr LAUNDY: Oh, okay. Sorry. I apologise. I do say, as I said yesterday, that there is a clear and frank left-leaning agenda that has permeated its way through the leadership team of the Labor Party. It is so clear that there are those who are responsibly economically minded and don't want to be there. Then there's the last piece of the puzzle, the piece that for me, as the new minister responsible, makes it make sense: the claim that enterprise bargaining is dead. Again, the Fair Work Commission—the commission put in place by the Labor Party and staffed with Labor people between 2007 and 2009 to consider matters of the workplace, independent of government—is supposedly not coming up with decisions that the Labor Party's union member puppeteers like. We've heard a lot about the EBAs falling away. Last year, the number of EBAs that were contested upon termination in this country was three per cent. Ninety-seven per cent of the EBAs that were terminated last year were not contested. I don't understand, if there is a problem with three per cent being contested, why you would need to completely overhaul something that is quite clearly working. Ninety-seven out of 100 is a pretty good rate. Ninety-seven out of 100 was a pretty good mark when I was going through school. It would have been good if I'd got it too! The system is not broken. It is the unions that want more power. They want more access. In the party opposite, as I said, historically some genuinely right-wing, reforming and economically minded Labor politicians have managed to come up with sensible, centrist economic policy. I can say this loud and clear: those days are long gone. Those opposite are again being dragged so far to the left, under the guise that things are broken. It is their system. They put it in place between 2007 and 2009. It is working the way that it has worked, independent of government, for the past 10 years. It is making decisions that it considers on the basis of fact, with submissions from across the working portfolio, from employers to employees and from unions to employer organisations—you name it. You have the ability in this country to put your best foot forward in that commission. In the matters that are considered there, the decisions that are made are made in good faith by people, based on fact. However, over the past two to three years the facts haven't suited the union movement in this country. So what have they done? They have moved in and strongarmed a weak and feeble leader who is in need of their support to garner and save his own leadership. Formerly a member of the Right side of the party, he is a leader who has now worked so far Left away from everything that could arguably be named a significant Labor reform and has dragged them—some still with economic sense—kicking and screaming back to a place that this party hasn't seen historically. The time warp has gone back to the 1970s—a time that we have walked so far away from. The shadow Treasurer is today not at his 'zippiest'. I get that, but I know why. It's because I don't believe his heart is in it.