Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Hansard source

I did indeed. The ministers of the previous government say they did not know the effects of Work Choices. That beggars belief because out there in the community people knew that workers were hurting and that more was to come. We know that, if the Howard government had been re-elected, they were going to go further. They were going to introduce ‘Work Choices Plus’. They were going to continue with it until there were no entitlements for workers left in this country. That was their plan, and the people of Australia knew that and chose not to support the re-election of the Howard government. The election result is a testimony to that fact.

While the Australian public made their position on AWAs crystal clear in November, it seems to me that those opposite are still debating their position. The public knows that there is still division in their party room. This division leaves the voters unclear as to whether the advocates or the critics of Work Choices will prevail. That is the problem for the public. They know there is division in the opposition; they just do not know whether the advocates or the critics of Work Choices will prevail.

Following the postelection declaration by the outgoing workplace relations minister that Work Choices was dead, it seems that some members of the Liberal Party have insisted on performing CPR. One of those was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who, for 30 minutes today, managed to speak against Labor’s plan but then let us know that she was going to vote for it. She spoke against the bill for 30 minutes and foreshadowed a meagre amendment, which the opposition will not insist upon—and then they are going to vote for the legislation. So are we supposed to believe that the previous government know not what they did? I know the previous government were out of touch—I have just said that—and we know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is still out of touch, but this proposition is very hard to believe.

I note that in yesterday’s press conference the Deputy Leader of the Opposition announced that the Liberals would not oppose the passage of this bill. Is this the same Deputy Leader of the Opposition that said she was going to defend AWAs to the death? Is this the same Deputy Leader of the Opposition that supported the deferring of the bill to a Senate committee? Was it a backflip or a somersault with a triple pike, or was she rolled in the party room and had to get up here and put a position she does not believe in? And why is that so important? I will tell the House why it is important. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who spoke just before me, is the person to draft the alternative plan for this country in the area of industrial relations, the people of Australia should know where she stands on this matter. No-one is clear on where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for workplace relations, stands on these particular matters. All we do know is that her position changes day by day. Day by day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition changes her view. To extract an unequivocal commitment from her would be like getting one from Hamlet.

In September 2004—and this is where it all began—the then Prime Minister, John Howard, announced during the election campaign the industrial relations policy of the then government. In September 2004 we heard the supposed plans of the government that was seeking to be re-elected. On that day there was not one mention of any element of Work Choices. Prior to the 2004 election the Prime Minister announced the coalition’s IR policies with no reference to any of the pernicious provisions of Work Choices. The Liberal’s Work Choices legislation—and I have said this before in this place—was conceived in secret and rammed through the parliament and down the throats of ordinary working families. This was a shameful and disgraceful act. I have yet to hear the opposition accept responsibility for that behaviour. I am yet to hear them take any responsibility for introducing the deliberate capacity for people to be exploited by rogue employers. There was not one word of contrition from the opposition with respect to that particular matter.

This occurred, as we know, because the former government had control of both chambers. Up until then we had been saving the Liberal Party from themselves. That is effectively what we had been doing. Because the government did not have a majority in the Senate, we managed to civilise some of their IR laws. I do not agree with all the provisions of the 1996 act, but I would have to say that that act was civilised by the Senate. But after the election, which gave the coalition the majority in the upper house, we could no longer save them from themselves. Their true IR policies were reflected in the laws that were enacted through Work Choices. We could not save them from themselves.

It is important for me to comment briefly on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s view about pre-Work Choices AWAs, because she tries to put forward that pre-Work Choices AWAs was Liberal policy. It was not Liberal policy. The only reason that there was a no disadvantage test in the 1996 act was because the Senate insisted upon it. If it were not for Labor, the Democrats and other minor parties insisting on a no disadvantage test, there would not have been a no disadvantage test pre-Work Choices. So we were able, to some extent, to civilise what was uncivilised in terms of their industrial relations policies.

The legislation went through—it was rammed through parliament. The Senate inquiry lasted for five days. It did not leave Canberra. Members of parliament were refused the right to debate on behalf of their constituents. We had a situation where the bill—a radical piece of legislation—was rammed through the parliament. We knew then what would take place. Apparently ministers of the previous government did not know. The government then sacked the first minister, the member for Menzies, but kept the law. It sacked the minister but kept the law. It blamed the messenger. But giving the member for North Sydney the reins would not change a thing. As I said at the time, Hockey might have been the jockey, but it was still the same old horse—and what a nag it was. Effectively, that is why the opposition finds themselves across the chamber.

As Minister for Employment Participation, my key objective of course is to get people into work. We need to have a fair, effective, productive and innovative industrial relations system to make sure this country benefits. But it is important for the opposition to take stock of their position. The difficulty of all oppositions is to reconcile the fact that they lost the election. There is a process whereby people go through periods of denial. There is no doubt that the previous government denied the Australian people the chance before the 2004 election to decide whether they supported Work Choices. They denied MPs the right to debate Work Choices when it was introduced into the House. They denied a proper Senate inquiry for the most radical industrial relations laws the nation had ever seen. They denied—to themselves as well, apparently—that Work Choices was hurting working families, and today they are still in denial. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for industrial relations effectively say nothing about the concerns the opposition have with Work Choices.

See this speech in context