Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I am sure that the member for Reid would think himself an economic conservative, but the truth is they must be going to incredibly different meetings. But what would you expect from a government that sees a deficit as the preferred economic strategy to address the global financial crisis? It is not the last card in the deck; it is the first card in the deck.

And for their inspiration on economic conservatism we heard the Prime Minister here in this place the other day highlight Japan, Germany, the UK and USA as their economic conservative policy partners on issues like deficits. But if you look at the IMF statistics released in October we learn that the Japanese had their one and only surplus during the past 25 years in 1992. The Germans have had only two surplus budgets since 1980, one in 2000 and the other in 1989. In the UK the last surplus purple patch was from 1999 to 2001 when they achieved a trifecta, showing just how rare such an achievement in budget management can be in the G20, while across the Atlantic, Bill Clinton is the only US President to have presided over a budget surplus in almost 30 years, between 1998 and 2000.

Returning to the bill, the government must be accountable for its economic consequences. In the West real concerns have emerged and they have been highlighted by the editorial writers in the West. The bill reaches well beyond its mandate, as I have noted before, with assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister on issues like compulsory arbitration, pattern bargaining and union right of entry all going to the wind. Never mind the fact that on 30 May 2007 at one of her addresses to the National Press Club she said:

Under Labor’s policy there is no automatic arbitration of collective agreements.

Never mind that on 17 September 2008 she said:

Compulsory arbitration will not be a feature of good faith bargaining.

Never mind that, on union right of entry, on 28 August 2007, she said:

We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay … We will keep the right of entry provisions.

On 28 May of this year she said in a speech to the Master Builders:

We promised to retain the current right of entry framework and this promise too will be kept.

So what we see is a walking away from those commitments. We see a bill that is overreaching on the mandate. But let this be for the government to explain to their constituents. Let this be for them to explain to the electorate when they have to justify how this bill has performed in terms of serving the economy of this great country, how it has performed in delivering jobs to Australians and how it has performed in delivering real increases in wages and incomes that have put money in the pockets of Australians to support their families. Let them explain these things, as they must  be accountable for them.

Let me conclude by making reference to something which is very close to home in my own electorate of Cook. We already know that the rise in industrial disputes that has occurred under this government is shameful. In fact in the 12 months to June it rose from 88,000 working days lost to almost 165,000 working days lost. But in addition to that and in the context of that union activity, the government’s brothers in New South Wales have not been able to help themselves by getting a bit of a head start on this union right of entry. I refer to an article by Miranda Devine in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 November, when she said:

There is no clearer demonstration of who is in charge in NSW than the union raid last week on the desalination plant construction site in Kurnell, against the wishes of the builder, John Holland, and in defiance of Federal Court action. And who led the raid? None other than the Water Minister, Phil Costa.

And if I go to an article by Imre Salusinszky in the Australian on 13 November he said:

Mr Costa’s actions were supported yesterday by NSW Premier Nathan Rees. In a thinly veiled threat to John Holland, Mr Rees said NSW occupational health and safety laws should apply to the site because they provided “much better protection for workers”.

If John Holland doesn’t like that, too bad,” Mr Rees said …

Earlier, Mr Rees told a Sydney radio station he and Mr Costa discussed the visit to the plant weeks ago.

The risk in the Government’s position is that, if union interference causes delays, it could trigger penalty clauses in John Holland’s contract and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As if we have not already paid enough for a desalination plant the people of New South Wales do not need and do not want.

But of greatest interest in Mr Costa’s visit is that Mr Costa has not been prepared to turn up and talk to the residents of Kurnell about this disastrous project in our electorate and in their community. He does not have the courage to come down and talk to them at all. But what he does have the courage to do apparently is to turn up, don the AWU vest and crash through the gates with his union mates and start demanding things left, right and centre. This bill will be judged on its performance, and that performance is about jobs.

See this speech in context