Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue my contribution in this debate. As I was saying last night, there needs to be better effort by government to respond to job losses across the nation. To date we have seen no job plan to mitigate loss or to transition workers into emerging jobs, and that is something that the government must address quickly.

I also indicated last night the concern that the government, rather than focusing on fighting for Australian jobs, seems to be distracted by looking to settle old scores or to use the resources and powers of the state to attack what it perceives to be its political opponents. We believe that is not what the focus should be. For example, the opposition support the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program but we do not believe that the terms of reference will provide an opportunity for us to see improved safety in workplaces. We therefore question, as do others, the motive of the government in relation to that commission.

We oppose the royal commission into the entire union movement, five unions of which were expressly referred to in the terms of reference. We believe it is the largest fishing expedition that we have seen to date by this government. We believe the intention is to assault the union movement entirely because the government perceives to be a political opponent, and not to target what are serious allegations of crime. The opposition does agree that those must be targeted.

For that reason, the opposition made it very clear that we believe we can have a task force responding to those serious allegations. Anybody who understands the history of the Australian Crime Commission would understand that it was established as a result of the recommendation by the royal commission to ensure that we had a standing commission that could fight serious and organised crime. We believe that, along with the federal and state police and other Commonwealth and state agencies, it is far better suited to tackle crime—if that is the intention of the government.

Again, people call into question, quite rightly, the motives of the government in using millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to attack what the government perceives to be its political opponents rather than to fight crime, which should be the purpose of the commission. It is also a reflection on the Australian Crime Commission, which has powers as great as any royal commission would have but which, more importantly, has the expertise to tackle serious and organised crime in this country. Therefore, and understandably, it would find it rather strange that it has not been called upon to do such work.

There are concerns that this government is distracted by these matters rather than focusing on fighting for Australian jobs and tackling the challenges that beset our economy. On top of that, although when they were in opposition they said they did not want to return to the industrial relations fights of the past, it seems to be the case that they want to continue to wage that war. We saw the government—the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Minister for Employment—suggest that the reason SPC received no money was their outrageous employment conditions. Firstly, that is an outrageous slur on decent low- and middle-income earners in this country. Further to the point, the cabinet decision was predicated on a false assumption—namely, the conditions of employment that were asserted by the Prime Minister were in fact not true. Was it any wonder, therefore, that the local member, Sharman Stone, called the Prime Minister a liar? This is a concern.

Further to that, we asked the question: why did Cadbury and not SPC receive money? I was watching the Channel 7 news last night and I got to see the former chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health sitting next to the now Prime Minister as the Prime Minister announced the $16 million for Cadbury. I am starting to understand the distinction—why SPC receives no money or assistance from the Commonwealth and Cadbury does. It is clear now that the former chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health was engaged in ensuring that Cadbury would be in receipt of that money at a time when he owned a lobbying firm—it was 100 per cent owned by him and his wife—that was lobbying on behalf of the parent company of Cadbury. Of course, that is why the government has acceded to that request.

This government needs to have a jobs plan for workers who are losing their jobs. Today Qantas announced a another 4,000 job losses in that company. That is now, in total, 5,000 jobs. That is Toyota's and Holden's combined job losses, and what is the government doing? It is trying to settle old scores, use the state to attack its political opponents and help its mates out, including, of course, the former chief of staff of the Assistant Minister the Health.

See this speech in context