Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is what they want to do. Senator Scullion is entirely correct. They want to scrap them. They want to get rid of them. The Prime Minister proudly announced the one millionth AWA in Adelaide just a few days ago. I can advise the Senate that in Tasmania we have over 24,000 AWAs currently operating. In Tasmania at least, people on AWAs on average are earning 48 per cent more than people on an award. Why would you want to deny that of those working men and women and their families? Why would you want to do it?

It is because the Labor Party have a view which is ‘one size fits all’. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, has made it clear: he just wants awards or collective agreements. Collective agreements, really, are where the unions have control. They have a dominance in such agreements. He is listening very carefully to Greg Combet and is in fact doing the bidding of Greg Combet for and on behalf of the union movement. As I say, you know that link: it is there with the $46 million. Just follow the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune. With respect to the Labor Party, that is exactly what is happening.

In terms of AWAs in Tasmania, I want to make one point as an aside. Work Choices came in in March. In April, there were 150-odd AWAs. And what has happened since then? They have increased. There were 750 in the month of August and they are on the increase. We have over 24,000 now. People who are on AWAs are earning more, on average—48 per cent more in Tasmania—than those on an award. So why does the Labor Party want to deny those people that extra money?

The two incidents in Tasmania I want to refer to relate to occupational health and safety arrangements at the Beaconsfield mine. In today’s Australian, on page 3, a certain Bill Shorten is reported making certain comments. I am going to read those comments and then respond to them. The article is headed ‘Shorten demands reports on mine’ and says:

Australian Workers’ Union boss Bill Shorten has demanded the public release of safety reports and other technical documents relating to the Beaconsfield gold-mine tragedy after reports that management was warned of a potential disaster.

On Saturday, The Weekend Australian revealed that an independent expert’s report warned mine management three months before the Anzac Day rockfall that its mining method may have been inadequate.

Well! It goes on:

Greg Mellick is holding a closed-door inquiry into the disaster at the Tasmanian mine, which killed worker Larry Knight.

It talks a little bit more about Bill Shorten and his role. You see that Mr Shorten was involved in the preparation and signing off of the state government inquiry into the safety of the Beaconsfield mine. I just ask the question: is Bill Shorten doing this for the purposes of grandstanding over the Beaconsfield tragedy? He says he is calling for the public release of those reports. But I find it bizarre because, on the other hand, he was involved and helped draft the terms of reference for the inquiry, and the reports are being subjected to that inquiry. Mr Shorten actually signed off on the inquiry. He had meetings with the Labor Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon. Now he is calling for the public release of the documents, when he has actually signed off on a closed door inquiry headed up by Greg Mellick, whose competence and capability I have the utmost respect for.

But I believe that it is double standards at work and that, if Mr Shorten has an issue with any of those reports or advice relevant to the inquiry, he should convey those concerns to those charged with determining the cause of the tragedy—Greg Mellick and his inquiry—and he should spare the people actually affected by the disaster any further anxiety and suffering. Beaconsfield and the people of Beaconsfield have had enough—they have had a kick in the guts, and the families concerned have had enough indeed—and it is not for Bill Shorten or anybody else to be grandstanding over this particular matter. I note that the Australian story quotes Lauren Kielmann, who is the late Larry Knight’s daughter. It says she:

... told The Australian yesterday she did not blame mine management for the rockfall that killed her father.

“It would have been better that they did follow up ... recommendations. But I think they did the best they could. It was just a horrible accident.”

So Bill Shorten is playing it up, and I would ask him to stop that and to actually apologise for any concern or offence that he might be causing.

I come to the other incident. The incident relates to a matter instigated by the state Labor government, being the appointment exclusively of four unionists in Tasmania—two from the AWU and two from the CFMEU—to undertake the work of the independent workplace standards office of Tasmania. It is a state government agency. The government has appointed those four unionists exclusively to undertake occupational health and safety inquiries in the workplace. Why would that be? Steven Kons, the Tasmanian Attorney-General, actually announced it publicly by putting out a media release saying that these four unionists have been appointed and that the industry associations involved were ‘comfortable with the arrangements’, implying that they were supporting the arrangements. As soon as I heard about and saw that, what did I do? I rang the associations. I said, ‘Is that right? Is it true that you’re supporting these arrangements?’ ‘Absolutely not’ was their response.

So the Attorney-General has named three organisations publicly—and I will tell you who they are: the Australian Mines and Metals Association, the Master Builders Association and the Minerals Council of Tasmania—saying that they were okay with these arrangements. I rang them, talked to them and of course they are opposed. Not only are they opposed; the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry are also totally opposed. In fact, they put on the front page of their business report and of their monthly newspaper their opposition. They are not happy. Indeed, the Housing Industry Association are entirely unhappy with the state government arrangement to appoint four unionists exclusively to undertake occupational health and safety arrangements in Tasmania.

So why do you think they are going down that track? I have contacted the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews—and I thank him for his leadership in this area and across the board—asking him to consider blocking the state government’s exclusive appointment of these four union officials to conduct workplace safety inspections. It is a recipe for union intimidation and it would compromise the independence of workplace standards in Tasmania. Mr Kons, in his public statement to the media, also said that this particular proposal of appointing four unionists exclusively to undertake these inspections was ‘modelled on similar systems existing in mainland states’. I thought that was strange—would that be true? He was saying it was true; it was based on ‘systems’ in other states. I made some inquiries, and do you know what: it is an utter furphy. He has not even publicly apologised for putting out that inaccurate and wrong information. No such models exist.