Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

In commencing this debate it is very interesting to note that Senator Abetz was asked to answer some questions in relation to statements by candidates in the New South Wales election—a National Party candidate in Tweed, Mr Provest, and a Liberal Party candidate in Goulburn, Ms Pru Goward. In each case we have seen Senator Abetz being most creative in the way that he has interpreted the public contributions of these candidates, expressing their concern, firstly, about the negative impact that Work Choices legislation would have on the son of the candidate in Tweed and, secondly, from Ms Goward, in relation to the negative responses she received on the door in that campaign in relation to the Work Choices legislation.

But I suppose I should not have been surprised that Senator Abetz would try and turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse in this case. I am not surprised because yesterday Senator Abetz was answering a question and he gave an answer which did quite surprise me. He said in answer to a question from Senator Boswell about fisheries:

For example, at the recent estimates, Labor’s fisheries spokesman, Senator O’Brien, did not ask a single question about illegal fishing—not one.

That is a quote from Hansard. It is true: I did not ask one question about illegal fishing; I asked 61 questions about illegal fishing. Frankly, for Senator Abetz on that occasion to so misrepresent the facts colours the answers that he gives in this place and I think gives us the grounds to say, ‘You have to look very carefully at the basis for the answers that Senator Abetz gives in this place. You have to look very carefully behind what he says.’ There was no basis for what Senator Abetz said yesterday about what I had or had not asked in estimates. The fact of the matter is that he did not answer one single question in that estimates round. Today he is trying to invent reasons to justify the explanations he gave about those damning comments about the Work Choices legislation made by coalition candidates in the New South Wales election.

But if you want to get the most damning comments that you can about the Work Choices legislation you need only go to the Prime Minister’s comments in the House of Representatives yesterday. One of the key aspects of the Work Choices legislation is Australian workplace agreements. This is an instrument that the government chants is something which is, by providing flexibility, going to be good for workers. This is the mantra of the government: by providing flexibility, this will lift up wages for workers. This is the line that the government has been trying to feed to the Australian people for some time. What did the Prime Minister have to say about this yesterday? Let me read from Hansard. He was asked a couple of questions about AWAs and nurses and AWAs and TAFE and university funding. He said in answer to one of the questions:

What we said as a condition of funding was that one of the options should be AWAs.

He was talking about the TAFEs. He went on:

Let me emphasise that the conditions that apply in relation to the employment of nurses in our view is quite different and that is why we have absolutely no intention of introducing any conditions, either of the type contemplated in the question—

meaning AWAs—

that I answered a few moments ago or indeed of the type that were introduced in relation to academics. We have no intention of doing that in relation to nurses.

There was an interjection and then he went on:

I happen to take the view that nurses in this country, given their responsibilities and the onerous work they carry out, are grossly underpaid.

Well, if AWAs are the solution for the workforce to make their work more accessible and easy and their pay— (Time expired)