Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, what the Labor Party should be attempting to do in this valuable period of parliament—and we are on broadcast, too—is explain to the Australian people how they are not going to destroy the mining industry through the abolition of AWAs. The mining industry is a booming sector of the economy—an industry that the opposition themselves say is carrying the economy. Yet the opposition have a policy in place that the industry seriously believes will destroy the mining boom and bring it to a grinding halt. Shouldn’t the opposition be using this opportunity in the chamber to explain their policy to the mining industry? Shouldn’t they be explaining to the building and construction industry why, in their very first term in government, they will abolish the Building and Construction Commissioner. Shouldn’t they be explaining to the Australian people the words of Kevin Reynolds when he sat up there in all his glory in his fancy apartment saying: ‘I live for the day when the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and all the staff are all working down at Hungry Jack’s or Fast Eddy’s’ and:

I … admit that some of our disputes, like the ‘no-ticket no-start’ disputes and walking off concrete pours and things of that nature—

‘wouldn’t be accepted under this government’. You bet they would not be accepted under this government. What the other side need to explain is whether it would be accepted under their industrial relations system. That is what they should be coming in here and mounting an argument for. They should be constructing their case. Instead, they waste their time on a Liberal fundraiser at Kirribilli.

Shouldn’t the opposition be constructing and explaining their case and putting their policy forward in relation to small business? Shouldn’t they be explaining to small business the absurdity of returning to their unfair dismissal laws? Shouldn’t they be explaining to small business just how they are economic conservatives? If their record in government was not economically conservative and their record in opposition is not economically conservative then can they explain to small business how they are economically conservative? It defies belief. They ought to use this opportunity in parliament—particularly in question time, which is on-air, and in take note of answers—to explain to small business the fear that they should not have. Of course they have the fear, but they are not hearing any answers from the Labor Party.

Shouldn’t they be explaining to exporters and farmers alike how their exports will get off the wharves should the Labor Party be fortunate enough to enter government—how they will get their products off the wharves when the Labor Party reinstate secondary boycotts and the MUA, the waterfront union, is back in town? That is all they need to be back in town: the return of the secondary boycott laws. That is the day they live for. They know they will be back in town when they can grind this nation to a halt when the waterfront goes out on strike and the transport unions go out on strike with it.

Shouldn’t they be explaining to the manufacturing industry that they should not fear pattern bargaining or the pattern fees that go with it? The truth of the matter is that they cannot explain it, so they are running away from the hard work of policy. They are trying to bring glib issues into the parliament and bluff their way into government. We are in real election mode now. Time is running out for the Labor Party, and their sham over the last two days has shown them up to be shallow and not fit for government.