Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Before the dinner adjournment I indicated what we as an opposition would be looking for in our approach to this legislation. One aspect was how it would impact on job retention, job creation and small business. On the other side, we will be looking at whether it will deliver excessive union power.

This evening we have been delivered a letter signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of this country which shows that she is willing to sign away the conscientious objection certificates that have been part and parcel of this country’s industrial framework on a bipartisan basis for decades. There was not a single skerrick of evidence before the Senate committee in relation to this change. There is not a single recommendation in the Australian Greens report, the dissenting minority report of the committee, in relation to this. But here it is being snuck into a three-page letter to the Australian Greens by the Deputy Prime Minister as the very last item. I asked before the dinner adjournment whether we could have a copy of this letter. Unfortunately, the minister could not table it before we had to adjourn. The minister found it and, as was his entitlement, did not provide it to us until we resumed. It could have been handed across the chamber.

What we have in the letter is a clear breach of what has been a bipartisan approach to Australian industrial relations for decades—I would venture to suggest for four decades. If I recall, it was Harold Holt, as minister for employment, who introduced the religious exemption conscientious objection certificate in recognition that there were people in the Australian community who had genuine difficulties with such provisions. For year after year those provisions have remained on a bipartisan basis. You do not get these certificates willy-nilly. You have to get a certificate via the Industrial Relations Commission or, under the new regime, from Fair Work Australia.

Basically what the government, in cahoots with the Greens, are now saying is that religious objection counts for nothing. They are willing to sacrifice one of the fundamental human rights and principles on the altar of more union power. Make no mistake: this is a good example of the changes that are coming into this legislation that breach Forward with Fairness and extend union power wherever possible. When a minister such as Minister Ludwig and the Labor Party support such an amendment, it is a very, very sad day for this country. A 40-year history of bipartisanship in relation to conscientious objection is to be denied.