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

It seems that the Australian Labor Party can get away with simply renaming something and then can accuse the opposition of not having done anything about it in the past. It is a bit like AusLink 2. Allegedly we did nothing about infrastructure. ‘Forget AusLink 1 and AusLink 2; we’ll just rename it the Nation Building Program and, all of a sudden, we can accuse the coalition of never having had a nation-building plan.’ Well, we did not have a ‘nation-building plan’ because we actually called it AusLink 1 and AusLink 2.

It is the same with industrial relations. Sure, we did not have award modernisation. Senator Arbib is right. But anybody who has followed this debate knows that we used the term ‘award rationalisation’. That was part of the industrial relations discussion year after year with us. That is what our policy was. That is what we were pursuing. But Labor, instead of continuing to call it award rationalisation, change the name to ‘award modernisation’ and all of a sudden they can accuse the coalition of never having pursued award modernisation. That is right. It is because we had a different name for it: award rationalisation. This is the sort of spin—the 24-hour news cycle, the Hollowmen factor—that motivates this government, not only every day but every single hour and every single minute that they are in this place or around the country.

Senator Arbib gave us a quote from the ACCI, expressing concern about the horse and buggy era with awards. If that is the case, if business—and especially small business, allegedly—are clamouring for this, why are we being inundated with the sorts of complaints that we are by these very same business organisations, by the wine growers? I suppose they are not small businesses. I suppose the horticulture sector are not small businesses. I suppose the restaurant and catering sector—wait a minute, we have looked after them, haven’t we? There is a special little deal for them. But why not the others that fall into exactly the same category, the same circumstances that were outlined in Ms Gillard’s letter?

In writing to the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, Ms Gillard, in the fourth paragraph of that letter, said: ‘Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that cafes, restaurants and catering services are characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses.’ Guess what? The aged care sector has that. I do not think they even know what profit margins are these days. The horticulture sector is exactly the same. I suppose the one saving grace is that the restaurant and catering sector looks after the latte set, and that is why the Labor Party are willing to champion their cause. Of course Senator Arbib is laughing, but that is about the only rationale for it—that the Labor Party’s commitment to the latte set makes them indebted to the restaurants and caterers because they provide them with their caffeine fix every morning. I confess: I indulge as well.

As soon as you move out of the metropolitan areas with their cafes and restaurants and get into the horticultural sector—the stone fruit sector, the berry fruit sector, the wine growers—you will find they can be forgotten about. They are mainly in the rural and regional seats that, chances are, the coalition hold or that tend to vote in a particular direction. But the latte set will be looked after by Senator Arbib and his mates in the New South Wales Right.

Good luck to the restaurants and caterers. We say that what has been done for them should be done not by way of special deals and special pleading to the minister but through a transparent process that would be available to every sector on application, and not just because they have been able to curry favour with a minister. Once again, I think this highlights some of the fundamental differences in approach to government between Labor and the alternative government, the coalition. We look for transparency, we look for openness and we look for equal access for the various sectors of the economy; we are not into special deals.

Secondly—and I have said this a number of times throughout these debates on industrial relations—one of the key factors that we take into account in judging legislation and amendments is the impact on small business. There is no doubt that this amendment will be of great assistance to small business, and I would be interested to know if there were in fact a sector, be it aged care, against this amendment. The wine growers, the horticultural sector—the list goes on. I think Senator Arbib either knows in his heart of hearts that they want this amendment or—and this may also be the case—the government has not consulted with these people and that is why he is not necessarily aware of their concerns.

It was interesting to note that Senator Arbib told us certain things—if I got the note down right—‘will be examined’. They are in the future tense: ‘will be examined’. Why haven’t they been examined already and why should we be passing this legislation unamended on the promise that some time in the future Senator Arbib and his mates in government might examine it? We want the assurance now for small business, and that is why we as a coalition will be seeking to insist on this amendment. We have allowed a number of amendments to go through on the voices but this one is of such fundamental importance to the small business sector that we will be dividing.