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

I think I am going to save myself breath from now on because clearly the minister does not have a response to this. I fully agree with the minister that there are employees that are not members of unions. Subclause (e) says:

(e) the consequences of not making the order for any employer, employees or organisation concerned;

This clearly countenances employees. It does not just say, ‘employees who are members of a trade union’. It says ‘employees’ generically, irrespective of whether they are a member of a union or not. So, once again, the argument falls over. Having started off with ambiguity, uncertainty, imbalance and all the other excuses, with great respect, the rationale does not fit. But of course we know why the minister is insisting, in the face of overwhelming logic, and it is this. It is the ideology of the Labor Party and the fact that they know that they bought their way to power courtesy of the trade union movement’s contributions at the last election. Whenever there is a possibility to favour the trade union movement in legislation they will do so, even if it is at the expense of employers.

As I have said a number of times in this debate, employers are actually called employers for a very simple reason: they are the people that employ our fellow Australians. When employers lose confidence in the system, you see unemployment rise, and that is something that is starting to hang around the neck of this government in larger and larger proportions each and every single day. It is because of legislation such as this, not only because of the global financial crisis.