Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

The government of course fully supports the regulation and therefore will be opposing the disallowance motion. This regulation allows the state government of Western Australia—not the coalition government, as asserted so falsely by Senator Cameron; this is irrespective of its complexion; it might be Labor in the future; it might be Green in the future; no matter what its complexion, it will be entitled—to simply stand before the Fair Work Commission and say something. That is all that we are asking for, in circumstances where 70 per cent of the workers in Western Australia are in fact covered by the Fair Work Act. All we are saying is that this state government, and some other businesses, should be entitled to be able to advocate their position.

Let us be very clear: the state government of Western Australia may well have an interest in seeking to avoid industrial action in circumstances where, as has been suggested—and, indeed, threatened—there might be industrial action by about five dozen highly-paid workers at Port Hedland. By striking for just one day, they would deny revenue of royalties from the minerals to be exported of $7 million. Does anybody believe that a state government facing such a loss should not be entitled simply to argue their case in front of the Fair Work Commission as established—as stacked and packed—by the previous federal Labor government?

Let us be perfectly clear as to what we are talking about here, because the sort of money that is involved is in fact, for just one day, about what the Western Australian government spends in certain very important social areas in a whole year. That money could be gone just in one day—$7 million; $100 million worth of exports per day going out of Western Australia.

Keep in mind also that, in that circumstance, there are other companies involved that, regrettably, have no say in the matter because the head agreement is with another company, in relation to these tugs of which I speak. That is just one of numerous examples that come to mind of where a company's whole existence could be prejudiced, and another company might not be all that concerned about it. As a result, thousands of workers in Western Australia could lose their jobs.

What does this regulation do? Labor's own legislation said: 'These are the parties that can appear before the Fair Work Commission, plus any others deemed appropriate by regulation from time to time.' So Labor itself acknowledged in its legislation that the regulatory framework was an appropriate mechanism to allow other parties to appear before the Fair Work Commission. Does it change the law? No. Does it change the rules? No. Does it diminish workers' rights? No. All it does is to allow other parties that were, in the past, denied, to actually present their case before the Fair Work commissioners. In a country that believes in free speech, with parties that allegedly believe in transparency and accountability, why would you not allow parties with a genuine and real interest to put their case to the independent umpire to ensure that all the facts are put before the Fair Work commissioner, before he or she needs or they need to make a determination on this very, very important issue—whatever it might be—from time to time?

So let us be very clear: will it change the test in relation to the right of workers to go on strike? No, it will not. Yet Senator Cameron, as is his wont, and others in Labor and the Greens say, 'This is all about diminishing workers' rights.' No, it is not. The rules and laws remain exactly the same. The only thing that changes is that more parties will be allowed to advocate their cause before the Fair Work Commission. Why would you be scared of a democratically elected state government being allowed to go before the Fair Work Commission to advocate the cause of the taxpayers of that state—to say, 'This potential strike could in fact cost us $7 million a day in royalties, which would then impact on our budget and our capacity to secure funding for our schools, for our hospitals, for our police forces, for the disability sector et cetera'? Why shouldn't they be allowed to put that case so that the Fair Work Commission has a full understanding of all the consequences of the proposed industrial action?

Keep in mind, as I said before, that that state government would be representative of the workers in Western Australia, at least 70 per cent of whom are in fact covered by the provisions of the Fair Work Act. And why wouldn't you allow other businesses and other voices that might be adversely impacted to say, 'We might be a victim of this action as well, and you, Fair Work Commission, should be aware of the consequences not only for the two parties involved in the dispute—namely, the union and the one company—but also for others'? There might be a lot of other victims that have not been allowed to put their case before the Fair Work Commission. We are saying: allow the Fair Work Commission to hear all the possible arguments and be made fully aware of all the possible victims—which includes the taxpayers of the state of Western Australia. This attitude of Senator Cameron's is very, very vindictive, and it exposes an ugly part of the Australian Labor Party. If you are a coalition government, you should not be allowed to go to the Fair Work Commission. If you have not signed up to the referral of powers, you should not be allowed to put an argument no matter how strong, no matter how sound. I urge the Senate to support the regulations which will protect the interests of Western Australians in particular and other businesses.