Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the fact that yesterday was one of the most historic and memorable days in the Senate of the Parliament of Australia for both positive and negative reasons. Positively, we have seen the start of a process now in which the people of Australia can have their voice on issues about which I will discuss. Secondly, from a positive point of view, we restored the capacity and the centrality of the families of Australia, particularly the small business families of Australia, to get about doing the work that they do so well.

On the negative side, we regrettably saw by one of our colleagues—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Stephen Conroy—a most unprecedented, unfair and cowardly attack on the person and the position of the Governor-General of Australia. In his response to the presence and the statements made by the Governor-General on behalf of the government and indeed on behalf of the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy made comments along the lines that the Governor-General had demeaned his office. He drew attention to a past, now deceased, Governor-General and activities. He made the observation that 'a strong Governor-General would never have agreed' to undertake what the Prime Minister of the day had requested and what the Governor-General is required to do, and that the Prime Minister had 'used his position in advising the Governor-General in a way' which Senator Conroy thought 'would never happen again.'

The irony of all this is that constitutional experts have drawn attention to the error of Senator Conroy's comments. Constitutional law expert from the University of New South Wales, George Williams, said:

If anything, the spectre of 1975 would have been raised if the Governor-General had acted contrary to the view of the Prime Minister, so I think he (Senator Conroy) has got it the wrong way around.

Professor Anne Twomey, of Sydney University, made this comment:

The reverse of what Senator Conroy is saying is the case. What was controversial in 1975 was that the governor-general refused to act on government advice and acted without it.

I call on Senator Conroy, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Labor Party's shadow spokesman on defence, to come into this place and reflect on the comments that he made, agree with the statements of his own leader, Mr Shorten, and indeed the Prime Minister and others, and apologise unreservedly to the Governor-General.

If nothing else, we know the person of General Sir Peter Cosgrove—probably one of the most highly decorated and certainly one of the most successful military generals in this country's history. It was in September 1999 that the United Nations mission to East Timor charged Australia with the responsibility of bringing peace and good order to that country following its long years of conflict with Indonesia. And who was it that the Australian government appointed? The government appointed none other than General Sir Peter Cosgrove to lead what became known as INTERFET—one of the most successful military and peacekeeping operations in this country's history. No injuries and no wounds were encountered. He led a contingent of people from 23 countries, involving in all some 11,000 people and he did so with a high degree of military precision and he brought enormous honour to this country. At that time I was undertaking business activities in Asia, including with an Asian military organisation. When Cosgrove was appointed to lead INTERFET, I recall being told by senior generals of that military organisation that we were not good enough and that Australia was going to end up with blood on its nose because its contingent and its leader simply were not capable of undertaking that work.

So yesterday, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and shadow spokesman for defence was decrying the Governor-General of Australia, he was also placing abuse at the person of a military hero of this country. I know Senator Conroy. I believe him to be a man of honour and I believe the right thing he should do is come into this chamber today before we rise this evening and give an explanation to the Senate and to the people of Australia and, in particular, give an apology to His Excellency General Sir Peter Cosgrove.

What the Governor-General's speech yesterday morning, and the results of votes in this place yesterday afternoon, indicated is that we now have a true opportunity for the democratic process to play its part. Registered organisations legislation was introduced into the lower house. It came here to the Senate and was rejected. It then went back to the lower house and came to this place and was rejected again, and it has now become what is known as trigger for a double-dissolution election. In other words, the government of the day, elected to run this country, is unable to bring forward its legislation.

Secondly, as we saw played out yesterday, the Building and Construction Commission legislation was again rejected. It is important for people in this gallery and others around Australia to know that in 2013 the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, on behalf of the coalition, took to the 2013 election the fact that we wanted to reinstitute the ABCC. The people of Australia overwhelmingly returned the coalition to government and, in so doing, made it their position that they were happy with the introduction of that legislation. But yesterday we saw for the second time the rejection of legislation put by the government of the day, and that of course has also triggered a double-dissolution election. It is now time for the people of Australia to confirm their decision from 2013. There could not be a more direct contrast. Drawing upon my own horseracing background, I can say to you that the Labor Party is owned, trained, ridden and strapped by the union movement in this country. What we are going to see over the next few weeks is a very, very clear description of who runs the Labor Party in this country. We saw evidence of it on two occasions yesterday to which I will refer: the ABCC and the construction sector—the CFMEU, which is a huge donor of more than $7 million to the Labor Party for campaign purposes.

Through you, Acting Deputy President Reynolds, I am delighted that Senator McAllister is with us in the chamber. It was not all that long ago that I watched an interview on television with Senator McAllister with the Hon. Paul Ferguson. I recall Senator McAllister saying at the time that it is important to let the courts of Australia make the decisions when it comes to alleged unruly behaviour, dominance, bullying and standover tactics. I would like to draw attention to what the courts said and why it is so necessary for us to return to an ABCC. The Federal Court of Australia, in a recent decision, noted:

Comments such as “[t]he last time it cost us a shit load of money” and “it is going to be expensive but our fighting fund will have to fix it” evidence an attitude on the part of—

The CFMEU—

branch officials that the risk of the imposition of significant pecuniary penalties will not be allowed to act as a constraint on unlawful activity which they consider to be warranted.

That is the response of the Federal Court of Australia, Senator McAllister, to the activities of the CFMEU. More recently, the Supreme Court of Victoria—and New South Wales and other supreme courts have had similar experiences—stated:

… the imposition of a penalty for contempt of court should not be viewed as simply an anticipated cost of industrial action … few things could be more destructive to the authority of the Court and to the rule of law than the idea that fines or similar punishment are akin to a tax that, once budgeted for, enable the use of unlawful conduct to achieve industrial outcomes.

That has been the response of the federal and supreme courts. If we have a look at the industry regulator itself, the FWBC, it has advised that the spread of unlawfulness in the industry, which was a feature of Victoria and our home state of Western Australia, has now spread to Queensland and South Australia. This is the Fair Work Building & Construction's statement, the regulator, not mine.

As we know, after 2007 when Labor came into government—and I am reminded of the fact that it took them some time, despite the pressure from the unions, to abolish the ABCC—they appointed Justice Murray Wilcox QC. We know him not to be a person of our political persuasion. They asked him to review the industry in such a way that they could buy time before they abolished the ABCC. Justice Wilcox, recognised the need for, and the benefit provided by, the Australian Building and Construction Commission and stated in his report—it was not welcomed by Ms Gillard at that time: 'The ABCC's work is not done. It would be unfortunate if the ABCC's replacement body led to a reversal of the progress that has been made.' That is exactly what we have seen. Those are points that I am delighted I can refer Senator McAllister to as she in this place.

The CFMEU has undue and unruled power over the Labor Party. Through you, Acting Deputy President, to those in the public gallery understand this: the construction industry in this country employs more than a million people. In small businesses and family businesses, the vast majority are not members of unions or the CFMEU, in particular. We know that this government has placed enormous emphasis on construction. There has been $55 billion for infrastructure projects. The evidence before us is that more than one-third of the cost of construction projects in this country is wasted as a result of industrial lawlessness. It is important for the taxpayers of Australia and the Australian community that we reduce and eliminate that 30 per cent wastage so that it can go into the very construction projects about which I speak.

We know that at this time the CFMEU has more than 100 of its officials before the courts around Australia. This is unconscionable. What we saw yesterday was, again, the involvement of the Labor Party and the Greens political party, along with four of the Independents, voting down the reinstitution of the ABCC. We are looking at the largest infrastructure spend in Australia's history. We know very well that should Labor get into government, we would see a continuation of industrial lawlessness simply because those who pay the piper, as we know, call the tune.

The other point of interest yesterday was that we voted to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. I listened to the contribution a few minutes ago from Senator Sue Lines about the problems associated with safety on roads in Australia and how bad this decision is. The interesting thing is that it was 2011 when then Prime Minister Gillard, kowtowing to the Transport Workers Union—another owner, trainer and rider of the Labor Party—instituted this particular tribunal. If what Senator Lines said is true about the tribunal being involved in heavy vehicle road safety, then why have we not seen a significant reduction in the instances of accidents involving heavy vehicles from 2011 to 2016?

We know very well that this particular tribunal was never introduced for the purpose of heavy vehicle road safety. There is already a national heavy vehicle regulator. If Ms Gillard and the TWU—at that time—were truly interested, this is where they would have placed their resources. It is a fact that 85 per cent of all major accidents involving trucks are not the fault or the responsibility of the driver. But we do know that had we not gotten rid of the tribunal yesterday some 35,000 to 40,000 small businesses—owner operated trucking businesses—around this country were already on their way to going to the wall as a result of the decisions of that tribunal, and it is interesting to reflect that back in 2011 even the Transport Workers Union said to Ms Gillard, 'You should put some industry people on the tribunal.' But there was no way in the world. Only recently did the TWU join the government and industry asking the tribunal to delay its decision to axe and destroy the businesses of 35,000 people. Even the TWU joined that, but the tribunal in its arrogance ignored that advice, and now so richly have they been condemned to history with the abolition of that particular tribunal. In contrast to what Senator Lines said when she made the claim the government has laid nothing out in terms of improving road safety, I invite her to go back and read the speech that I gave last night and also the speech of my colleague Senator John Williams, who has long been a champion of the abolition of that organisation.

What does the future hold? What is the choice that the people of Australia have? I will give you two quickly examples: firstly, the economy and, secondly, border protection and security. In 2007 this country was in surplus. We had no debt. We had no deficit. When Labor came into government we were in surplus, the only Western country to be so. By 2013 there was $100 billion of your money in accumulated deficits and some $350 billion of debt. You are borrowing $1 billion a month offshore to pay the interest on that debt. You are not repaying the debt. You are now borrowing more than $1 billion a month offshore out of your money to repay that interest on that debt. So if you want to have a look at a contrast between the economic capacity of governments, you need go no further than the last Labor government and the coalition government—