Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

It seems to me that things are very fluid out there in relation to this bill. There are a number of amendments we have got sheets for that outline amendments from Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch—and we have got an amendment. But I notice that Senator Xenophon has been publicly indicating that there is some deal in place that means there will be some process to deal with water for South Australia that includes COAG. As I understand it, the deal is that there will be discussions at COAG and there will be some discussions on an ongoing basis like an estimates process within the processes of the Senate itself. Whether this is at estimates, whether there is going to be a special estimates process, is pretty unclear. But I did hear Peter Hartcher, one of the leading commentators on parliamentary issues, indicate that what has happened is that the issue of water for South Australia has been sent to what he described as 'the sinkhole of reform'—which, in his view, is COAG—and he said this was a win for the Liberal Party.

In going through this, I cannot see much that Senator Xenophon has achieved in relation to this so-called agreement. I heard Paul Kelly indicate that he felt that Senator Xenophon had overreached in his rhetoric and that what he had was a deal on process. So there will be a process to talk about South Australian water. I do not understand. This is a bit like the situation we had under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill, where someone who was in a very powerful position to negotiate a settlement to the issues that he is concerned about simply rolled over. If I were a South Australian resident, I would be very worried about putting all this faith in the Xenophon political party and getting so little in return—commitments to process, which mean nothing.

I noticed Senator Xenophon on the television later on. He said that, if there is no progress on the issue of water, then obviously there will be consequences. Well, if you are in the most powerful position and you fail to deal with it—it is like an industrial dispute when you are negotiating at the bargaining table and you are in dispute with the employer: there comes a time when you have got to make a call as to when your bargaining position is at its strongest and when you can actually get the employer to concede to what your members want to achieve. I did it for 27 years. You have to make some judgements about when your bargaining position is at its most powerful.

My view is that Senator Xenophon's bargaining position on such a major bill was at its most powerful and Senator Xenophon has completely failed to deliver on all the rhetoric, all the arguments, all the bluster that he has been going on with for a couple of weeks in relation to South Australian water. And if Senator Xenophon is going to be a politician who is going to try and lever one issue against another issue, if he is prepared to give up on rights for working people on an issue of water for South Australia, then he should at least try and deliver an outcome on water in South Australia. That has not happened.

The consequences that Senator Xenophon talks about are a bit like negotiating an agreement and then having a no-extra-claims clause. You have a process to deal with the agreement, you are bound by legal procedure and you threaten the boss, 'If you don't deliver, we're going to do something about it,' but there is no capacity to do anything. That is really the position that Senator Xenophon is in. When I was listening to him, it reminded me a bit of the cartoon with the mouse with a finger up in the air and the eagle is just about to take his head off. That is a bit like where Senator Xenophon is at the moment: the finger is waving, but the eagle's claws are just about there. If you ever want a lesson on how not to negotiate and if you ever want a lesson on how not to use power effectively, I am sure people in the future could write books about the Xenophon political party and their incapacity to actually deliver when they are in a powerful position to deliver on issues that are of concern to them. I am not going to the morality of trading off workers' rights against a position that you want to take, but that is exactly what Senator Xenophon has done: he has traded off his vote, it seems to me, on issues of importance to working-class people in this country, to families in this country and to building workers in this country who depend on a strong union to deliver decent wages and conditions. What Senator Xenophon has done is say, 'I've got a more important issue—that is, water to South Australia,' but there is no guarantee that water will be delivered under the process that Peter Hartcher describes as a 'sinkhole of reform'.

I am not sure that Senator Xenophon overreached. I would say to Paul Kelly, who said that Senator Xenophon had overreached, that he has not overreached. I think he was arguing his position. I do not see that as an overreach. But what he certainly has done is underachieve. Overreached—I do not think so; underachieved—I think yes; a big underachievement on this. Add that to the fair work and registered organisations deal, which is about setting up more committees. There are big underachievements in these areas.

I am not sure what Senator Xenophon is saying the consequences are, because this is the biggest bill the government has before the Senate. This is a bill that is about the coalition's ideology, about taking rights away from working people. I take the view that, if you are going to trade off workers' rights—I would never put myself in that position anyway, but if you are bent towards trading workers' rights away for another issue that you think is important, and I do not underestimate how important water is to South Australia—if you are going to set yourself up for that deal, then at least get a deal that delivers, not something that sends you, as Peter Hartcher says, back to the 'sinkhole of reform', COAG. It is an absolute joke.

I must say, if I were one of the government ministers and I had Senator Xenophon of the Xenophon political party knocking on my door and making threats, I would look back on this week and say, 'Don't worry.' If I were an adviser, I would be saying, 'Don't worry about this team. They are C grade. They're not going to deliver. They're going to jump up and down, they're going to make a lot of noise, but they're not going to deliver.' Look at the key issues that they have brought forward in these Senate sittings: on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill they delivered nothing but caved in; on water—