Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

If we ever needed any evidence of this government's chaotic state of affairs, if we needed any evidence of a government that seems to be lurching from one half-baked proposal to another then I think the evidence is before us with this particular bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. It is less than three months ago that this chamber had the opportunity to consider the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2016. The Prime Minister came away from that crowing about the passage of the legislation restoring the ABCC. He said this was a vital economic reform. Of course, now this government wants to scrap its own reform.

The Labor Party said that the ABCC bill was wrong in principle. We said that it was going to lead to a reduction in productivity and to work sites in this country becoming much more dangerous places. The law passed with the support of many of the crossbenchers, including senators Hinch, Hanson and Xenophon. In fact, they were so proud of the amended bill they helped the government push it through the parliament but it seems that they have had a change of heart as well. Indeed, the specific provisions that are amended by the present bill were proposed for the earlier bill by Senator Hinch and accepted by the government. It is reported that Senator Hinch—and I think he confirmed it here today—had a lunch with the Prime Minister during his summer break. It is quite clear that the Australian working people have been left to pick up the tab for that lunch. We know that this is a continuation on the war against building workers which has been initiated and prosecuted by this government for many years.

We know that one of the great fundamental divides in politics around the question of who gets what, when and why is in the issue of industrial relations. The fundamental question arises because working people want to regulate their working environment so as to improve their capacity to enhance their living standards and their conditions at work, and of course conservatives have argued for the deregulation of the working environment to allow employers the maximum flexibility and maximum capacity to improve their profit position. This fundamental divide has been the issue that has characterised Australian politics for pretty much the last 120 years. The great moments in history have often been around this question of the capacity of unions and working people to defend themselves. The great strikes of the 1890s were such a catalyst for the formation of the Labor Party because of the perception that developed widely in this country that, industrially, workers could secure only so much because they could always rely upon conservative forces using the state to try to bash them into submission.

The capacity of the state to undertake anti-union or union-busting activity has been a hallmark of conservative politics throughout this period. We have seen that through various stages. I will not go through each and every one of them, but the principle remains the same today. The fundamental principle of the Liberal Party is its commitment to union-busting activity. It is not just the smashing of organised labour; it is the smashing of workers' capacity to defend themselves. Why is it that the union most directly in line now is the CFMEU? It is because it is one of the strongest and most effective unions in Australia today. It is not just the smashing of the CFMEU that is at stake here; the issue affects all workers and their capacity to organise. Breaking the CFMEU is fundamental to breaking all unions in this country.

I am particularly concerned by Senator Hinch's role in this. Senator Hinch at the last election made commitments about industrial relations. He made commitments to the Victorian branch of the Labor Party, upon which he received a preference arrangement from us. Senator Hinch, I defy you to deny that. Those commitments have now been broken. You have categorically broken your word on the approach that you would take on industrial relations, a matter of such importance to us that we made it a condition of providing support in preferences at the last election. I put it to you, Senator Hinch, I hope this is your last term, because we will not be doing it again—