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

You know the Australian Labor Party's on the back foot when they raise, as the issue of the day, two sentences out of the maiden speech of the most rookie senator in this place. To pick two sentences out of an excellently crafted speech and to try to make that the issue of the day tells the Australian people, yet again, something they already know—that the Labor Party are devoid of a forward agenda. They have no policies to pursue. Indeed, today's great agenda item for the Labor Party is to attack two sentences in Senator Bragg's first speech. Really? Is this the best the Labor Party can do? Regrettably, the answer's yes—that's the best they can do.

And why is it that the two particular senators that raised this issue felt so compelled to do it? All you've got to do is ask, 'What did they do before they came to this retirement home for washed-out trade union officials?' Oh, they happened to be trade union officials and trade union bosses. And from this super scheme that Senator Bragg referred to, who are the great beneficiaries? Oh, it happens to be the trade union movement. The trade union movement milks money from these funds, and guess where the money finds its way back to? To the Australian Labor Party! And guess what they do with it? They run campaigns to elect their union officials to this place. It is the full circle of the money-go-round of ripping off workers to ensure that the Labor Party gets sufficient funds. Why do they need these super schemes? Because the union officials who have just spoken have seen a decline in trade union membership. They can no longer run on the voluntary contributions of workers wanting to join a union.

Membership in the trade union movement has collapsed. It is now about one in 10 in the private sector. Ninety per cent of Australia's private sector workers don't want to be in a union. 'Oh, how do we get money out of them in that case', asks the Labor Party, 'if we can't force them into a union anymore?' What better way than to have a super scheme which, with a few little add-ones, can be milked to ensure a stream of income for the trade union movement? That is what we've seen today from the contributions of Senator Urquhart and Senator Gallacher, both former trade union officials concerned about the funding stream for their unions for their ongoing longevity.

Let's be clear, Labor senators come into this place basically as ventriloquist's dolls from the trade union that they formerly represented, whereas senators that come in on this side of the chamber come from a unique and varied background. Senators on this side of the chamber aren't ventriloquist's dolls for certain interests. They are not the cookie-cutter types of senators that come from the Labor Party's side. They are all individuals with good dynamic ideas that are worthy of consideration and worthy of exploring.

As the leader in the Senate quite rightly said, just because a new senator in his first speech explores a particular idea in two sentences out of a 20- or 25-minute speech does not make that idea government policy. That is why the Labor Party's latching onto this shows the desperation of the Australian Labor Party. They have no ideas of their own, nothing to offer by way of a positive contribution and nothing to suggest how the cost-of-living pressure might be able to be reduced for the Australian people. They say, 'What is the issue of the day? Let's pick on two sentences from the speech of a brand new senator who floated an idea for consideration.'

Whilst the Labor Party continues to wallow in this type of activity the Australian people will be quite right in their ongoing rejection of the Australian Labor Party. I would encourage the Labor Party to use this facility in the Senate to take note of answers to advance positive ideas for the benefit of the nation. (Time expired)