Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Obviously that is the whole point I am making: it is now Minister Watt. But those on the other side seem to have conveniently forgotten that they are now in government. And guess what? When you are in government you get to assume responsibility. You do not get to come in here in response to questions and mislead the chamber. I don't know whether any minister in the history of the Australian parliament, in his first four question times from three different senators, has ever received three letters stating that he has misled the Australian Senate and the Australian people. But that is what we have seen.

Minister Watt, who is now accountable under the Albanese government's Code of Conduct for Ministers—he might want to actually read the code of conduct, because at section 4, responsibility, it actually says this:

Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the Parliament.

That is directly what Senator Roberts's motion goes to: misleading the Australian parliament, and in this case misleading the Australian Senate. The Albanese government's Code of Conduct for Ministers then goes on to say:

It is a Minister's personal responsibility to ensure that any error or misconception in relation to such a matter is corrected or clarified, as soon as practicable and in a manner appropriate to the issues and interests involved.

And what do we see from the Minister Watt? I'm going to get to the letter he wrote to me shortly in relation to the issue that I raised on misleading the Australian Senate and the Australian people.

What we have seen to date is an excuse, another excuse, blaming the former government, personal attacks on Senator Malcolm Roberts and personal attacks on Senator Bridget McKenzie. Again I go to that very well-known former Prime Minister who said words to the effect of, 'Once they have to attack me personally, I have won the policy debate.' Given the phrase that is now being utilised in relation to Minister Watt by those on the other side, 'Misleading Murray', I can only assume that he agrees that he has misled the Senate, because he only has excuses and he only has personal attacks.

Foot-and-mouth disease entering this country, on any analysis, is a very, very serious issue. When you look at the impact on the Australian economy, it is estimated, I think, that the potential impact to our agricultural industry is around $80 billion. Minister Watt comes in with excuse after excuse after excuse and personal attack after personal attack after personal attack but still fails to actually answer the questions posed by Minister Robert and Senator McKenzie. The Australian people deserve answers from this government. Interest rates—good grief!— rose yet again yesterday. Can you imagine, if foot-and-mouth disease gets into this country, what it will do to the cost of living for the Australian people?

In relation to answers provided to me in question time on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the reasons given by the Albanese government for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, I also had to write to Minister Watt, and I had to raise with him the following: 'in question time on Wednesday, 27 July 2022, in response to a question from me in which I asked the following'. And I quoted:

What consultation did the minister have with the construction industry and/or the Australian Building and Construction Commission prior to and in relation to the snap announcement on Sunday, 24 July 2022, that the ABCC in its powers will be pulled back to the bare legal minimum as of yesterday?

I then quoted back to Minister Watt his response. In part, he said this:

That is because we have seen a gross waste of taxpayers' funds prosecuting workers for stickers on their helmets and flags on their worksites.

On any analysis, that statement is misleading. Why? Because, colleagues, guess what: it is legally incorrect. The response was misleading. Let me tell you why. Journalists may be interested that one of the prime reasons that the Albanese government are running around saying they have to get rid of the tough cop on the beat in the building and construction industry is that it has 'seen a gross waste of taxpayers' funds prosecuting workers for stickers on their helmets and flags on their worksites'. Let me enlighten colleagues as to why this is misleading the Australian Senate. In the first instance, the Australian Building and Construction Commission has never—never—prosecuted a worker or a union for workers wearing stickers on their helmets or flying flags in their worksites—strike 1. There has never been a prosecution by the Australian Building and Construction Commission in this regard. Not only that but, in relation to the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work, which was in place before it was neutered just recently, guess what: it actually didn't enable—there was no legal basis—the Australian Building and Construction Commission to take an action against a union or a worker. Why? Because the code specifically applies to code covered entities.

You might say 'Well, Michaelia—Senator Cash—you're ideological when it comes to the ABCC.' I'm actually not; I just believe in a tough cop on the beat and I believe in the building and construction industry. But, when you actually have a minister coming into this chamber and giving a statement that is legally incorrect—because (a) there has never been a prosecution and (b) there is no legal basis for the Australian Building and Construction Commission to actually undertake such a prosecution—you would think that the minister would write back to you, colleagues, and just admit it. Instead, the answer that I have received from Minister Watt—and I'm more than happy to table it if people would like to read it—makes every excuse in the world as to how the Australian Labor Party justify the statements they are making but does not go anywhere near the fact that there has never been a prosecution by the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

As to the actual case they keep referring to, the Lendlease case, they failed to tell the Australian people that it was actually brought by Lendlease, not the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was brought by Lendlease. The union intervened to support Lendlease. The ABCC were required to give evidence. Let's now turn to the judgement of the court. Of course, those on the other side say they actually respect the independence of the judiciary, but then they fail to acknowledge that, in 91 per cent of cases, the judiciary have actually found in favour of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And, in the Lendlease case, guess what? The judiciary found in favour of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

So, again, when I look at Senator Roberts's motion, when I look at the fact that in this place there have now been only four question times, when I look at the fact that, in relation to those four question times, those on the other side have now coined the phrase 'Misleading Murray' in relation to Minister Watt, the fact that Minister Watt has now received three letters—