Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Ludwig. Does the government agree with the ACTU President, Sharan Burrow, who has called for the right to strike on climate change issues?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question. In relation to the Forward with Fairness package, what this government did was to take forward the principles which would underpin the industrial relations system. Those principles that it took forward included those issues which underpinned the new workplace relations system: a Fair Work Australia institution as a one-stop shop and a strong and simple safety net for all Australian workers, including a minimum wage. In respect of the right to strike, the Forward with Fairness policy dealt with those issues in a clear way. What we do is to believe in the umpire’s decision in relation to these issues around industrial relations, unlike the Liberals, who believe in Work Choices, who will not see what happened at the last election and who will not recognise that Work Choices is no longer relevant to the Australian ‘fair go all round’ principle.

What we looked at was how we could ensure that there would be clear, tough rules for industrial action. Those clear, tough rules for industrial action would ensure that, in the Australian government’s new workplace relations system, industrial action will be governed by clear, tough rules. Those rules will ensure that protected industrial action will only be available during collective bargaining if it has been approved by a majority of employees in a mandatory secret ballot. Of course, employees and/or their bargaining representatives will be required to provide to their employer, within three working days, written notice of their intention to take—

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question was about climate change, and that has not yet been mentioned.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: Senator Ludwig is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit. He is less than halfway through his answer, and I am sure that this is no point of order whatsoever and should be ruled out again as a completely spurious point of order.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: it is a rational and reasonable point of order because it is about relevance. The question was directed at the issue of striking on climate change matters.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. As I have said previously, I cannot instruct the minister on how to answer the question. I can draw the minister’s attention to the question and the issue of relevance. The minister has two minutes 13 seconds left.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that those opposite have closed their minds to what I have been talking about. They are in fact not listening to the issue that I am actually going to, which is when you can take protected industrial action under our, fair system—unlike Work Choices, where the Liberals opposite subscribed to a system that ensured it would strip wages and conditions from employees. What the Rudd government is delivering is a fair industrial relations system which will ensure that the contents of agreements will be able to include matters pertaining to the relationship between (a) the employer and the employees, and (b) the employer and any union to be covered by the agreement—and the expression ‘matters pertaining to the employment relationship’ has been used for over a hundred years and brings with it established legal principles. Those established legal principles will ensure that the content that can be bargained off will then be a matter for the parties to the agreement to bargain over. It will also be a matter that that content will ensure that issues within what has been established over a hundred years—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is in relation to relevance. The minister was asked whether he agrees with Sharan Burrow—yes or no?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said before, Senator Ronaldson, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. Minister, I draw your attention to the fact that you have got 46 seconds left on the primary answer and you should be relevant to the question that was asked.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite have failed to understand—in fact, failed to listen to—is that we are talking about an industrial relations system that ensures that people can take protected industrial action and can bargain for an enterprise agreement, and the content of that agreement, as I have been saying, allows them to deal with matters pertaining to the employee-employer relationship and the other matters that I also went to. That ensures that the parties can then determine the content of the agreement and, if they want to bargain over issues that it contains, then they can in fact bargain on those matters. What the opposition subscribed to is a system which ensures that there is not fair bargaining, that employees cannot take protected industrial action— (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the original question was about the ACTU president, Sharan Burrow, calling for the right to strike on climate change issues and the minister has not addressed that, I will ask him: have the government held discussions with Ms Burrow about changing their proposed policy?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are doing is taking Forward with Fairness, our policy that we delivered to the people before the election—and they agreed with it—and bringing it forward. The opposition are complaining because they do not like the idea of their Work Choices being overridden by a fair industrial relations system. That is what they do not like and that is what they are complaining about here. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced how the government will deliver on our commitment to provide clear, tough rules on industrial action. We will deliver on those promises. Unprotected industrial action, like snap strikes, will not be tolerated. Those issues—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, can I relieve the minister of his excruciating embarrassment. Forward with Fairness actually has a section in it which says ‘will not allow industrial action—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on my right!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to be taken or instigated by unions and employees for reasons—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, do you have a point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on relevance. Given that the minister did not want to answer the actual question posed to him and went everywhere through Forward with Fairness but could not stumble across what is actually in Forward with Fairness, which says that they will not allow such action; they specifically rule it out—and the blood is draining from Senator Ludwig’s face, as it should—Mr President, I would invite you to ask the minister to be relevant to the actual issue raised.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: perhaps because of all the interjections from those on the other side Senator Abetz has not been listening to the answer that Senator Ludwig has been—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point of order?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking on the point of order of relevance. Senator Ludwig has absolutely been relevant to the question. The fact that those opposite do not like the answer and do not understand the answer means that this spurious point of order should be ruled out and those opposite should desist.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. As I have said before, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question or what to say in answering the question. I draw the minister’s attention—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am ruling on the point of order. You can take a further point of order in a moment. At this stage the minister has 17 seconds left and must remain relevant to the question. Now, Senator Faulkner.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my further point of order is that, on this occasion, Senator Abetz sought the call from you, did not identify the fact that he was taking a point of order and received the call and, with respect—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, I’m sorry!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, it is not appropriate to interrupt any person in this chamber on their feet and just start speaking. It is perfectly within your entitlement to take a point of order; you did not do that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was given the call. I was given the call by the President.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were given the call; my point of order is you should not have been.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I was explaining, which those opposite are too blinded by Work Choices to understand and/or follow, was that matters that do not pertain to the employment relationship, or the relationship with the employees union as their representatives, cannot be the subject of protected industrial action. If terms and agreements do not meet these criteria, they will be void and unenforceable. That is clear. (Time expired)