Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.

I intend, at the end of the debate on the preceding motion, to move the following motion:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.

At the last election the coalition sought a clear mandate from the Australian people to reinstitute the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to establish the Registered Organisations Commission. So urgent did we consider these reforms that we promised to introduce the relevant legislation in the first week the parliament sat. We did so. Today Labor and the Greens are still frustrating the will of the Australian people by having sent our legislation not to the Senate legislation committees but to a reference committee.

The revelations of recent times—from the Thomson trial to the plea of guilty by the former national ALP president Mr Williamson and the revelations by the ABC and Fairfax Media, along with whistleblowers from the union movement itself, of systemic and sophisticated slush funds dealing in hundreds of thousands of dollars—have provided absolute and unassailable vindication of the coalition's policy positions. These positions have been upheld and supported by people such as Ian Cambridge, who was a Fair Work commissioner; Kathy Jackson, Ralph Blewitt; Mr Giles QC; a former Labor Attorney-General, Rob McClelland—and so the list goes on.

The Labor Party say that we do not need a royal commission and that instead we simply need a task force. But we did have a task force. It was called the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Guess who dismantled it! It was the Labor Party, who are now claiming that we need a police task force to deal with corruption in the building sector. In New South Wales there was a police task force dealing with corruption; and then Labor won government. I will give you one guess as to what happened to that task force. It was abolished. The same thing happened in Western Australia. The Labor Party's actions on such matters speak so much louder than their words.

In moving this motion today, the coalition is seeking to provide an opportunity to Labor and Greens senators to reconsider their attitude to the bills which would reinstate the building and Construction Commission and establish the Registered Organisations Commission. Their attitude seems to be more motivated by their resentment of the decision of the Australian people on 7 September than by the requirements of good governance of our nation.

We all know that, when the Australian Building and Construction Commission existed, industry multifactor productivity rose by 16.8 per cent, that Australian consumers were better off by $7.5 billion per annum and that there was a significant reduction in days lost through industrial action. Labor got rid of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and within weeks there was violence on the streets at the Myer Emporium site, which is run by Grocon and where workers who are members of the union had to take out a paid advertisement asking the CFMEU leadership to desist from thuggery, violence and intimidation. We saw the pictures beamed into living rooms right around the nation of the ugliness of police horses being hit by so-called demonstrators. We know what happens when task forces such as the ABCC are got rid of.

Today we seek to give Labor and the Greens the opportunity to reconsider their attitude. We are seeking as a government to implement a policy position which we set out to the Australian people not only before the 2013 election but also before the 2010 election. We want to restore the rule of law to the construction sector and integrity to the registered organisations movement in this country. The Labor Party and the Greens have a choice: they can be part of the solution, or they can continue to be part of a problem that the Australian people want fixed—and fixed urgently.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have another day and another stunt from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. This stunt is motivated not by the national interest but by the media plan of the Prime Minister's office. It is the latest in a series of stunts which underline two things: first, this government's inability to manage the chamber and, second, that you can always trust the Liberal Party to focus on the Liberal Party's political interests and never on the national interest.

On a day when you would think that the Minister for Employment might want to talk about jobs, given the thousands of workers and their families who are dealing with the news of Toyota's decision to close in light of his government's actions, instead he wants to perform a political stunt—probably at the request of the Prime Minister's office. Here we have a Leader of the Government in the Senate who is too weak to stand up to the Prime Minister's office and manage this chamber. He is a Minister for Employment who never says anything about employment.

We know this partly from what Senator Abetz himself said on the last day he was in this place. Senators might recall that we had a suspension of standing orders debate on the last day of the last sitting period. What—surprise, surprise!—was being required of the Senate then? The Senate had to vote on the carbon package. That was the government's main priority. We had to suspend standing orders and debate it and get it resolved before we rose. That happened on the last day of the last sitting period but the very next sitting day the Leader of the Government in the Senate came in and said, 'Actually, we've changed our minds'—and for that you can read that the Prime Minister's office had changed its media plan—'and we now want to talk about building and construction workers rather than carbon.' Heaven forbid that we might actually talk about jobs! Heaven forbid that we might actually talk about jobs and employment at a time when families are facing the end of their employment—as a result of this government's auto-sector policies. Let us be clear: the Leader of the Government in the Senate does the bidding of the Prime Minister's office. At some point he needs to stand up and manage the chamber properly.

The minister made a number of factual errors in his assertions about the ABCC. My first point is this: it is not unusual—and I am sure that Senator Abetz has on previous occasions lectured the chamber about this—for a bill to be referred for further inquiry. I suggest that it is in fact likely that in times past Senator Abetz has himself referred matters for further inquiry. Second, this is not a long inquiry. The committee is getting on and doing its job. When the committee has reported to the Senate, the Senate will consider the bill. That is how things work here in the Senate. I also make the point that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has considered this legislation and has raised concerns about the bill's trespass on personal rights and liberties. But this is not, of course, a government that is interested in scrutiny, accountability or the public interest. The senator also talked about Labor's announcement of its support for a task force involving the Australian Crime Commission and police across the country. He said, 'Well, we previously had a task force—it was called the ABCC.' Let us be very clear: the ABCC did not have the power to investigate criminal matters. It was an industrial watchdog. It was there to police industrial laws; it was not there to deal with police matters.

We on this side, the Labor Party, will have no truck with those involved in corruption and we will not support anything other than the strongest form of investigation by the police into allegations of criminal conduct. That is what we are supporting. What we will not be part of is a stunt that is all about a government media plan and not about getting outcomes. This motion demonstrates yet again that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is simply seeking to manage the chamber in accordance with the media plan imposed by the Prime Minister's office. Labor will not be supporting the motion.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing changes, does it? Here we have an attempt by the government to bring forward debate on very important legislation—very important to the employees in these industries whose rights are being trampled upon and whose wealth is being thieved by union officials—to progress a debate on how to protect the rights of those workers. And what does Senator Wong stand up and want to have a debate about? All the internal stuff—the Prime Minister's office's alleged dealings with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and media plans. There is something about the Australian Labor Party. They just cannot get beyond the fact that they are a bunch of wannabe West Wing characters. It is all inside the Beltway. It is all about the politics within the politics. It is never about the merits of the issue.

The other thing I thought very notable about Senator Wong's performance in the chamber a few moments ago is that she failed to advert to one very significant relevant fact: which union, infamous for its lawlessness, infamous for its violence, infamous for its corruption, felt most threatened by the Australian Building and Construction Commission and would be most threatened by its reintroduction? As we know, it is the CFMEU. And for which union was Senator Penny Wong an official before she came into this parliament? I am here to tell you that it was the CFMEU.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't know that!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, that is the case, Senator Fifield. Senator Wong speaks in this parliament as the agent, the proxy, the delegate, the apologist and the former official of the CFMEU. No wonder Senator Wong and the Labor Party in general want to protect the CFMEU and other violent, lawless, crooked trade unions from the scrutiny and the enforcement of the rule of law which this government is determined to bring to them in the interests of the innocent workers, the innocent union members, whose lives are controlled by union officials.

Indeed, Senator Wong was an official of the CFMEU just as Mr Bill Shorten, before he came into the parliament, was an official of the Australian Workers Union—in fact, he was the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. I see Senator Doug Cameron over there. Good afternoon, Senator Cameron, and happy new year to you. Senator Cameron comes into this place as the delegate of his union. What was it, Senator Cameron? The AMWU? I see Senator Gallacher over there and other Labor Party senators, all of them, virtually without exception, sent into this place to be apologists for the trade union movement. One would look in vain, for the reform of trade unions, to the very people who owe their places in this parliament to the trade unions and who, in most cases, were themselves the very trade union officials who controlled those unions.

We, the government, are determined to bring lawfulness back to the workplace. We are determined to reinstitute the ABCC. We are determined to reform the law in relation to registered organisations to ensure that they observe the rule of law, that they respect their members' funds and that they conduct their union in accordance with the rights of the workers. Senator Cameron and others are famous for invoking the question: what about the workers? I will tell you, Senator Cameron, what about the workers. This coalition government is the best friend the workers of Australia have ever had, but we are determined to be the worst enemy that the corrupt, violent, thuggish, trade union officials have ever had—and we will ensure that the rule of law governs them.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an ideological rant from Senator Brandis. He started with a totally hypocritical statement claiming that the previous speech, by Senator Wong, was about politics, not about the true merits of the issue, and then he spent his entire time engaged in an ideological rant against the unions and an attempt to frame people's contributions in the Senate as being somehow governed by particular jobs that they may have held previously. What an appalling state of affairs.

We will not be supporting a suspension of standing orders because, apart from anything else, the Prime Minister has spent the entire summer running around the country telling Australia that the government's first item of business in parliament would be to get rid of carbon pricing. That is what they were going to do. Nothing was going to stand in their way—nothing, until they hit upon a political scam that they decided to go after in an attempt to demonise the union movement in Australia. That is exactly what has gone on here.

There is one emergency in this country about which I would like to inform Senator Abetz—the climate emergency. In case he has not noticed, there are bushfires burning across Victoria. Heatwaves, extreme weather events, have claimed many lives this summer. In fact, in Victoria, there has been double the death toll than there would have been in normal circumstances. People right around the world are struggling in the face of these extreme weather events and yet the government wants to tear down the only policy framework we have in place that is starting to address the climate emergency, by bringing down emissions in the electricity sector.

Are we to believe from this that the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, has spent the entire summer telling Australia something that is not true? What they have worked out is that the Australian community has got to the point where it no longer trusts the government on the issue of climate and now we are witnessing an attempt to distract the community from the realities of what is happening in the physical world out there in local Australian communities. People are really worried about having to deal with the ongoing impacts of heatwaves and fires. They are disturbed when they hear, as we heard on the radio today, about extreme weather in the United Kingdom and the possibility of the Thames bursting its banks. Right across the planet, people are worrying about the impacts of climate change. The Prime Minister said that his first job was going to be to humiliate the nation by tearing down the clean energy package—that was what he was going to do. The politics are now such that he has decided that such a course of action would not serve his political interests, because what he wants to do is frame his government as one which will tear down yet something else. The only thing that he is good at is tearing things down, not building things up—not creating infrastructure for the future; just tearing down what we have.

The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the re-establishment of the ABCC is really important. It is important because it will expose the fact that the ABCC will have some of the most draconian and coercive powers ever seen in Australia. These building and construction industry laws take away the right to silence; they deny people their choice of lawyer; they provide powers to compel evidence, with the threat of jail if witnesses do not comply; and they impose severe restrictions on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively. These measures were undemocratic and discriminatory at the time they were brought in, and they should never be reinstated. I am keen to see as much evidence as possible go before that Senate committee and am prepared for it to take as long as it takes.

The Greens have consistently campaigned against ABCC establishment laws and for their abolition, and the reinstatement of the ABCC would be a return to the most extreme and draconian elements of former Prime Minister John Howard's Work Choices. It is an anti-union ideology and it is an underhand attack on wages and conditions. We are not going to support a naked political agenda, and we want to put a consistent message to the government today—and that message is Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, has run away from his promise to the nation in relation to climate.

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

We have had laid bare before the Senate today the ideological agenda of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party have just laid bare their hatred for workers acting collectively to get better wages and better conditions. Senator Brandis opened his little effort by saying that nothing changes. Well, nothing changes in the Liberal Party—because the Liberal Party really do want to return to Work Choices. Senator Abetz sighs, but Senator Abetz was a Work Choices warrior and he still is a Work Choices warrior.

We have to look at the ABCC in the context of what is happening in the industry. We heard a tirade from Senator Brandis, but let me tell you what the Australian Industry Group said to the inquiry of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The AiG want the ABCC to be reinstated because it gives them more power, gives their members more control, diminishes wages, diminishes conditions and stops workers organising effectively to look after their families and their communities. Senator Brandis ranted about lawlessness throughout the industry, but the AiG said 'there are incidents of isolated personal impropriety.' Every organisation has at some stage faced isolated personal impropriety, including the Liberal and National parties. Every organisation, every business, from time to time faces isolated personal impropriety. But do you then set up an ABCC or call a royal commission designed to deny people the rights that apply around the world to workers to act collectively and look after their families? No you do not. There is an inflated position being put by the Liberal Party that there is this issue of general malfeasance in the industry, and it is not true.

The AiG, when they are pursued on this in the inquiry that is so important, say that people who represent employer organisations and unions at the decision-making level—the board level of organisations; the executive level of unions—are overwhelmingly dedicated and ethical people. If you listened to Senator Brandis, you would think that everyone in the industry was a crook. It is not true. This is about a political attack, an ideological attack, on the union movement. They try and present a union like the CFMEU, that is out there trying to protect its members' interests in a tough industry, as overwhelmingly crooked. It is not true. It is just not true.

The biggest laugh I got out of Senator Brandis's little argument was: 'The coalition is the best friend workers ever had'! Tell that to Dr Sharman Stone. Tell that to the National Party. Tell the workers at SPC that the coalition is their best friend. Tell that to the workers at Holden, at Ford, at Toyota—that the coalition is their best friend. They know that the coalition has walked away from protecting jobs and protecting communities in this country because of some macroeconomic ideological position— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In moving to bring in the legislation relating to the re-establishment of the ABCC and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, what have we seen from the other side? We have seen nothing but more obstruction from the other side of this chamber. I think it is about time that those on the other side of this chamber realised that on 7 September the Australian people made a decision that they wanted the coalition to run the country, and I can tell you that they are fed up with the obstructionist attitude we are seeing from the other side of this chamber and, indeed, from the Labor Party and the minor parties in general.

For Senator Cameron to say that the coalition has a hatred for workers is absolutely beyond the pale. I am a farmer. I live in a regional community. I live with workers. I reach out to workers. I am at the local pub with workers. So don't you dare tell me that this side of the chamber has a hatred for workers. The fact that Senator Cameron says that we want to return to Work Choices—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have got nothing else. It is because the Labor Party have—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As to the fact that Senator Cameron says that the coalition wants to return to Work Choices: absolute rubbish! That is all you can do. No wonder the Australian people did not want to vote for you, because all you had was a scare campaign that was based on nothing, and the Australian people know it and they know it was because you had nothing to offer them. As to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate saying in here earlier that this process is a stunt: the very fact that this process has been spoken about by the leader, Senator Abetz, saying that we would be bringing this legislation back in and trying to get it back into the chamber hardly means that it is a stunt. Even the Prime Minister said, as recently as the last couple of days, that we were going to get the tough cop back on the beat in relation to the ABCC.

Do you know why we are doing this today? Because the Australian people expect us to do it. They are fed up. They are fed up with the environment in the construction industry. Why on earth would Labor and the Greens refer this to a committee? Labor have already said that they are going to oppose it. Why are they bothering wasting the time? The people of this nation expect us to have a proper process that will have oversight over the construction industry.

Isn't it interesting—and perhaps those on the other side have not availed themselves of some facts around the ABCC; I am sure they do not want to hear this—that, in the five years before 2005, the dispute rate in the construction sector was five times the all-industries average? From 2005 to 2012, the period of operation of the ABCC, the rate of disputes in the construction sector dropped to twice the all-industries average. Under the current regulator, Fair Work Building and Construction, the dispute rate has increased to four times the all-industries figure. Why on earth wouldn't we expect to see this legislation in here today so that we can fix the issues?

We have seen the Thomson trial, the slush fund, the whistleblowers—the coalition is acting absolutely appropriately in trying to bring this legislation in here today, to do the right thing by the Australian people, because it is not just the coalition that want to see this legislation in here; it is the people of Australia who expect us to put in place proper processes for oversight so we can get rid of all of those activities, all of those things that Senator Abetz mentioned earlier, that are untenable to see in the operation of the industry.

This is an opportunity for Labor and the Greens to reconsider. They can, right here, right now, reconsider and allow this legislation to come in—and, indeed, change their view, because they are so hung up on hanging on to the past. We have seen Senator Wong in here saying that it is a stunt. They have absolutely nothing to offer the Australian people. It is about time they respected the views of the people of Australia when they said on 7 September: 'We want the coalition to govern this nation. We have heard what they are saying. We have heard what their policies are. We have heard where the coalition wants to take this nation. And we say yes.' It is about time that those on the other side of the chamber respected that. This legislation should come in today and it should be passed.