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

(   I move:

That the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Regulation 2014 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 147 and made under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012, be disallowed.

This disallowance motion goes to the question of fairness, it goes to the question of the government's ideology and it goes to the continuing theme of austerity programs hitting ordinary Australians. In my view, this regulation epitomises the problems with this government. It is another example of its mean and tricky approach. This is a regulation that sets about trying to bypass the proper procedures of the Senate. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill is still on the Senate Notice Paper, and yet what we have is this Fair Entitlements Guarantee Regulation being brought in to reduce the terms and conditions that apply to ordinary Australians who just happen to be in a position where their company is either bankrupt or closes down through no fault of the employee.

The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act provides financial assistance, called an advance, to cover certain unpaid entitlements for eligible employees who lose their job due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer. This includes assistance for up to 13 weeks of unpaid wages, unpaid annual and long service leave, up to five weeks payment in lieu of notice and redundancy pay which is currently capped at four weeks pay per full year of service. That is what existed under the previous Labor government. It was brought about to ensure that ordinary Australians who end up losing their jobs through no fault of their own, where a company goes into liquidation or bankruptcy, have some capacity to rebuild their lives.

The 2012 regulation was made under section 50 of the act to extend financial assistance to contract outworkers in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. Textile, clothing and footwear contract outworkers were not otherwise eligible to receive an advance under the act as they do not have an employment relationship with the person engaging them to perform the work. The 2012 regulation brought textile, clothing and footwear contract outworkers under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme by modifying the application of certain sections of the act to reflect the contractual arrangements under which TCF contract outworkers are engaged.

As part of the 2014-15 budget—the budget that has been condemned on the basis of lack of fairness; the budget that has been condemned on the basis of the ideology of this government—it was announced that the maximum redundancy pay entitlement under the act would be aligned with the maximum set by the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act 2009. The new maximum redundancy pay entitlement will be the equivalent of 16 weeks pay—far less than workers would receive under Labor's standard. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 gives effect to this budget measure, and Labor will oppose the bill. The bill has not been passed by the Senate and this regulation is an attempt to bypass that approach.

The amendment provides that the scheme created by the 2012 regulation continues to apply to TCF contract outworkers but will align with the 2014-15 budget measure reflected in the bill by providing that the new maximum redundancy pay entitlement that is payable to TCF contract outworkers will be the equivalent of 16 weeks pay, even if a contract outworker's actual entitlement exceeds that amount. The amending regulation also implements some technical amendments to reflect the changes that have been made by the bill. These technical amendments clarify that where a TCF contract outworker is eligible for an advance under the regulation, the claimant's initial entitlement will be calculated without reference to any amount required to be withheld by law, such as pay as you go tax withholding. It will clarify that the death of a TCF contract outworker does not prevent that person from being eligible for an advance to enable the next of kin or the estate to pursue a claim. It will clarify that, when a debt owed by a TCF contract outworker to the specified person is greater than the entitlement to which it relates, it can be offset proportionally against any of the claimant's other entitlements that form their advance. It will remove the eligibility requirement for a TCF contract outworker who was owed debts prior to the insolvency event to have taken reasonable steps to be paid those debts and, instead, allow the secretary of the department to reduce a TCF contract outworker's entitlement by the amount of any debts that he or she did not take reasonable steps to be paid.

Outworkers in the TCF industry are workers who perform work usually in their home and are widely acknowledged to be a class of workers who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Outworkers are entitled to most of the same benefits of employment as other workers in the TCF industry and should also have access to all of the benefits available to other workers in the TCF industry if their employer becomes insolvent or bankrupt. According to the 2014-15 budget papers, the government will achieve savings of $87.7 million over four years by aligning redundancy payments under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to the National Employment Standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. This will include savings from minimising payments to contract outworkers in the TCF industry.

The government will say that contract outworkers will still be able to pursue redundancy entitlements they are owed in excess of 16 weeks through the normal processes available to creditors in insolvencies. While this is true in a technical sense, it is highly unlikely to result in contract outworkers recovering anywhere near the entitlements owed to them due to the difficulties. This is because TCF outworkers are marginalised from traditional employment structures. There are language and cultural barriers. They have a lack of access to legal advice. They suffer financial constraints. Outworkers are contractors and are thus unsecured creditors with a lower priority than employees under insolvency law. The changes to the FEG originated from recommendation 47 of the infamous Commission of Audit report. The Commission of Audit recommended changes be made to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Scheme to: (a) introduce a cap of a maximum redundancy payment equivalent to 16 weeks pay; and (b) limit the wage base for the scheme to the average weekly earnings.

In July last year, employment minister Eric Abetz had been assuring workers in a letter to workers. In that letter he said:

… you can be satisfied that there is no risk to your entitlements …

I would have to say this is one of the most disingenuous letters I have seen in this place. It would be worth just spending a few minutes on this letter. This letter was signed by Minister Abetz on 17 July 2013 and was to an employee and workers at Autodom in Monash Drive, Dandenong South. Obviously, these are workers who are very concerned that they would lose their jobs—as will many, many workers in the car component sector—as a result of this government's deliberate policy to chase the car industry out of this country. Senator Abetz, in this letter, goes on to say:

Dear Pierre

Thank you for your letter of 1th July, 2013.

It is a matter of regret that you have been somehow led to believe that the Coalition would abolish the 'entitlements guarantee' if elected.

You may recall that it was in fact the Coalition that introduced the GEER Scheme or a General Employees Entitlement Redundancy Scheme.

That was a scheme that was introduced when the brother of the past Prime Minister John Howard ran into some problems with his textile company in the Maitland area. Senator Abetz goes on to say:

This was the first time in Australian history that such a Scheme was developed to protect workers in a position such as your own, and that of your fellow workers.

It then goes on to say:

Given the pedigree and heritage, you can be assured that the Coalition would not seek to do anything that would water down these important protections for Australian workers.

That goes completely against what this government has done in this regulation. Let me just say that again:

Given that pedigree and heritage, you can be assured that the Coalition would not seek to do anything that would water down these important protections for Australian workers.

Some seven or so weeks ago, I released the Coalition's Workplace Relations policy with the Coalition leader, Mr Tony Abbott.

We were explicit in the policy that but for the changes proposed in that document we would not make any other changes. We have not flagged any changes to the slightly modified entitlements guarantee that currently exists.

Accordingly, you can be satisfied that there is no risk to your entitlements and I would invite you to pass a copy of this letter to all your fellow workers with a reminder that it was in fact the Coalition that introduced this Scheme. It is noteworthy that not even the Hawke or Keating Governments considered such a Scheme and it was left for the Coalition to develop and implement.

It is always helpful when it is the Prime Minister's brother that runs into trouble and the scheme is introduced then! And it is signed: 'Yours sincerely, Eric Abetz, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.'

I asked Senator Abetz questions in relation to this on Wednesday, 24 September in this place. Senator Abetz used the lawyer's trick of trying to redefine the question. When I quoted the position that the coalition 'have not flagged any changes to the slightly modified entitlements guarantee that currently exists and you can be satisfied there is no risk to your entitlements' and asked if this undertaking was true, Senator Abetz, on 24 September, replied: 'Yes.' But here we are now with a position where there are significant changes. The workers in Autodom were under the illusion—and it was certainly an illusion—that the coalition would protect their entitlements. If they are still there and this regulation is in place then they will be worse off. This letter means nothing. The only thing that the letter means is that that complete lack of honesty with the Australian public continues with the coalition government. They even put it in writing—they put it in writing to workers, and those workers will be worse off. When I asked Senator Abetz:

Why has the minister broken this personal promise to Mr Rault by reducing workers' entitlements under the fair entitlements guarantee?

Senator Abetz said:

There are two separate questions there.

This is the trickiness—you know, the nasty, tricky approach.

The first question was whether or not there would be changes to the entitlements of the person with whom I corresponded. The simple fact is that in the event this parliament makes any changes, they will not be retrospective. As a result, that person's entitlements were at all times protected. That is why I was able to very clearly answer yes to Senator Cameron's ill-thought-out first question.

Well, it was not an ill-thought-out first question. It was simply trying to protect workers and understand what had happened to workers. Workers cannot trust the coalition government, they cannot trust the Prime Minister and they cannot trust Senator Abetz because it is clear that this mean, tricky, nasty approach from this coalition is based on ideology. Some austerity approach from this government is what dominates its thinking. It does not matter if you write to a worker and say, 'Tell all your workmates everything's going to be okay; we won't be reducing the entitlements'—because what happens? The entitlements are reduced. I do not know how you would describe that in any way but as a continuation of the coalition's lies to the Australian public. That is what it is.

This is a very serious issue. It is simply a cost-cutting measure. It is not about worrying whether workers get some financial support at a time when they lose their jobs—it is not about that. It is about an ideology that says individuals can be left on their own, and diminishing this entitlement is the first step to leaving them on their own. I am of the view that workers around the country should be very worried. When the coalition starts diminishing entitlements for workers, it is only the start. What we have to look at is what will be left behind. What will be the wreckage of protection for workers after a term of this government? My view is that it will say, 'We won't be making any of these changes; we will not be reintroducing Work Choices.' I have to say to you: nobody can trust this government and nobody can trust this minister on anything they say.

This piece of correspondence just says it all. When faced with this correspondence, we get this tricky approach, with the government trying to use weasel words to get around the implications for the workers. The view of the workers at Autodom was, 'This government won't be taking my entitlements away.' Yet what happens? Senator Abetz comes in here, will not take the issue up for debate within the Senate but passes regulations to do exactly what he said he would not do in this correspondence. Workers cannot be reassured by this government.

We see at the moment that the mining industry is shedding jobs. The car industry is closing down. The components sector is under huge pressure and not being given any support to try to recalibrate its approach in manufacturing. You will see more and more jobs being lost, and those workers will be, in the first instance, left with entitlements that are lesser than the entitlements provided by the previous government. It is simply about an austerity approach, underpinned by ideology, to say: 'We will not support workers to give them a fair go when they lose their jobs.' It will not simply be this one step; there will be other steps, in my view, down the track.

There is absolutely no plan for jobs from this government. The member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Hendy, said that we need to create a desperately needed job plan. Even the coalition's own members are saying they need a job plan. While jobs are going, they are diminishing the entitlements that workers had under the previous government. They have deliberately set policy that means more jobs are going. This is a pincer approach by this mob. They are taking entitlements away from workers, and there will be some legal argument—some spin—that we will hear later tonight, but I have to say to you: this is not acceptable. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bullying is an act of cowardice. It is the bigger kid in the playground pushing the smaller kid around and kicking them when they are down. But, in the end, it just highlights the insecurities of the bully.

I speak today in support of the motion to disallow the government's proposed Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Regulation 2014 (No. 1). The amended regulation is, in every sense of the word, bullying. People working in the textile, clothing and footwear sectors are already under pressure. Many of the Australian companies in this industry are facing huge challenges from international competition, not helped by reduced tariffs. We have seen many of these local businesses close down because they are no longer viable. The workers in the sector are predominantly women, working on low wages, and they will find it extremely difficult to find work elsewhere if not supported by the government in times of need.

The contract outworkers who are targeted by this regulation usually work from home and are more vulnerable to discrimination. While they are afforded many of the same employment benefits as others in the textile, clothing and footwear industry, this would severely disadvantage these outworkers if, through no fault of their own, their employer became insolvent or bankrupt. This regulation would cut the maximum payment they received from four weeks for every year of service to a maximum of 16 weeks, regardless of the number of years they have served. This is a significant blow to workers who are already some of the most disadvantaged in our community.

Trust is such an integral quality to Australian business, as Senator Cameron pointed out. Customers trust local companies to provide a quality product and employers trust their staff to deliver. Without this trust, the local textile, clothing and footwear industry simply could not compete with overseas rivals, who have much lower overheads. We would all agree that workers should be able to trust that their work will produce proper reward. But this proposal will hit those who have been working the longest and are well into their working lives. It could even be their last job. You would hope that, if you have been a loyal employee for a long period of time—if you are an older worker who might be looking towards retirement—there will be safeguards to ensure that, should your employer go under, through no fault of your own, you get the payout you are entitled to.

These workers are skilled through a wealth of experience, but would find it extremely difficult to retrain, and have been banking on their jobs to see them through to retirement. The current scheme says to workers, 'If you find yourself in a situation, tomorrow, where all of a sudden your employer has just gone under, you knew nothing about it and there is no money there, the government has got your back.' It says, 'It's not your fault that you were loyal to your employer and that you worked for them for a long time. It's not your fault that the company has gone under. It might have been bad management decisions; it might have been illegal activity; it might have been the consequences of a shifting economy. But it is not your fault.'

But this regulation tells these workers, 'If you find yourself in that situation, we're only going to pay you a portion of what you're entitled to. We don't care about your loyalty. If the money's not there, bad luck.' It tells them, 'We'll continue to give billions in subsidies to the likes of Gina Rinehart so that she and her buddies can buy cheap fuel, but when it comes to an actual jobs plan and transitioning this country to a clean energy economy, we're going to ignore it.'

Why is the government attacking these workers? There is absolutely no evidence that the scheme is being abused. The reality is that this is nothing more than an ideological policy—a policy that was never mentioned going into the last election. This is a punch in the guts to older workers, who should be entitled to think that their loyalty is worth something. They have earned their annual leave. They have earned their long service leave. And although they would rather keep working, they have earned their redundancy payment.

The Greens are very proud to stand by these workers. It is not their fault that they have been put in this difficult situation. They are dedicated workers, and we should be giving them what they deserve. Instead, the government wants to kick them while they are down. So I say to the government: go pick on someone your own size.

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

The government supports this regulation but is mindful of the fact that the numbers in this place are against it. Therefore, I can indicate at the outset, given the event that is taking place in the Great Hall, we will not be seeking to divide on this particular regulation.

Having said that, I want to put the case very strongly as to why the government is advocating for this regulation change. When the Howard government first introduced GEERS, it was designed to ensure that workers got part of their entitlements. So, with respect, I say to Senator Rice that in the coalition's GEERS and the Labor Party's FEG—which was introduced in the dying days of that discredited government in a sop to certain individuals—the situation was very clear under both schemes that annual leave and long service leave were not covered. So, her suggestion that this has been taken from workers is simply wrong. It has never been covered by this scheme, so she might like to talk to whoever informed her about that and indicate that their research could potentially be enhanced.

This is a regulation that is based on the passage of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill, and therefore we are debating a regulation that is specifically related to the textile, clothing and footwear sector. I indicate that this regulation would simply bring the TCF sector into the same category as other workers in the event that that amending legislation was carried. Not a single worker, to date, has benefited under this legislation in the textile, clothing and footwear sector. That is the reality. So of all these people whom Senator Rice and others have sought to talk about, nobody has made a claim in the two years since the Labor Party and the Greens forced this through the Senate. Having said that—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why change it?

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

A very good point. Senator Lines interjects and asks why we are changing it. The reason we are changing it is that the nation regrettably faces a fiscal challenge courtesy of the reckless spending of Labor and the Greens, especially in the past three years of office.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That tired old chestnut!

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

Senator Rice and Senator Lines can shake their heads. They can use whatever language or demonstrative behaviour they like but the reality is, and the Australian people know, that today, as we speak, courtesy of Labor's legacy of deficit and debt, we are borrowing $1,000 million per month to pay the interest on the existing loans. Guess who has got to pay that back with interest—the next generation.

As a government, we have our eyes to the next generation. We cannot look our children in the eyes and say that it is good management for our nation to borrow money from overseas to potentially enable extra funds to be paid. Let's make no mistake: government has no money. Government gets its money from taxpayers. So if you want to put some extra money into a fellow Australian's pocket you first have to sneak it out of somebody else's pocket. It is called equity; it is called what is reasonable.

Under Labor's own national employment standards, legislated in the Fair Work Act, the minimum on the redundancy is 16 weeks. That is what we are seeking to implement in the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and in the particular regulation of which we are speaking tonight. There is nothing radical here. There is nothing to be concerned about, albeit dramatised by Senator Cameron and others

I was interested to hear Senator Rice's contribution in relation to alleged fuel subsidies. I thought we as a coalition—Senator Fifield—were interested in passing a fuel tax—

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

Indeed!

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

which the Greens are opposing. Consistency has never been a strong suit of the Australian Greens. With Senator Rice's entry into the Senate as a newly elected senator from Victoria, I had hoped—quite foolishly, it appears—that there might be some integrity and robustness added to the Greens in the contributions in this debate but, in a very short period of time, it is clear that Senator Rice has fallen into lock step with her Greens colleagues of not being concerned about the integrity of their arguments. In relation to Senator Rice, this has been a policy implemented by Labor that has been around for about two years, implemented in the death throes of the previous government.

Her argument on cheap fuel, I have dealt with. I have also indicated that taxpayers' money—if you want to make money available to fellow Australians you first have to take it out of other Australians' pockets, unless you borrow it from overseas. The matters on which she opined in relation to annual leave and long-service leave, in any event, are not covered by FEG.

I turn to Senator Cameron's contribution. My letter clearly indicated that we had no intention of abolishing the entitlements guarantee, and the person to whom I wrote clearly had that in mind when expressing their concern. One wonders where they would have got that concern from. Senator Cameron indicated that this is a cost-cutting measure. Yes, it is a budget measure. It is, regrettably, a measure that needs to be taken to make our budget balance. How else are we going to repay the huge debt that has been left us? Do we simply defer it and say, 'Look, we're going to have a great time and let the kids pay it off'? Absolutely irresponsible. We believe in intergenerational equity. We believe in intergenerational justice. We believe that this generation needs to take into account its financial responsibilities and not leave a legacy of deficit and debt as previous Labor governments have on such a regular basis.

You know when Labor are struggling. Paul Howes has belled the cat on that. Former ACTU president and former distinguished Labor minister Martin Ferguson has said it. You know Labor are losing a debate in the area of workplace relations when they mention the words Work Choices. Sure enough, Senator Cameron did exactly that. It is that which so many other Labor luminaries—genuine luminaries—have warned the Australian people about, that when Labor are losing an argument in this space they will always have recourse to chant 'workplace relations'.

Senator Cameron said that the government does not have a jobs plan. I say to the honourable senator that he is wrong. We got rid of the carbon tax—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair rather than at the senator.

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

I thought I said 'the honourable senator'—that is, I would have thought, in accord with the standing orders, Madame Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator said that there was no jobs plan for the nation. The honourable senator is wrong because we do, in fact, have a plan. It was about abolishing the carbon tax. Labor and the Greens opposed it right up until the Senate changed, and then they still opposed it. We now know that people in the manufacturing sector—those who did survive the carbon tax—will have it foisted upon them in the event a Labor government is re-elected.

Similarly, there is the abolition of the mining tax. We got rid of the mining tax to assist workers remain in jobs. Indeed, the free trade agreements that we have been able to negotiate—things that Labor said could not be achieved—that will be jobs-rich and wealth-creating for our country have been ridiculed and were spoken of in negative terms in question time today by honourable senators opposite.

We have removed green and red tape. We are bringing the budget back into shape. Everybody with one ounce of economic sense and understanding knows that those measures are job-creating by their very nature. We do have a jobs plan. Indeed, it was my pleasure to host a meeting of the L20, a component of the G20, of labour and employment ministers in Melbourne, in September of this year, and then address the L20 in Brisbane, on Thursday last week. We put out a jobs plan. Australia's leadership on the international scene has been so very important in ensuring that we have real economic growth, because we know that with real economic growth you achieve employment growth.

Please do not come into this place and assert that somehow this is a government without a jobs plan. We went to the last election and indicated what our jobs plan was and the methodology by which we would achieve it. Regrettably, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens used the first nine months—indeed, the first quarter—of this government's term in seeking to stop every single measure that we had sought to introduce to create jobs and wealth. Thanks to the crossbenchers, we are now making progress. We are seeing the abolition of things such as the carbon and mining taxes, we are seeing the reduction of green and red tape and we look forward to the benefits that the free trade agreements will produce.

I note that my colleague Minister Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, in the first 12 months of office has been able to approve $1 trillion worth of projects—what a huge figure. Why has he been able to do it? The Labor-Greens government could not bring themselves to do that which they should have done during their last term of government—namely, approve a whole lot of projects that were backlogged and which have now been relieved through the proper decision making of my colleague the Minister for the Environment. Will all the projects go ahead? That I do not know, but what I do know is that they should not have been stifled by the Labor-Greens government that was paralysed from decision making for fear that they might lose a particular vote, putting their own political future ahead of Australian jobs. Our record in the first 12 months of government is a record of seeking to kick every possible goal for job creation in this country. Regrettably, for the first nine months, we were absolutely frustrated by the Labor-Greens senators in this place.

To sum up, it is pretty easy. To date, there have been no claims made under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee by workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. All this regulation will do is ensure that this particular sector is in lockstep with all other sectors in the economy in the event that if, and it is a big 'if' and I accept that, the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 passes through parliament. So good, sensible bookkeeping and good, sensible administration would ensure that you would keep the two in lockstep. We now have the possibility, given that I have raised the white flag on behalf of the government, understanding the numbers in this place, that benefits accruing to one sector may well be taken away from other sectors in the event that the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill is in fact carried in this place.

Therefore, I simply say to the Senate: I can understand the arguments that have been raised, but those arguments should be raised during the discussion of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill not under this particular regulation, which simply seeks to marry all sectors of the workforce into the one regime. I understand the numbers in this place are against us, but I simply say that the time to make that statement to actually make that vote should have been under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill when that is presented to the Senate. I conclude my remarks by saying that the government fully supports the regulation but understands the numbers in this place.

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

First of all, I appreciate Senator Abetz's position of not forcing this to the inevitability of defeat in a division. I also indicate that I must respond on this issue of jobs. There is absolutely no doubt that this government has treated employment and employment in the manufacturing sector in a completely cavalier manner. If we want to talk about future generations and leaving costs for future generations, then what is going on with the coalition and climate change? Why would they leave the cost of climate change to future generations? It just does not make sense. One of the biggest economic challenges in the world is climate change, yet this is a government that did not want it on the agenda of the G20. This is a government that continues to try to argue it is not an economic issue. But if they were really keen to do something on future employment, they would be creating the jobs of the future. They would be creating the clean energy jobs. They would be decarbonising the economy for the future. That is what they would be doing. They would not be ripping entitlements. They would not be ripping away support for some of the poorest and most exposed workers in the economy—textile clothing and footwear outworkers. They would not be doing that.

If this is a government, as Senator Abetz said, that is kicking every goal on jobs, I do not want to see it in action when it is missing the goal. I do not want to see these goals getting missed because it will be a horrible sight and it will have terrible repercussions for jobs in this country. This is a government that is cavalier when it comes to jobs. This is a government that is forcing this country more and more to be a quarry, a farm and a tourist destination. This is a government that does not understand the needs for a strong manufacturing sector and a strong engineering sector in this country. This is simply about cost cutting. This is about meanness. This is about being tricky. This is a government that cannot be trusted. This is a government that the public are looking at with abject horror. That is reflected when you are out in the street talking to people about this government and its broken promises—broken promise after broken promise. That is what this government is about. That letter from Senator Abetz epitomises the broken promises, the meanness and the nastinesses of this government.

Question agreed to.