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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

What we have seen on display today is a government in decline, a government that has reached the end of being able to provide any answers to the big problems facing Australia; a government that relies on these three-line phrases. They run all their arguments based on rhetoric and spin, but they do not really care about the big issues—the big issues such as unemployment, the big issues such as jobs and the big issues such as rights for workers in this country.

And you only have to look at Senator Abetz's response to the problems that we have now in the waterfront at Hutchison Ports in Sydney and in Perth. We have a government now that initially said it was okay to be sacked by text message in the middle of the night. That is what they did. Then, when people were appalled by this, we had Senator Abetz issuing a statement the following day trying to explain what he meant. We know what he meant; he meant that you could be sacked by text message and this government did not really care. That is the reality of this government. On workplace relations they are really the people who do not accept rights for workers in this country.

Imagine being lectured by Senator Abetz. Imagine the Senate being lectured by Senator Abetz on extreme ideology. What a joke! All the extreme ideology on workplace relations has come from Senator Abetz in this place over many years. Senator Abetz was the chief proponent of Work Choices in this place; where penalty rates were ripped away from workers; where workers' rights were decimated by legislative action in this place. When the coalition had full control in the Senate, they set about trying to destroy workers' rights in this country under the guise of Work Choices.

They have also come here today and argued about employment. We hear the Prime Minister talk about employment. If the Prime Minister was really serious about employment, he would do something about the jobs in the shipbuilding industry; where 610 jobs have been lost at Forgacs in Newcastle; where hundreds more jobs have been lost in Williamstown; where the supply ships for this country were sent over to Korea, and Australian shipbuilders were not given the opportunity to build them; where, as a direct result of decisions of this government in their budget, 400 jobs have gone at the ABC.

Prior to the election, they promised there would be no cuts to the ABC; yet 400 jobs have gone at the ABC. They told manufacturing workers that their jobs would be safe. Yet what do we have from this government when they came in? They actually chased General Motors and Toyota out of the country. Advanced nations all over the world want these jobs. Advanced nations know the importance of automotive jobs to their economies. Yet we chase them out of this country. Some estimates are that it will cost 200,000 jobs in the economy, with about $29 billion of lost economic activity in this country. That is this government's record on jobs. It is absolutely abysmal.

They said they would build 12 submarines in South Australia. That was another Liberal lie. It was not delivered when they came to government. Those submarines, as we all know, will be built in Japan if this government gets away with it. We are going to hold this government to account on jobs. We are going to hold them to account on industrial relations. We are going to hold them to account on the promises they have walked away from. No wonder the Australian public are saying they have had enough of this motley crew that call themselves a government. They are on their last legs. They are not supported by the country and they will not last very much longer. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always enjoy following Senator Cameron, because he is always so misinformed. That is probably your biggest problem, Senator Cameron.

But let me refresh your memory. Let me refresh your memory about the legacy and the mess that you left and that we are now cleaning up. It is very sanctimonious of you to come into this place and talk about jobs. Remember the legacy that you left. Remember the mess that you left. If we want to talk about jobs growth in this country, we can talk about how this year over 120,000 new jobs have been created. Since we were elected, over 290,000 new jobs have been created. We have stayed true to the promises that we made.

Can I also, Senator Cameron, correct another inaccuracy that you came in here with. I think you have not been accurate about the facts in relation to Hutchison Ports. Obviously you were not listening to Senator Abetz when he was speaking in question time. In that situation with Hutchison, employees received a text message last Thursday evening advising them to check their emails. As Senator Abetz has also correctly indicated, the use of text messaging at this workplace is not unusual and is in fact one of the expressly agreed modes of communication under the enterprise agreement with the Maritime Union of Australia.

That is the situation. So do not come in here, Senator Cameron, and misrepresent the situation. Can I also make some comments in relation to shipbuilding and shipbuilding jobs.

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

Yes, I hope so.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Conroy, for your interjections—

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

I am always happy to help you.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over this time, let's not forget the legacy of Labor in this area as well, and what has been described as the 'valley of death'. Over the next 20 years this government will invest over $89 billion in ships and submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. In the short-term these two measures will mean 1,000 jobs which would otherwise be lost. Both these programs, when they are ramped up, will guarantee around 2,500 Australian shipbuilding jobs for decades. This is a historic agreement. It will ensure not just that Australia has a shipbuilding industry but that it has a fleet-building industry. This is a very critical investment and one which will generate significant growth in the shipbuilding industry for years to come.

I make some comments also in relation to the Productivity Commission review of the workplace relations framework and the draft report that has been delivered. The coalition made a commitment at the last federal election to ask the Productivity Commission to undertake an independent review of the workplace relations system. The terms of reference of that Productivity Commission report were carefully considered. They were also agreed to in consultation with unions, employers and state governments. We have received a 1,000-page report, which was consulted upon by the Productivity Commission with the unions, and 255 submissions were received and more than 500 individuals placed on record their views in relation to this.

We will now have a period of national consultation in relation to this report—to government; not of government—and will ask interested parties to share their views in relation to this important issue. Then a final report will be prepared for the government. So the government will not be drawing any conclusions from this draft report.

But that of course has not stopped those opposite and their union mates from scaremongering. Despite the scaremongering that has occurred, the Productivity Commission has done very good work. This is the same Productivity Commission that has done reports for both Labor and coalition governments in the past and, rather than playing politics, those opposite should be part of this good process. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers, and in particular Senator Ronaldson's answer to Senator Carr. I do get that there is a bit of theatre in the chamber, but when you are asked a question as serious as Senator Ronaldson was asked today I do think it is incumbent on the minister to dispense with the waffle and attempt to answer the question.

The facts of the matter are that it is now August 2015 and that, prior to September 2013, there was a direct promise to build 12 submarines in Adelaide. There was a walking away from that promise. There was the sending of some shipbuilding contracts overseas. And the Prime Minister has been brought, kicking and screaming, to South Australia by all of the Liberal members of parliament, who know equally as well as I do, that you cannot find a South Australian who does not want this industry to prosper in South Australia and to interconnect with the rest of Australia.

We all know that is how manufacturing works, from long experience in the automotive industry. Transmissions are built in one part of Australia and engines are built in another part of Australia. They have been assembled for 50 or 60 years in South Australia and we know how integral manufacturing is to a small economy like South Australia.

We have a government that walks away from the automotive sector, that puts the boot into it, and then walks away from core promises to enhance, build and sustain ships and submarines in South Australia. Then the Prime Minister is brought, kicking and screaming, to the argument. Whether it is to save his own personal position as Prime Minister; the Hon. Christopher Pyne; the Hon. Andrew Southcott; the member for Hindmarsh, Matt Williams; Senator Edwards; Senator Fawcett; Senator Rushton; or anybody else who wants to get preselected in South Australia in the coming federal election, that is what has happened.

The Prime Minister has come very late to the argument. He has made promises which I, fervently, hope are kept, because they are good promises and they are jobs down the line. But they are well down the line—they are 2020. And when you know people who have lost their job in Adelaide, in shipbuilding, in the last few months, that is a long, long way away.

When there is no commitment from this federal government and there are these economic rationalists. I mean, he may as well take his script from Andrew Bolt, who said the other night, 'You can get a ship from Spain for $1 billion. Why did we spend $9 billion building three?' If that is the argument he is going to take in respect of building our future defence capability, if that is the attitude he is going to take to our future defence manufacturing capability, then he should come out and tell the Australian people that is what he is doing. Do not promise to do it, renege on the promise and then come in with another promise for 2020. It is a long way away for a young man or woman who lost their job in the last month. They may not even be in South Australia when those building opportunities come again. They will probably have moved somewhere else in the economy.

If you look around South Australia you will see that we have job losses at Alinta, job losses today at Olympic Dam, job losses in Whyalla and job losses in all the regional centres outside Port Lincoln. We have no investment from this federal government in regional South Australia and we have a terrible track record of investment in the city of Adelaide in the manufacturing sector, where we are going to see additional job losses with Holden closing. I do not think the government even care about the multiplier effects of that on small business and that is exceedingly strange for what is a coalition government that, supposedly, believes in small business. For every job that you lose in manufacturing—for example, if you lose 1,700 at Holden over the next 12 to 15 months—you are going to multiply that effect out in every small business and in every suburb the workers lived in. This government has come very late to the argument. And 2020 is a long time away. If he delivers on the promise—if he gets a chance to deliver on the promise—that will be good, but the destruction and havoc the government has caused to date is reprehensible and does not befit a Prime Minister.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have today is an opposition without a clue. They do not have a clue about what their plan is for jobs. They do not have a clue about how they are going to respond to the announcement made by the Prime Minister in the last few weeks about a new plan for South Australia. I have been listening to this debate, I heard the contributions in question time today, and I still do not understand where the Labor Party's position is on shipbuilding.

What policy do they have for building ships in Australia?

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

The one that was announced.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do they have? What is your policy, Senator Conroy, through you, Chair? We know they did not have a policy in government. We know in government they had no policy on where and when and how and what ships would be built. They had no policy for six years. They had six years in government to come up with a plan to build ships in Australia and they did nothing over that time, although Senator Conroy would probably say they produced some consultancy reports. I think they spent something like $80 million or $90 million on reports. That is what they did in government for six years but they did not come up with a plan and they did not come up with a policy. Now, another two years since the last election and after two years in opposition, they still do not have a clear policy. They still will not come and be up-front about what their plan is to build ships in Australia for our defence and to provide jobs in South Australia and other areas of our country as well.

It is not surprising they have no plan; they have had so much time. They have got another year before the next election. I do not have a lot of hope that they will come up with a plan to build ships in Australia because their record was not just one of not building ships in Australia; the ships they did buy when they were in government were actually bought ships—get this—from overseas. The three major ships they did procure while in government—two of them were not actually military vessels—were actually sourced from offshore. Two major Customs vessels were sourced from offshore as was HMASChoulesI do not know how to pronounce it right. They have been coming into this chamber for the last year being all very worked up about the fact that there may be ships sourced from overseas from time to time, given our needs. There may be decisions that mean we cannot build every ship we need for our military here in Australia. While they were in government, they actually did exactly the same—they sourced ships from overseas.

I do not criticise that particular decision. The issue of the two supply ships procured was raised. I do not think that the decision has been made yet but I think a Spanish builder and a Korean builder have been tendering for that particular project. But that is not a project that we should build here. Clearly the advice from Defence is that that is not a continuous build program. We will probably need those every 15 or 20 years. So all that doing those here in Australia would do is create a temporary workforce while they are being built then those people would lose their jobs after that and we would have what we have right now, which is this valley of death, thanks to the Labor Party when they were in government. We need to focus on programs that provide continuous work for our shipbuilding industry so that it can build expertise and specialisation in particular areas and actually produce ships to budget over time. And indeed maybe one day, if we did specialise enough, we could have a thriving export shipbuilding industry in this country.

I do want to correct something that Senator Gallacher mentioned before, that these jobs are not starting until 2020. In fact, my understanding is that there were two particular build projects announced in the last few weeks. One was the Future Frigates program, which Senator Gallacher said starts in 2020, which has been brought forward three years. The other though was the new offshore patrol vessels, which the government has brought forward two years, to commence in 2018. So we will have a continuous build. The 2018 date is only three years away. There is still the Air Warfare Destroyer program ongoing at the moment.

There will be finally a continuous build for our shipbuilding industry. It will protect the thousand jobs that we have in this industry right now and, hopefully, over time with these projects it may build a sustainable shipbuilding industry that will provide around 2,500 jobs for Australians. A good policy has been announced to create jobs in our country. The real question before this chamber now is: what is the position of the Australian Labor Party? Do they support the $89-billion build program announced by the government or do they want to keep carping on the sidelines with no plan for jobs in our country?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers. I particularly wish to reflect on the answers provided by Senator Abetz to the questions relating to the coalition's approach to penalty rates and the recommendation presently under consideration from the Productivity Commission that penalty rates on Sundays be lessened and brought into line with penalty rates at other times.

Senator Abetz was very careful to provide limited information in relation to that question. It was not really any surprise. We had three questions and very little attempt to respond to the substance of those questions, with the minister simply saying that we want to see a high wage and productive economy and we want to see more jobs in the economy—something which everyone in this chamber can agree with.

But what is not clear is what the coalition actually thinks about penalty rates. Because for many years we know that this has been on the wish list for conservatives in this country, to reduce penalty rates. I want to talk a little bit about what the Productivity Commission is actually recommending in its draft report. It has recommended that the penalty rates which apply in the hospitality, retail, entertainment, restaurant and cafe sectors ought to be reduced on Sundays. It said that working on Sundays is no longer a special category of work and said that there is a case for this to be brought down. If we think about the evidence of who relies on these penalty rates, who relies on the special wages at this time, what we know is that 42.6 per cent of those people in a recent survey said that they absolutely rely on those rates to meet their household budget.

What we also know is that there are other sectors at the moment not under consideration by the Productivity Commission where penalty rates are very important and apply. If we think about nurses, if we think about bus drivers, if we think about people working in the agricultural sector, if we think about people working in transport, all of the people working in these industries are from time to time in receipt of the benefits that come from giving up your Sunday to work in the service of others in the community.

If we really think about who is benefiting from it, it is people that, frankly, need the money. Research tells us that the people most likely to be reliant on penalty rates are single parents and women. We know already about the gender pay gap and about how women in our economy are penalised simply for their gender; and we know that in some ways this arises from the concentration of women in particular industries with very low rates of pay. We know that the women in these industries, particularly the hospitality and retail sectors, are absolutely dependent on that little bit of extra money that comes in from working on a Sunday. Other groups that are particularly dependent on penalty rates are households that earn less than $30,000 a year. I think everybody in this chamber would understand that $30,000 a year is a tough number to get by on, and the idea that we would contemplate reducing the pay levels of those families is incomprehensible to me.

We know also that people who are likely to be reliant on penalty rates are the people who do not live in cities. I came to this chamber absolutely determined to defend the rights and the needs of people in regional New South Wales. It is not right that people who live in regional Australia are financially penalised and penalised in other ways in their life chances, and it does not seem right to me that we would consider reducing the wages of families from those areas.

The other group of people, of course, who benefit from penalty rates are young people. Young people overwhelmingly are likely to work on weekends and evenings only. Those people are also dependent on those penalty rates for their weekly incomes.

Penalty rates are part of a broader commitment in this country to a reasonable rate of pay for workers across a range of industries and to a five-day week, which fundamentally allows people to contribute to their communities, to contribute to their families and to balance recreation and rest with their contribution to the workplace. We should not allow those values to be compromised or eroded in the pursuit of quick and unworkable fixes that ultimately will not do anything to support the Australian economy. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.