House debates

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Bills

Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011, Road Safety Remuneration (Consequential Amendments and Related Provisions) Bill 2011; Second Reading

5:27 pm

Photo of Jamie BriggsJamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Hansard source

This legislation, in addition to being just another attempt at—

Mr Bowen interjecting

You are indeed on the frontbench, minister. You are in a portfolio that we all know you love so much. You are very happy with what you are doing in that portfolio. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been diverted and I apologise for taking the interjection. This bill will continue to add to the red tape burden that this government is so readily engaged in across so many areas. It is an attempt by the government to undermine its own Fair Work Act, as I have already discussed, and it is adding another area of regulation to the employment relationship, which presumably the Fair Work Act was about fixing. We heard much from the Prime Minister, when she was the Minister for Workplace Relations, about how it was such great legislation and about how it was a return to fairness—that word again—in the country. Of course, it is so good that the government needs a separate jurisdiction to deal with the issue before us.

We also know that not everyone supports this legislation. Many in the road transport industry are raising genuine concerns about it. They are similar concerns to what I have raised, which is that this legislation is not about safety, it is about union power. We also know that Anna Bligh and the Labor government in Queensland do not support it. How do we know that? They put in a submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into this legislation a few weeks ago, just prior to the Queensland election being called. The Queensland Labor government does not support it. The road industry does not support it. Who does support it? Aha! The TWU. And that, of course, is what this is all about. This legislation is not about the sad circumstances that thousands of families across Australia are subjected to with the loss of their loved ones. It would be an awful experience to lose a loved one in any sort of accident. But to use these people as part of a political campaign says it all, I think, about where the modern Labor Party is at. This bill should be opposed because it is not about safety; it is not about fairness. It is about this government's vested interests. It is about what always drives this government. The government is not about higher wages in the future. It is not about creating circumstances for people to get on with their own economic freedom and to create the chances they want to take. The government is about looking after the vested interests of its chosen few, its A-class workers, its shareholders. This is exactly what this bill is about.

This legislation is a payment for the years and years of union support with funding, donations and numbers at ALP conferences; it is to ensure that the government continues to get that support. To use people's misery and deaths to do so is a disgrace, and it is the reason that this bill should be opposed. It will not help those people. It will not ensure that Australians are safer on the roads. All it will do is empower the government's union mates even further. It is a terrible piece of legislation. I urge the government to withdraw it. I urge the parliament to oppose it.

Comments

No comments