Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

The Ethical Clothing Australia cessation of funding issue would be well known to the shadow minister, as during the previous government he would be aware that they established the Fair Work Principles and that we abolished those as part of repeal day. With the repeal of the Fair Work Principles, Ethical Clothing Australia also ended being funded, which will save about $1 million, and had so far been about a $7-million program.

The purpose of Ethical Clothing Australia was to act really as a de facto regulator. It was a combination of the union movement and business, but really was doing the job of the union—paying the union to do the job it was already supposed to do. If the purpose of unions is to protect workers, and one would hope that it is; if the purpose of unions is to make sure that workers are given fair salaries, emoluments and conditions, and I would expect that that is the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union's role, then Ethical Clothing Australia was really a subsidy to the union to do the job that it should already have been doing.

It is the government's view that a belt-and-braces approach to this was not necessary. Everyone needs to contribute to the savings that are necessary to bring the budget back into the black over time. The government inherited a $667-billion debt—it was rising to that figure if no action was taken. We inherited $123 billion of accumulated deficits and deficits as far as the eye can see. So programs that did the job that the union was already supposed to be doing—namely, protecting workers in the textiles, clothing and footwear sector—were deemed to be the kind of program you might have when you are running a surplus budget, as we did in the Howard government, running a $22-billion surplus in our final year in office. But when you are borrowing money from overseas to fund programs that are effectively a subsidy to the union, that is not a fair use of taxpayers' funds and for that reason we have not continued funding for it.

Obviously the existing legal protections for workers in the industry will remain as part of the Fair Work Act and all the applicable awards, and the Fair Work Ombudsman will continue to be a place where workers can bring their concerns about their treatment, whether it is by the employer, by fellow workers or even the unions.

See this speech in context