Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will take that interjection, Senator Johnston, because it is a classic example. While unemployment is going down, as it is around the rest of the country, you say: ‘We’ll take all the glory for that. The Howard government and Work Choices will take a big gold star for that, and that will be the way that we push this ideology on the rest of the country and make people believe that we are actually responsible.’ But when you look at the Northern Territory, where unemployment has gone up for a number of months and is sitting at a level higher than the national average—unemployment climbed 0.3 per cent in May alone—you say: ‘It’s not our fault. That’s not Work Choices. Things are bad in the Territory, so it cannot be us; it must be the state government’s fault.’ I see: when unemployment goes up, we blame the states; when unemployment goes down, it is our responsibility.

You have no responsibility in the Northern Territory. Is that correct? You have turned your back on the Northern Territory. Clearly, it is a major hole in your argument that unemployment figures are going down in this country as a result of Work Choices but in the Territory the unemployment figures have gone up—and we could have a massive debate about why that might be. If you look at the intersection of the import of 457 visa holders and what is happening in the industrial relations arena, you might arrive at some answers about that figure in the Northern Territory. Just as the Howard government takes credit for low unemployment in Australia, so too must it take responsibility for five consecutive monthly rises in unemployment in the Northern Territory. The government’s argument hits a seriously massive hurdle in terms of credibility when we apply it to the Northern Territory.

I notice the member for Solomon, Mr David Tollner, did not speak on this bill in the House of Representatives. Could it be that he does not believe in it? This would be a likely reason, as he stood before the people of Solomon and declared his pride in orchestrating the original Work Choices legislation. In fact, he said at a public forum that his fingerprints were all over it. He even agreed to a public debate on Work Choices in March this year. I clearly remember him saying outside his office that he would be happy to debate Work Choices with Ms Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU, in July of this year.

However, Mr Tollner has since backed down, for reasons known only to himself—although I notice in today’s Northern Territory News he cites that he would rather wait to have such a debate until the actual election starts so that we can hear from the minor parties. I never thought that the Greens and the Democrats would be on the mind of Mr Tollner when he wanted to justify his fingerprints being all over the Work Choices legislation. It could be that, no matter how proud of Work Choices he is, he is aware that it is a liability to his being re-elected later this year. I put it to you that that is more than likely the real reason.

Very possibly this is also the trend we are seeing with this government and is the very reason for the fake fairness test, which is a lame attempt to bring the Australian public onside prior to the federal election by creating a perception of fairness. Any reasonable person could not help but think, ‘Crikey, is it election time already?’ As with previous election years, we are seeing a flurry of activity from the Howard government, particularly this year, as it sees its pollsters returning negative feedback on the government’s beloved Work Choices legislation.

It was revealed in Senate estimates two weeks ago that the cost of the Howard government’s industrial relations advertising campaign is $4.1 million, averaging $585,000 per day or $25,000 per hour. This is above and beyond the call of informing the public of legislative changes; it is an outright public relations campaign to aid the government in getting re-elected later this year. Senate estimates also revealed that the full-page advertisements, which trumpeted these latest amendments and appeared in national newspapers on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 May, cost taxpayers $470,000. The Prime Minister claims that the ads were to inform the Australian public of changes to the legislation. These advertisements appeared in national newspapers less than 24 hours after the Prime Minister had announced such changes, before the details of the amendments had even been written—before, I suppose, the ink was even dry on the paper. Advertisements such as these are nothing more than blatant party political advertising under the guise of government advertising and are designed to protect only one job—the Prime Minister’s.

The bill before us today is farcical, to say the least. It seems that the government either is fascinated with name changes or has so many ideas for names within a department that it feels it must give each suggested name a turn in the spotlight. We had the Office of the Employment Advocate, now known as the Workplace Authority; there was the Office of Workplace Services, now known as the Workplace Ombudsman; and there was Work Choices, which is now being referred to by the government as workplace relations. One can only imagine how much money and effort will be put into changing the stationery and the business cards alone. But this matters not. We have already established that it is an election year, after all, and it seems that taxpayers’ money is no object when it comes to protecting the Prime Minister’s job, let alone the jobs of Australians in this country.