Senate debates

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Fair Work Bill 2008

Second Reading

4:03 pm

Photo of Gary HumphriesGary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It does depend, Senator Boyce, on who is actually implementing the mandate. I see Senator Cameron in the chamber, so it is worth asking the question: what did the unions have to say about the question of a mandate? Do not forget, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, that every union which came in front of the committee during its inquiry said: ‘We want changes to be made to this legislation. We don’t think it is adequate in its present form. It should be changed in this way, that way or the other way.’ So coalition members of the inquiry put to those unions what they thought about the idea of a mandate permitting a government to come forward and demand that this legislation be passed unamended, even if the legislation did not conform with the terms of the promises made before the election. It is significant that Mr Joe de Bruyn from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association had this to say on that question:

The parliament is master of its own situation. It is entitled to pass whatever legislation it believes is appropriate, and it is not limited to what the government promised prior to the election. If there are ways of improving the legislation, then the parliament should do so.

Even Mr Jeff Lawrence, the Secretary of the ACTU, said on the question of a mandate:

Well, I think it is really a question of the major thrust of the legislation.

What he was saying was that the thrust of the legislation needs to be honoured by the parliament but the detail is a matter over which some argument can occur.

We are faced today with the question of what detail in this legislation we should change. There are two overriding and compelling issues which need to be taken into account when considering such change. Firstly, there are a number of significant departures by this Labor government from what it said it would enact when it went to the electorate in 2007. As a parliament we are entitled, in the language of a party no longer with us, to keep the bastards honest if we feel that the government is departing from what it promised to the Australian people. Secondly, the environment in which we find ours today is one which is far more insecure than it was even 12 months ago, with respect to the creation and preservation of jobs.

As a parliament, we have a duty to ensure that we consider ways in which to enhance the capacity of businesses in Australia to make decisions to continue to employ people and to hire new staff, and that they will do so with a certain confidence and ability to deal appropriately with the needs of their businesses in making those decisions. We want to ensure that businesses have the confidence to continue to offer that kind of employment in their businesses. If we do not consider legislation in that context then we are not meeting the expectations of the Australian people that we will put employment and the creation and maintenance of jobs at the forefront of our minds.

Comments

No comments