Senate debates

Wednesday, 17 June 2020

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Women's Economic Security, Child Care

3:12 pm

Photo of Zed SeseljaZed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to join the debate in terms of the Labor Party's question time tactics. I want to focus on Senator Pratt's question. As we reflect on the current state of play, as we reflect on last year's federal election and we think about how out of touch the Labor Party are, as was demonstrated again by the Australian people overwhelmingly rejecting them, we think about the kinds of issues and attacks that the Labor Party launches on the government, which demonstrate how out of touch they are. Senator Pratt's questioning, attacking Minister Michael Sukkar, an outstanding minister in this government doing an outstanding job, reminds us just how out of touch Labor are, attacking a program that is designed to support tens of thousands of jobs in the construction industry. The attack is: 'There are a lot of men who work in construction.' That appears to be Labor's attack when it comes to the construction industry. If you want an example of why they continue to sit on the opposition benches, perhaps we can reflect on their disdain for the housing industry and their inability to look beyond the very, very important issues in the housing industry. Their critique now about the HomeBuilder program, a program that's so important to so many Australians, is: 'Well, a lot of men work in the construction industry.'

We'll come back to some of those issues, but I'd like to compare and contrast that approach with Minister Sukkar and the coalition government, in terms of being in touch with the electorate and the community. I'm reminded that Bill Shorten actually launched his 2019 campaign in the seat of Deakin, which is Minister Sukkar's electorate. Labor were coming to get him, because they had a plan which the people in the outer suburbs of Melbourne were going to embrace. They were going to make so many gains in Victoria. Why were they going to make those gains? It was because the Labor Party had a plan that reflected the values of Australians.

Let's think about what some of those plans were. Central to their election prospects, which of course the people overwhelmingly rejected, was Labor's housing tax. There they were in question time again today attacking a scheme that defends jobs in the construction industry simply because there are too many men in the construction industry. What did Labor want to do to the construction industry? They wanted to gut the construction industry. One of the reasons that Labor were rejected at the last election was their housing tax. Just reflect for a moment on where we would be if the Labor Party had come into government and implemented that housing tax ahead of the COVID crisis and the hit to the economy we have had. They would have had the absolute double whammy of being whacked from pillar to post. I'm reminded about how seriously they are taken on some of these issues by Tim Richardson, who says he's concerned about federal Labor's intervention because they've won one election in the last 25 years. Maybe it's because of policies like the housing tax.

Labor talk a big game on women, but, when it comes to actually acting, we've had the record in terms of women's workforce participation. We have delivered in a way that the Labor Party couldn't. Almost 900,000 jobs were created for women by the coalition. I'm reminded of what the Labor Party voted against in their protection racket for the CFMEU and the misogynous thugs in the CFMEU. They say, 'Now we're acting on John Setka.' In 2015 they voted against a motion that simply condemned Luke Collier for abusing female FWBC inspectors. Shaun Reardon made threatening late night phone calls to a female staff member of the building industry watchdog. A CFMEU official spat at a female inspector when she was called out to the work site to inspect a union blockade. They talk a big game. We've seen it in Victoria this week. As soon as you go beneath the underbelly, as soon as you go beneath the veneer, we see what they actually do, and they're on the record here defending the CFMEU, excusing their disgraceful behaviour. We're not going to be lectured to by this mob on the other side.

Comments

No comments