Senate debates

Wednesday, 17 February 2021

Matters of Public Importance

Workplace Relations

4:33 pm

Photo of Eric AbetzEric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We've just heard another divisive, old, class-war warrior rhetorical contribution to the Senate. Let's all remember that the workplace relations framework in this country is under the Fair Work Act, heralded by the Australian Labor Party and introduced by the Australian Labor Party. So that independent umpire that sets wages and conditions is now being slagged off by the Australian Labor Party, the very creator of the system. To my friends opposite: you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that you have championed the cause of workers and brought to us the fair work regime, and on the other hand somehow condemn the government for the decisions that are allowed to go through the Fair Work Commission.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work is a biblical injunction which is embedded at the very heart of coalition policy in this area. No Liberal and no National wants to see workers' pay cut. Instead, we seek to pursue policies to grow not only jobs but also wages. That is why, after a decade of the Howard government, we saw unemployment with a '3' in front of it—unheard of for a long, long time and unheard of since—and, might I add, real wages growing without impacting inflation. That is what good, sound economic management delivers. And why do we pursue good, sound economic management? Because of the social dividend it delivers for the men and women of Australia.

It takes the economic illiteracy of the Labor Party to rip apart those credentials that the Howard government left. Here we are today, grappling with a global pandemic and seeking to restore the Australian economy, Australian jobs and Australian opportunities, and we've got the shamelessness of Labor. Indeed, Senator Sheldon reminded us of dodgy deals, and it triggered something in my mind. Who actually sought enterprise agreements to see workers in the mushroom sector worse off, workers in the cleaning sector worse off and workers in the building sector worse off? It was none other than the now member of parliament and former secretary of the Australian Workers Union Mr Bill Shorten. Let's be very, very clear: there were three areas in which workers were underpaid in circumstances where the agreement was signed off by the Australian Workers Union whilst Mr Shorten was in control. And let's be very clear: there are certain allegations that, in relation to those deals, there were quid pro quos that allowed certain benefits to flow to the member for Maribyrnong. That remains to be seen.

But let's be very clear: why are the Labor Party bringing this up today, and why do they do it from time to time? They do it to try to create a smokescreen to distract attention from their real policy, which is to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. And why are they so manic about it? Because the Registered Organisations Commission has an active investigation going on, as we speak, into the activities of the Australian Workers Union while Mr Shorten was the secretary of it. The Australian Workers Union documents that have now been filed indicate that over $1 million worth of Australian Workers Union funds have been expended in fruitless and vexatious litigation against the Registered Organisations Commission. Those people opposite who cry crocodile tears for workers have no compunction about signing up to deals that rip off workers and then rip off their union funds.

Why are the Australian Workers Union spending so much money in protecting Mr Shorten? The Australian Workers Union haven't done that for another secretary of the Australian Workers Union—namely, one Cesar Melhem, who is in the Victorian parliament. That issue has seen a $148,000 fine being imposed on the Australian Workers Union. Of what do I speak? I'm talking about the false enrolment of various bogus members without their knowledge or consent, including workers of companies with whom the AWU had enterprise agreements and, most creatively, jockeys who were members of the Australian Jockeys Association and netballers who were members of the Australian Netball Players Association. When these allegations came to the fore, what did the Australian Workers Union do? They raised the white flag. They did not seek to defend. They did not seek to take this matter to court. Given what they did in relation to Mr Shorten, it begs the question: why? And I suppose it begs this question: if it had gone to court, if it had gone to trial, Mr Melhem may have been asked a question such as, 'How long have these rorts been going on and whose idea was it in the first place?'

In the case of the netballers and jockeys rort, the answer to these questions seemed quite clear, because on 13 February 2005 the Australian Workers Union issued a media release entitled 'Netball stars join the AWU', which included the following boast:

The AWU's experience in representing other elite sportspeople such as horse racing jockeys will help us to better represent the interests of some of the most talented women in Australian sport.

Do you know who made that boast? None other than the current member for Maribyrnong. There he was on the public record boasting about these rorted numbers being introduced into the Australian Workers' Union, which in turn, of course, had the impact of being able to impact Labor Party votes and Labor Party preselections. So, there are a number of issues.

Comments

No comments