Federal Industrial Relations Legislation

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that at the 2007 State election, voters in the Monaro electorate expressed strong concern about the Federal Government's unfair industrial relations changes;

(2) notes particularly that workers in regional and rural communities are disadvantaged by these changes and are already having their entitlements and rights eroded;

(3) rejects the Federal Government's pre-election decision to enhance protection through "no disadvantage" tests; and

(4) recognises that only through State Governments and the election of a Federal ALP Government will workers' and families' working conditions be properly protected.

Obviously, I gave notice of this motion some time ago and I had hoped it would be debated before the Federal election. Nevertheless, the result of the Federal election last Saturday has provided us with the opportunity today to consider the motion and analyse the effect the industrial relations changes had not only on the 2007 State election result but also the 2007 Federal election result. Clearly, despite the former Howard Government's failed anti-union scare campaign and its failure to scare people into believing its industrial relations changes were good, the people saw through them. The people realised that these draconian changes would hurt them and their families. I proposed this motion because early in the process people were seeing the results of the Howard Government's industrial changes. We saw how the former Federal Government abused its Senate majority to bring about these changes against the wishes of the people and without revealing its intention at the 2004 Federal election.

The people saw through these draconian changes almost immediately after their introduction. In the midst of the Federal Government's multimillion dollar advertising campaign elderly conservative voters in Cooma told me that they were very worried about how their grandchildren were going to defend themselves under this terrible regime. Then we started to hear about more people who were concerned about the changes. For example, there was the person who talked to me about the Australian workplace agreement he had been asked to sign at work. He had signed it because he did not understand it very well. He said to me, "Do you think it's fair that whenever there is a public holiday I have to make up that public holiday on a Saturday or a Sunday of the same week?" I said, "No, I don't think it's fair, but you've already signed, haven't you?"

The member for Terrigal obviously thinks that was fair, and that summarises his position very well on this issue. Then there was the person who came to see me because his employer had put him off after he questioned where his superannuation payments were going because they had not been paid into his fund. He showed me two Australian workplace agreements: one was the agreement he had been shown by the employer and the other was the agreement the employer had tried to register with the authorities. That employee discovered these two different agreements only after he had been dismissed. Was that picked up by the so-called safeguard mechanisms put in place by the Howard Government? No, it was not. The employee picked up the discrepancy in his investigations after the company dismissed him for asking questions.

Then there was the worker who signed on to work on the construction of the new defence headquarters near Queanbeyan and found out afterwards that he was not paid on days when it rained and he was not able to get onto the work site. He asked me, "Well, how do you think that's going to help me pay my mortgage?" Of course I could not answer that question. A person was dismissed without notice from a childcare centre in Jindabyne after questioning practices at the centre. I heard those sorts of stories consistently. That is why industrial relations was such an important issue at the recent Federal election and the last State election.

An enthusiastic campaign was run in Eden-Monaro by grassroots groups formed to fight the Howard Government's industrial relations laws. People like Peter Malone, who organised the Eden-Monaro campaign, led the campaign. We saw Independents like Anne Rocca, a Queanbeyan councillor who was convener of Empower, Alison Rahill, Damien Kirkwood, David Perkins, Debbie and Greg Kirkwood from Cooma, who proudly said he was an ex-Liberal voter after being converted by the changes and was no longer proud of his former voting record, Odile Tomkin, Matt McCann, Phil Morgans, Jane Timbrell, Anna Brown, Rosie Stephens, Bill Thomas, Sarah Goodlet, Geoff Lawler, Albert White, who worked many years at the Queanbeyan Hospital, Craig Malcolm, Peter Cassidy, Kevin Lang, David Gibbs, Jim Bright and Roger McEvoy.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Just table the phone book.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Terrigal wants me to table the phone book. We almost could table a phone book of the people who opposed the Federal Government's industrial relations changes because there were thousands of them. The changes certainly concerned the people in Eden-Monaro. The Federal election result shows the concern of voters in areas where people were on collective agreements. The new areas of Tumbarumba and Tumut in the Eden-Monaro electorate have a very high workforce in the timber mill. Of course, the Federal Liberals were actively pursuing those areas that came into the Eden-Monaro electorate because those constituents had voted conservative in the past and the Liberals thought they would provide them with a winning margin.

What happened when those people realised their collective agreements could disappear? In Tumbarumba the swing away from the Howard Government was 14.8 per cent; in Tumut it was 17.37 per cent. In Tumut East, the former conservative voting area, there was a 20.67 per cent swing away from the Federal Government. That is absolutely amazing. What did we hear from the Howard Government? Its former Federal member said that no-one had talked to him about concerns with WorkChoices. I can tell him that they talked to the Federal Labour candidate, now the member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly. I suppose that is why the Liberals did not turn up at any of the debates on industrial relations at Bega, Narooma, Tumut, Jindabyne, Cooma, Bungendore, Queanbeyan or Bombala.

Bill Heffernan turned up at Tumut and by the time he finished his comments the local journalists were booing him. That was an interesting indication of what was happening. Of course, the Liberals were far busier with other things, such as what was happening in the Lindsay electorate. We have all seen the headline "Libs busted—Shameful race tactics exposed in key seat". This time the dirty tactics of the Liberals were exposed after they got away with the same tactics in the previous Federal election when they slandered Ed Husic. The same tactics were used in some of the State electorates. Interestingly, when the Coalition won Eden-Monaro in the previous election a forged letter was circulated against Jim Snow on the South Coast. No-one ever found out who was responsible for that letter, but having seen the antics in the Lindsay electorate we have a better idea of who might have been responsible.

The impact of the Your Rights at Work campaign and the absolute contempt for the industrial relations laws were evident in Tumut and Tumbarumba. Bega experienced massive voter swings: the Bega Cheese factory with its big workforce and collective agreements did not want that change. As I said in this place in another debate, if those Federal election results were transferred to the State seat of Bega, the Labor vote would be 52.49 per cent. That is interesting. Tourism was another industry in which workers were concerned about the industrial relations changes. I guess that concern would have played out also in Tweed, Lismore, Coffs Harbour, Clarence and Ballina. If the Federal election results were transferred to those State electorates, the member for Tweed would be worried. Labor would have a result of 56.66 per cent in Tweed. In Lismore 57 per cent of the vote would win the State seat for Labor. In Clarence the figure is 52 per cent, in Ballina it is 56 per cent.

As a State Labor member I cannot claim those results will instantly transfer to us because the Labor Government knows that rather than just running the negative, carping campaign that we hear from those opposite, we have to go out and win those people over to us. We have to show them positive policies in exactly the same way ass Kevin Rudd has done. That is the reason we now have Country Labor representatives in Richmond and Page. This side of the House is very proud of the results of Labor's Federal election campaign. Of course, the Your Rights at Work campaign and the draconian industrial relations laws of the Howard Federal Government would have been very important for timber workers in the North Coast seats of Clarence, Ballina, Coffs Harbour and particularly Lismore.

The 57 per cent Federal Labor vote in Lismore should make members opposite sit up and think. Do they? No. Only in the past two weeks have they come in here and said anything about it. On 16 October the member for Terrigal defended the workplace laws. He said they were the greatest thing the Howard Government had ever done. Even he knew then there was a problem because he pointed out to this side of the House that it was no longer called WorkChoices. He said that WorkChoices had been dropped for sometime and that it was now workplace relations. They drop the potato when it gets too hot to handle. That is exactly what happened on that side of the House. On 16 October the member for Terrigal was still defending these changes to the industrial laws and the move away from centralised wage fixing. On 15 November he again defended the changes and was joined by the member for Castle Hill. This motion is relevant for that reason and I commend it to the House.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [11.58 a.m.]: I am sure every member in the Chamber was impressed by the passion displayed by the member for Monaro. He certainly left no doubt about the intensity of his feeling. I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

this House calls upon the State Government to protect the interests of workers in New South Wales by reforming the State's unfair occupational health and safety laws as it promised to do in 2006.

The motion moved by the member for Monaro is very important because it raises the question: What is the best system for looking after workers in this State? We need a system that ensures that workers receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, that workers are kept safe while they are at the site of their employment, and that throughout New South Wales the economy booms with everyone having a job, enjoying good conditions, a good salary and the protection of occupational health and safety requirements. I expect that the member for Monaro will support my amendment because, after all, he claims to be the member who advances the cause of workers throughout New South Wales.

For the past 11 years the people of New South Wales and the people of Australia have enjoyed unparalleled economic prosperity, the lowest level of industrial disputation since 1906, the lowest level of unemployment since 1973 and the highest rate of wage growth since 1945. All of those attributes are the hallmark of the Howard Government and its management of the Australian economy. The legacy of the Howard Government to Australia is unparalleled economic growth and unparalleled growth and prosperity—facts acknowledged by no less a person than Mr Rudd. In the twenty-first century Australia faces enormous challenges presented by global expansion and a global world market but has been placed in an extraordinarily secure position, thanks to Mr Howard.

The people of Australia will always recognise the extraordinary work done by Mr Howard and by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition in creating economic prosperity. The member for Monaro and those of his ilk present a false argument when they pretend that the only issue in the recent Federal election was WorkChoices. The people of Australia passed judgment on a number of issues. Nobody can change what happened last Saturday—what happened last Saturday speaks for itself—but Australia's future will not be based on hysteria that is put about by the Australian Labor Party suggesting that all we need to do is pander to the interests of trade union bosses and somehow a successful economy in a successful nation will be the result.

Trade union bosses have taken this country nowhere. The trade union bosses to whom members opposite pander and the vast majority of trade union apparatchiks who are now in power will have the opportunity over the next three years, given to them by the people of Australia, to show exactly how they manage the economy and the nation. The member for Monaro cited remarks I made on 16 October, as he is quite entitled to do. In a couple of years I might quote his remarks as the Coalition and the people of Australia pass judgment on the achievements and management style of the Rudd Government.

Let me examine the interests of the workers in New South Wales, to which my amendment relates. New South Wales has the most incompetent and unfair occupational health and safety laws in Australia. When no less a person than the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. John Della Bosca, presented the exposure draft of the Occupational Health and Safety Bill 2006 he stated that his Government's proposals would give "greater peace of mind to the people in the engine room of our economy". Yet for some funny reason Mr Della Bosca's draft legislation and his words have gone nowhere. We have seen nothing of the occupational health and safety legislation that he and the Iemma Government promised would protect workers. One can only wonder why.

The reason for that speaks for itself: the gang of trade union bosses who dominate the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales decided they did not want or need occupational health and safety reform because occupational health and safety is a convenient issue with which to beat employers about the head, regardless of whether it protects the interests of workers. A gigantic chasm exists between trade union leadership and their supporters in the Australian Labor Party and the ordinary workers of New South Wales. That chasm will be revealed over the next 3½ years at a State level and 3 years at a Federal level. However, because the New South Wales Opposition stands for the workers, a fair go and strengthening the economy of this State, the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition introduced an occupational health and safety bill to mirror the bill released by John Della Bosca in 2006 on behalf of the Government. The New South Wales Chamber of Business today issued a statement headed "New South Wales has the most vexing OH&S system in terms of compliance, prosecutions and fines, and yet has, according to the ABS, injury rates worse than the Australian average".

If the member for Monaro were so concerned about workers in this State he would be concerned that New South Wales has the worst injury rate of any State in Australia. What is the Labor Party doing to protect the occupational health and safety of workers? It is abandoning its own legislation. It is not even proceeding with its own promise made in 2006. This demonstrates the gigantic hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party that masquerades over and over again as a friend of the workers. Not one member of the Australian Labor Party present in this Chamber has been a genuine worker. When I look across the Chamber I ask myself: Where did any of them do manual work? When did any of them work in an ordinary job? Where were they when the ordinary jobs were being given out? Unlike the member for Monaro, I will not trawl through the telephone book mentioning branch members. When Monaro preselection time arrives he will say, "Jill, I mentioned you in Hansard", and, "Jack, you got a mention in Hansard. Remember?"

Mr Steve Whan: You think I will be opposed?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Yes. I think you will be opposed.

Mr Steve Whan: Last time you were singing my praises. Go back to that.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the member for Monaro knows, I have been running a book on "Whan for Cabinet". I am his strongest supporter—but I am probably his only supporter! I am worried that, alone, I will wave the "Whan for Cabinet" sign across the Chamber. Where was he standing on the issue of occupational health and safety—one of the biggest issues facing workers across the State? New South Wales has the worst occupational health and safety laws and they are delivering the worst results for workers. The workplace injury rate and the death rate in New South Wales after 12 years of Labor government is the worst in Australia.

Workers are more unsafe in New South Wales than are workers in any other State. New South Wales has a Minister for Industrial Relations who promised last year to reorganise and reform occupational health and safety laws and who presented the draft exposure legislation—a Minister who acknowledged in the Legislative Council that occupational health and safety laws needed to be changed—but the laws have not been changed. The promised legislation has not proceeded. The words of the Minister for Industrial Relations ring hollow. The member for Monaro never mentions occupational health and safety in this House.

Mr Steve Whan: You're Terrigal!

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Yes, I am Terrigal, and the member for Monaro is Terrigal too! He would love to be a true Terrigal. In conclusion, I reiterate that Labor Party members do not represent the workers of New South Wales.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [12.08 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Monaro. I recognise his ongoing fervent support of people in country and regional areas. Families in my seat of Wyong are working hard to pay for substantial mortgages and important family necessities such as health care, education, food, petrol and affordable child care. The Howard legacy in Wyong includes a 19 per cent youth unemployment rate. Many elderly people are concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. It is a regional area that is currently experiencing more than 8 per cent unemployment generally. The people of Wyong, like other Australians, did not vote at the last Federal election for the extreme workplace laws introduced by the now ex-Howard Government—in fact, they were not even on the agenda.

The former Federal member for Dobell—that sounds so good that I will say it again—the former Federal member for Dobell, voted 12 times for the legislation. He was a passionate supporter of these unfair laws, which sought to end collective bargaining, remove working conditions and allow workers to be dismissed unfairly. In fact, as late as last Friday the former member said on ABC radio that he did not see WorkChoices as a major issue. He said that people were not mentioning WorkChoices to him. He should have got out a little more.

Mr Steve Whan: He needed to stop talking to the Young Liberals.

Mr DAVID HARRIS: Exactly. I can tell the former member that I saw firsthand during the State election campaign that the community was very uneasy about the direction of the industrial changes being implemented. People understood implicitly that only State Labor and a Federal Labor government could give them the industrial protections they wanted. The electorate demonstrated this last Saturday night, with an 8.9 per cent swing to Labor in Dobell. Craig Thomson, the former National Secretary of the Health Services Union, campaigned strongly on the effects of the industrial laws. He and his team did a fantastic job, and were rewarded appropriately. The public responded, and resoundingly installed a Rudd Labor Government in Canberra.

Most Australians believe in fair and reasonable industrial relations policy. That view was reinforced during the New South Wales election campaign, when the Iemma Government promised to protect workers on State awards. I doorknocked almost 10,000 houses during the campaign and people told me overwhelmingly that they wanted a fair industrial system. That view was reinforced last Saturday. Those opposite fail to understand—and the Howard Government failed to learn—that job security and employment conditions, keeping a roof over the family's heads, contribute greatly to people's stress levels. It also impacts on people's quality of life and the quality of family relationships.

That is particularly true in regional areas, where employment opportunities are more limited. Almost 35,000 people commute from the Central Coast to jobs in Sydney and Newcastle every day. This requires them to spend long hours away from home, which impacts on their families. Workers in private enterprise on the Central Coast are generally paid less than city workers in equivalent jobs. The people of the Central Coast know that employment security and collective bargaining are vital in attaining wage levels comparable to those in metropolitan areas. That is why the Howard Government lost so many regional seats in the Federal election. Its catchcry of "full employment" is admirable but this mantra fails to recognise quality of employment, which includes conditions and pay.

We now often hear the catchphrase "working poor". They are people in employment but who still find it impossible to make ends meet. Many regional families in my area are under mortgage and rental stress. They are doing it tough. They do not agree that they have never had it so good, as the thankfully former Howard Government would have them believe. They know that the Iemma Government continues to support their best interests and they voted in a Rudd Labor Government to improve support for working families at a Federal level.

The highest-ranked Coalition member in Australia now is the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. If Coalition members did not have the message before they should certainly have it now. Yet those opposite still do not understand what everyone else in Australia seems to: their policy direction is wrong. They just do not get it. As I said in debate recently, I am proud that the Iemma Government has been at the forefront of the defence of fair and productive workplaces—something that I was passionate about and fought very hard for during the State election campaign. We have ensured that workers cannot be dismissed unfairly and we have enabled employers and employees to enter into common law referral agreements, allowing them continued access to our fair and efficient industrial relations system. We now have a Rudd Labor Government in Canberra that will do the same. The people of Australia have delivered their verdict. Mr Howard is only the second serving Prime Minister in Australian history to have lost his seat at an election. The last Prime Minister to do so was Stanley Bruce, and the decisive issue then was industrial relations.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [12.13 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the member for Terrigal. The mining industry faces many occupational health and safety problems. Representatives of mining companies in my town tell me continually that one of their biggest challenges is the draconian occupational health and safety laws that apply to the mining industry in New South Wales. The chain of responsibility is a particular problem. I will give an example from Perylia mine. A miner decided to celebrate his last shift in the mine by climbing the door of the cage and sticking his head out. He was decapitated: there was a fatal injury at the mine. But that was just the start of the process. Both the mining engineer and the underground manager were deemed to be responsible for that act of sheer stupidity. The cage door is at least six feet high and the man climbed the door and stuck his head over the top. How does management protect against such an act? All the workplace training and good management practices in the world will never protect against acts of stupidity.

Because of that incident a very good mine manager left the New South Wales industry to seek employment elsewhere. I know the stress that the underground manager, who is a personal friend, suffered. Whatever assets he had accumulated in his life—his home, investments and so on—are now unsecured because he had to challenge his culpability in relation to that incident, which occurred five years ago but the problems are ongoing. The Government has no solutions. It is crazy that in this day and age we cannot progress the mining industry in this State because of draconian laws and the attitude to occupational health and safety management.

Mr Kerry Hickey: What about other issues in the mines? What about when someone is seriously injured in the mines?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: I agree totally with safe practices. The member for Cessnock does not understand that the mines have been operating at Broken Hill for 127 years. Safety is a priority in the mining industry. Anyone who goes down a mine knows that. The member for Cessnock—

Mr Kerry Hickey: I've got no idea of mining, haven't I?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: The way the member for Cessnock is talking, he does not seem to. I come from a community in which Labor beliefs and values are embedded. I was brought up in that tradition and I was an employer of 40 people in the town at one point. I assure the House that I worked within the terms of our local consent agreement, and I was perfectly happy to do so. But I guess things change. The member for Monaro told us some WorkChoices horror stories. Unfortunately, he cannot name names—and he will not do so because he made up most of it. The other day I heard Greg Combet on the radio being interviewed by John Laws. Mr Combet said that he had been approached by a motor mechanic, with a wife and two kids, who was on $650 a week and who had been forced to sign a workplace agreement and accept a reduced wage of $400 a week. What a load of rubbish!

Do they think the Australian people are stupid? That guy could go to a Centrelink office and get a job that paid $32,000 a year, plus rental assistance. No current employer in this State would not value a motor mechanic. Those opposite do not understand that there is a skills shortage. I had to listen to that load of rubbish on the radio. Greg Combet also said that we will no longer negotiate in the historical manner and the employee will now negotiate as an individual. So collective bargaining is dead; it is all over. That is what Greg Combet said, and it is in the Australian Financial Review. So there is to be a change in industrial relations in this country. The system will move closer to WorkChoices than people think, and the State Government will adopt some of the Coalition's policies. [Time expired.]

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [12.18 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important issue. Unfortunately, the member for Terrigal has left the Chamber but he challenged us and said that not one of us had a working-class background. I did: for the first 10 years of my working life I went to sea as a merchant seafarer. I did very hot, hard and dirty work in the engine rooms on ships. I got plenty of grease and dirt under my fingernails and I am still prepared to do that work. I also remind all members that there is a bit of a history with WorkChoices and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition, which probably started back in 1997 with the Patricks dispute. I speak with authority on this issue because at the time I was the State Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia. Members will recall a very important court case surrounded that activity and found quite clearly that about 2,000 workers were illegally sacked from their workplace. They were hunted out of their workplace by goons and vicious German shepherd dogs and basically set aside for no other reason than some conspiracy that existed at the time between the Prime Minister and Chris Corrigan, who headed up Patricks, in order to try to drive home a draconian set of industrial relations legislation.

The Coalition would have liked to put in WorkChoices at that time as it believed the Workplace Relations Act did not fully represent their ideological stance on this nation but, of course, the makeup of the Senate prevented their doing so. The Federal Government should have well realised the massive amount of Australian support and sentiments that the workers from Patricks had. Not only were the actions by Corrigan and Co. proved to be illegal; it was pretty clear they were not socially acceptable either. I recall times—I did not have to travel very far, just slightly south of Botany Bay, when there was much more shipping and maritime-related activity in Sydney Harbour—when there were thousands of people on the wharves demonstrating one particular point, that is, that the action was wrong, that was not the Australian way and that they had to do something to turn it around.

That message was completely ignored three years ago in the Federal election when there was a change in the makeup of the Senate and another abuse of power when basically the Conservative ideologues within the Government decided to push through a set of industrial relations standards that were not in any way acceptable to the Australian population, regardless of where they stand or what political party they normally support. John Howard will have nightmares about this issue for a very long time. The letter "W" will hardly be out of people's mouths when he will think to himself that they are going to say WorkChoices. When he sleeps Darth Vader will come over with "W" on his chest, standing for WorkChoices, and it will be a terrible nightmare. He will wake up in pain and shock and ask himself, "Why did I go there?"

WorkChoices is one of the reasons Labor has recently been so successful in both State and Federal elections. Those opposite should have realised that draconian conditions and laws will not be accepted by the Australian populus. I suppose if there is any enthusiasm from our side it is for the comments in the newspaper of late by Joe Hockey and others that "WorkChoices is dead". I can only come to the conclusion that finally the penny has dropped and they understand. The motion as it stands should be supported and members should vote accordingly.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.23 p.m.]: I notice that no-one else from the other side wants to speak in this debate: it must be a lonely place these days in opposition. We remember that one by one they lined up and said how good the WorkChoices legislation is and spoke about the growth of the economy. They said, "Go for growth" until Saturday 24 November when the people finally had their second opportunity this year to have their say and resoundingly said no. What did they say no to? They said no to signing Australian workplace agreements, to giving away their working conditions and to a loss of bargaining power, bit by bit, in the workplaces with draconian industrial relations legislation.

When I knocked on doors in my election campaign in Maitland not a single person had anything positive to say about WorkChoices. They were worried not only about their own jobs but also about the jobs of their 16- or 18-year-old children who had to sign Australian workplace agreements not knowing what they were doing. What happened every time they signed an Australian workplace agreement? They lost a condition or an overtime or penalty rate. Five to eights years from now they would look back and think: Gee, we used to have four weeks holiday, time and a half and public holidays but all that has gone. Why would it have gone? Because John Howard had this great ideology of making sure that businesses have the power over the workers. Twice the people have had their say this year, and twice the Liberals have been resoundingly defeated. The tactic of the Coalition, including the member for Terrigal, is to put up an amendment on a completely different topic to avoid the issue. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Opposition does not have a second speaker.

Spotlight said WorkChoices was all too hard and the system should go back to the way it was before, with collective agreements. That says it all. Members of the Federal Liberal Government clearly thought they were on a winner. They talked about economic growth and did not have any idea about the social impacts of WorkChoices on young people, women workers and immigrant workers trying to get a job. Every time they would sign an AWA they would lose a part of their conditions. People spoke out against that at the recent election. Members opposite do not want to talk about it any more so they just change the subject.

The member for Terrigal asked who on this side had been in a real job? What does he call a real job? I have worked on the shop floor as a boilermaker and a motor mechanic. I have worked in places where of I have had no protection from unions and from the strength of union power and collective bargaining. I have worked in conditions that were far from desirable, not because I had bad employers but simply because that is just the way it was. The protection of the worker is very important. I can remember working on weekends without pay because it was just expected. I can remember staying back until 8 o'clock at night working without getting paid because that is just the way it was. I did not have that protection. If members opposite have their way they would not worry about people going back to that situation. They are only interested in economic growth and not the social impact on the worker. No-one I met had anything good to say about the legislation. It did not take the Liberals long to say, "It's dead now." On Monday morning, following the election on Saturday, the Federal Liberals said, "WorkChoices is dead."

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Epping will cease injecting.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: The Liberals must have been thinking about it for a long time because it did not take them long to knock back WorkChoices. And so they should! I hope that WorkChoices stays dead; we do not want to see it again.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank Government members for their great contributions to this debate. I acknowledge the member for Terrigal, who gave a eulogy for the Howard Government that was moving in parts but a little dishonest in other parts. He continued to defend the Howard Government although Federal Liberals are running a mile from WorkChoices. Indeed, Joe Hockey, the Minister given responsibility of selling WorkChoices, now says, "That's gone. That's out of the way. I'm glad I got past that one." The member for Terrigal talked about 11 years of growth. He was wrong: we have had 17 years of growth since the reforms introduced by the Hawke-Keating governments.

Amazingly, the member tried to make out that members opposite have suddenly undergone a conversion and now they are workers' friends. Come off it! Members opposite still do not support collective agreements, and they still think we pay public servants too much and that workers should not have rights. That was obvious when the member for Epping interjected that "we should be able to sack malingerers." It is a demonisation of people. Indeed, the member for Epping might want to explain which Liberal Party faction was responsible for dirty tactics in the election campaign. We would like to know how close the member is to the Liberals who were stacking the numbers, such as those in the Federal seat of Lindsay.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The member for Epping will cease injecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Clearly I have touched a raw nerve. The member for Epping must be held accountable for the dirty tactics during the election campaign.

Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: My point is relevance under Standing Order 129. The member's comments are outside the leave of the motion. He is talking about things that might have happened in some Federal seats.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I am unsure how the member for Epping could have heard the member for Monaro as he was continually interjecting. However, I was listening to the member for Monaro and his remarks were relevant to the motion before the House. There is no point of order.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The member for Terrigal made a terrific contribution in which he, amongst other things, pointed out that the highest ranked Liberal in Australia at the moment is the mayor of Brisbane. Did members know that the highest ranked member of The Nationals in Australia is the mayor of Dubbo? That is interesting. The member for Swansea made a terrific contribution in which he referred to his experience in ship engine rooms. Of course, he is in the Government engine room now; it is an appropriate place for him and we welcome him. The member for Maitland showed his credentials; at one stage he was a mechanic. He is another member who brings working-class roots to this place, and that is terrific.

In my opening remarks I referred to the Federal election results, and I will continue with that. There was a huge swing to Labor in the Federal seat of Hume: Alby Schultz is likely to retire. The member for Burrinjuck and the member for Goulburn must be concerned about that. We fully expect them to fight over preselection for the Federal electorate of Hume, which, as they now know is not a safe Liberal seat. In the past week the member for Lane Cove has had a long face. We used to see him constantly and obediently following the Prime Minister. Indeed, he has a picture of John Howard on his wall. His plans for succeeding John Howard in the Federal seat of Bennelong were dealt a big blow in Saturday's election.

What do we see for the future of the Liberals and The Nationals? Under 10 years of the Howard Government we have seen a move to the far right, to the dominance of the member for Epping's faction. Robert Menzies would not recognise the Liberal Party now. Gone are any Liberal values; it is simply right wing conservative. Black Jack McEwen would roll over in his grave if he knew of the industrial relations reforms and that The Nationals had supported the sale of Telstra. They got their just desserts on the North Coast and in many rural seats in New South Wales. We must defend workers' rights because members opposite are not capable of doing so.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.