Mr McMULLAN(3.22 p.m.) —The mask of reasonableness that has been hiding the real agenda of the government on industrial relations has finally slipped. The approach by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the government's industrial relations approach has been revealed. Those of us who have been studying it closely have always known what was going on, but it is now apparent to the public. It is starting to be reported and commented upon. What are they seeing? They are seeing a very partisan approach and they are seeing an approach focused on confrontation, not cooperation. It is an approach that is an abrogation of the proper responsibilities of government to pursue national, rather than narrow, sectional interests. What is more, it is an approach that is failing, even by its own miserable standards.

Of course, we all say that our opposition is the worst since Federation. I said the other day that this minister is the most partisan minister in Australia's history. Is this an unreasonable claim? Let us have a look at what is being said about it by others. One of the advantages of staying back until 10.30 p.m. when the parliament sits late is that you get to see the late night news. I saw the minister being interviewed by Paul Lyneham last night. How did he start? He started off by referring to the minister as `partisan Pete'. I have to say that there is a very good reason why he did—because most Australians are.

We also had the Canberra Times this morning saying:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government is bent on confrontation. Why else would it be urging Rio Tinto to sue the coal mining union for damages over the strikebound Hunter Valley mine?

We had the comments of the minister's co-conspirator, Senator Kernot, in the passage of the Workplace Relations Act. She said:

I see them—

that is, the government and the comments in particular by this minister—

as playing a particularly partisan role and I think it is not in the national interest to say to unions and employees "go at it for as long as you like; slug it out, it doesn't matter what happens in Australia because this is about the workplace and employers and employees".

She then went on to say that she did not think that is what the minister said to her when they were negotiating the Workplace Relations Act. She said:

. . . I think we are in a war of attrition between both sides . . . We shouldn't be back in the 80s with this "slug-it-out" approach to arbitration and union matters.

She continued by saying that she thinks the government and the comments of the current minister have been `particularly partisan'. She said:

It's one thing for a Government to intervene, it's another thing to actually get in there and say to employers "take em on, we've put an Act in place, test it and we'll help you all the way". Governments should be about facilitating co-operative workplaces.

The best part about it from our point of view is that every time the minister gets up to deny his partisanship, he reinforces it absolutely. He gets up and says, `No, I haven't been partisan,' and starts to cite all the times in which the previous government might have intervened on behalf of unions and on behalf of working people in Australia.

He does that very selectively, because when we were the government, there were a substantial number of balanced representations made. But if the allegation is that we have a propensity to support workers and they have a propensity to support employers, I plead absolutely guilty. If it is a question of whether the role of the Labor Party in government was a balanced, responsible role in industrial relations for 13 years, I think that unquestionably it was. There is no doubt about it, and the Australian people made their judgment time and again, and I am happy to say that they are continuing to make that judgment.

But what we find now is the circumstance where they are saying, `We are partisan in the Hunter Valley No. 1 dispute because we are calling for arbitration. It is not us who are saying that the CFMEU's claims should be adopted. We are saying that there should be arbitration. Nobody will win everything that they want.' This minister is saying, `The simple solution is that the workers should just accept the employer's offer. Why doesn't one side give in, then the problem will be solved?' That is not the proper role of a minister for industrial relations.

It is not a bad role for an advocate for an employer. It is what they are expected to go in and do in public and in the Industrial Relations Commission on behalf of their client. On behalf of Rio Tinto, any paid advocate would say, `The best solution is to accept the employer's offer.' I am sure that is what their barrister has said. But why is it that the minister for workplace relations is saying it for them and why is he is sending their advocate in to say it on their behalf?

They go into the commission and argue exactly the same case as Rio Tinto and expect us all to say, `Oh, it's just a coincidence. We did speak to them on the phone a lot. We rang them several times. We had a lot of discussions. But the fact that we came to the same conclusion is a coincidence. It is an absolute fluke. Fancy that! Rio Tinto came in and said the same as us. What a surprise! It may be that they helped us write the act. It may be that they donated to the election. It may be that they are the only people who will take up this absurd proposition of ours, so we have to support them. But it is a coincidence that we are saying the same thing. We didn't cooperate at all. I just rang them to tell them that if they looked at their fax machine, a press release might have come off it.' That is like ringing up the chairman of Freeport in America to ask him how he is feeling.

Mr Sercombe —Ringing Jimbo in the middle of the night. Jimbo at midnight.

Mr McMULLAN —I think the member for Maribyrnong got it right. Poor old Jimbo thought he was having a nightmare, but it was only the minister for workplace relations ringing him up.

Mr Martin Ferguson —That is a nightmare.

Mr McMULLAN —I have to say that it is a nightmare shared by Australian workers every day.

Mr Martin Ferguson —`Hello, this is Penthouse Pete here'.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The member for Batman: you do not have the call.

Mr McMULLAN —But he is doing a very good job, Mr Deputy Speaker. You do not get sworn in by the Governor-General as minister responsible for industrial relations in this country to become an advocate for Australia's most militant employers—cheering on from the sidelines, advocating their cause, being their unpaid representative and mouthpiece.

We are now finding that this partisan position is not just that the minister is opposed to every claim by every union and every worker in Australia; he is opposed to companies that have the temerity to seek to use those parts of the Workplace Relations Act that emphasise cooperation with workers and unions. What a terrible thing! We saw what the stevedores have been saying about him this morning.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Put up or shut up.

Mr McMULLAN —Put up or shut up, they said. They also said, `You're all about creating noise but you're not achieving anything.' We had him on the 7.30 Report last week attacking BHP because they had not been tough enough. This week what we find is that there are a lot of coalmining companies seeking reform in the coalmining industry, as they sensibly should.

Most of them are this week going to have a meeting with the CFMEU in Brisbane to seek to negotiate major changes. They are demanding a lot from the CFMEU and they will not be satisfied with simply being fobbed off. It is a big, tough negotiating session with BHP and the other major coalmining companies. Do we hear a word of support for that proposal from this government? No. All it is saying is that BHP has not been tough enough.

One company is out there not pursuing that approach but seeking confrontation, refusing arbitration, not coming to an agreement and threatening to sue its own employees. That is the one for which this minister gets out there and says, `More of it; get stuck into them.' He needs one of those little rattles so that he can stand on the side and wave it like the supporters at the British soccer—wave his scarf and rattle and come out in support of Rio Tinto with his unqualified, undying devotion to their cause.

Those other companies are also operating within the Workplace Relations Act. The unions negotiating with them are working within the Workplace Relations Act. Minister, they also deserve your support. These are Australians trying to work together to achieve reform—they are not seeking confrontation; they are not seeking to attack each other but are seeking to work together.

You say that you will support people who use the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, but you only support the ones that use the bits you prefer. You say, `It is a one size fits all approach. Everybody has to go my way and I will support you.' If a company has the temerity to say, `We think we can achieve the major reforms we need in a cooperative manner by working with our employees and their representatives,' what they get from this government is condemnation, attack and criticism—and, in the case of BHP, I suspect, at the moment, it is pretty unwelcome criticism at this time in their corporate history.

We have seen in the headlines the confrontations between the government's approach to industrial relations and the people it has been able to crank up to be its advocates and some of the strongest unions in this country. Those headlines are there because those are the people who have the strength to resist. What you do not see is what is happening to the weakest employees, the employees not in a strong bargaining position, who do not have such strong unions to represent them and who are confronting these same changes without a strong voice.

Those people do not get any publicity. They are just being rolled over. We all see them in our electorates—the young people going out to their first job being told, `Just work for a couple of days for nothing on training and we'll see how you work out.' After they get sacked, another one comes on and just works for a couple of days. In one particular workplace in my electorate one of those young people happened to be a member of the shop assistants union. She got $200 back pay. That is a sign of what has happened to all the others that nobody spoke up for. That is how much they all lost. There is no publicity about that because there is nobody speaking for those people. They are the ones that need the support of the arbitration system. They are the ones that need the support of a cooperative industrial relations system. I might say that they are also the ones that need a strong outcome by the Industrial Relations Commission from the latest living wage claim.

So what do we have now? The end of the cooperative era in industrial relations has now unfortunately been seen. We have had cooperation derided, arbitration attacked. We have the promotion, the encouragement, the active seeking of confrontation. He is ringing people up in America and Jakarta saying, `Isn't there somebody out there prepared to have a fight?' He is like a promoter without a boxer ringing everybody up saying, `Who is it that is going to turn up? I've an opponent for you, won't someone hop into the ring?' He has had only a very mild change from the role he was playing before, strolling around the Australian industrial relations scene like a pocket Maggie Thatcher looking for an Arthur Scargill to fight.

But why won't the employers hop into the ring? Because they have sensible obligations and responsibilities to their shareholders. If they choose to seek reform cooperatively without closing down their workplaces, if they keep the coalmine operating whilst negotiating for change, they deserve the government's support. The Australian people deserve a better industrial relations system than the Americanisation of Australian industrial relations we have experienced in Australia in this last 18 months.

We have all seen the terrible stories and seen—those of us who had the opportunity to be there in the United States—at first-hand the consequences. This year I visited a workplace where the workers had been on strike for five years and there was no mechanism to resolve the dispute. Is that the future we want to see for Australian industrial relations? Do we want to see the government's advocate going before the Industrial Relations Commission and saying, `If this dispute goes on and on as a intractable dispute, well, so be it.' That is the government's position.

The member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) asked a very intelligent question precisely quoting the relevant section of the Workplace Relations Act—the section that your advocate came in and tried to define away; and he quoted it precisely, word for word. You said, `Why don't you read the Workplace Relations Act?' Well, why don't you have a look at it and answer the question he asked you about why you did not support arbitration in that dispute?

This cooperative partisan way is not the Australian way; it is not good for our society; it is not good for our economy; and it is not working. We are paying the price of confrontation and partisanship, but what do we get from the employers—as Richard Hine correctly summarised this morning:

They are getting everybody into a frenzy but they are not achieving anything.