Dr NELSON(5.45 p.m.) —This evening I wish to speak about two members of the Australian Labor Party. Their party would, I presume, describe one of these as one of their leading candidates and the other as one of their leading members. The first is the Australian Labor Party's most recent recruit, Mrs Cheryl Kernot. It is unusual—in fact, it has made history—for someone to defect to the Labor Party. The member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) will be the second person to whom I will address my remarks.

Many people on the Australian Labor Party side of politics these days have—I think quite rightly—a very high admiration and regard for the work of the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair. The Australian Labor Party's latest recruit, Cheryl Kernot, has said that she wants Australia to have a vision very much like that of Mr Blair.

Mr Blair gave what I can only describe as an outstanding address to the Trade Union Congress in Britain on 9 September 1997. That address contrasts with the address given by the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, Mr Kim Beazley, when, on 2 September, he addressed the ACTU Congress in this country.

First of all, Mr Blair on 9 September said:

We have taken prompt action as well to set the public finances right. Our election promises on taxation and spending were not just some short-term gimmick to placate the city. The fact is that, if we cannot solve the debt problems that we have inherited—the national debt doubled in the last six years—then those at the bottom of the heap will lose out just as much as everyone else.

In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition said to unionists here in Australia:

It has been a rude awakening for those who thought this road worth travelling. Even the most conservative economic commentators have now surrendered their positions and conceded that the government's budgetary strategy was wrong and has severely damaged the economy.

In other words, what Mr Beazley said here in Australia was diametrically opposed to what Mr Blair, the British Prime Minister, the hero of Mrs Kernot, told unionists in the United Kingdom. Mr Blair also said:

We must set in place the minimum standards to deal with the bad employers. What we promised, we will do.

Mr Beazley, in contrast, said:

The AIRC should be able to determine paid rates awards for workers who need them, such as nurses, teachers, firefighters and public servants. It should also be able to approve industry-wide agreements like that proposed by the TWU and rejected after Reith's intervention.

On the subject of flexibility Mr Beazley said, in the same speech here in Australia:

As I have said, the only sort of flexibility the Liberals want is the ability to cut wages. They could not care less about giving working people security by helping them adapt to changing demands in the workplace.

In contrast, Tony Blair, his hero and the hero of Mrs Kernot in particular, told British unionists:

Let us not treat flexibility—in the right sense of the word—and fairness, as if they were opposites, as if you cannot have flexibility without injustice or fairness without rigidity. We are committed to fairness at work.

Tony Blair went on to say, by the way:

I dream of the day when I come to the Trade Union Congress and the words `labour laws' are not mentioned.

Turning now to the member for Jagajaga, I notice in today's Australian that, having had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) focus his attention on trusts and criticise some members of the government frontbench:

Mr Evans said that one Labor frontbencher—believed to be Jenny Macklin—was also the beneficiary of a family trust, but she "is in the process of changing that status at the moment".

Honourable members should be aware that the member for Jagajaga has an interesting background.   In the past, at least, the member for Jagajaga has described herself as a socialist. At one stage she was coordinator of the Victorian Labour Resource Centre, a socialist left dominated, government subsidised think tank. She was also editor of its journal, The Labour Resourcer .

When she gave the 1983 Marx Centenary Conference Address, Ms Macklin said:

What does the dismantling of capitalism and the building of socialism involve? It is all too clear that spontaneous uprising is not around the corner. Planned insurrection is only a dream in some people's heads. We are talking about transformation . . . the essence of this is that it is a strategy for a war of position, where we can gradually make incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital.

As I have said before, you can find cheats, liars and crooks in any walk of life, including in the parliament. The one thing that is difficult to deal with is hypocrisy. How, on the one hand, could you be talking about dismantling capitalism in 1983 and then on the other be running a family trust, if that is the case? (Time expired)