Mr McCLELLAND (7:51 PM) —I rise to express concern about the abandonment of industrial relations policy in Australia. That has been demonstrated most profoundly by the recent waterfront dispute.

Mr Cadman —No, we have got a great policy. Where have you been?

Mr McCLELLAND —If we analyse what the member who interjected says is the government's policy, we can see that it is a disgrace. What is completely absent from the equation is the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has performed a uniquely Australian role in providing expert and objective advice in an area often wrought by intense conflict and frequently great complexity. In an age where efficiency is often achieved by requiring workers to give up hard fought for conditions, obviously there is going to be an intensity of feeling and obviously it is going to be a difficult job.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has performed a uniquely Australian function in achieving significant results over the years. It has been entirely absent from major disputes since this government came to office. What we have is the law of the jungle. We saw today a note by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) on 19 April 1997 that he had read a document proposing the mass sackings of waterside workers in May this year. That was clear evidence of a conspiracy. Indeed, the suggestion made in parliament today was that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was involved in that conspiracy to terminate the employment of 1,400 workers because of their union membership. This was to happen in many ports where they were achieving standards of world renown.

To return to the earlier interjection, this is the government's sole industrial relations policy. Frank Costigan wrote a very impressive article on 23 April this year. He likened what was going on in the Patrick restructuring to what was occurring in the bottom of the harbour days. He said that those extraordinary steps had been taken without any attempt by the government or the group of companies to ascertain precisely the true extent of waterfront reform that had been achieved over the past decade, without investigating alleged rorts and without ascertaining the true state of affairs. There are arguments that can be tested in a rational, sensible environment, with people giving their evidence and being cross-examined and tested.

Mr Cadman —That has been done.

Mr McCLELLAND —The interjector might like to tell the House why the government did not appear before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to discuss waterfront reform when the matter was listed on 4 February 1998.

The government has turned its back on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It has turned its back on the rule of law determining all aspects of Australian society, including the very important area of industrial relations, which is essential to Australia's economy. I do not know how the minister will possibly explain, for instance, the repeal of section 170QK of the act, which enabled the commission to order parties in an industrial dispute to bargain in good faith. They have emasculated the powers of the commission to bring parties together and sit down and talk sensibly. It is a complete and utter abandonment of the field of rationality when it comes to progressing such a vitally important part of human endeavour.

Nothing constructive has ever been achieved for any nation by fanatics or zealots. Any meaningful achievements in any field of human endeavour have only ever been achieved through reasoned, balanced and cooperative approaches with Australians acting with Australians for a common purpose and working together to achieve reform. This fanatical, zealous, illegal approach is the government's response to industrial relations. What is required is restoring the rule of law, not these illegal activities that have quite clearly been brought out in the parliament today.