Download Fragment

Tuesday, 14 June 2005
Page: 11

Mr HAASE (2:47 PM) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of reports of proposed changes allowing registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act to have increased influence over public policy making and elected officials?

Mr ANDREWS (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) —I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am aware of some proposed changes that have been reported. For example, on the weekend, the Queensland ALP conference decided that it would increase unions’ voting power in ALP preselections from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, going in exactly the opposite direction to the reforms which the member for Hotham and Bob Hawke and Neville Wran attempted to put in place. No doubt this has something to do with the $9.7 million which the unions have donated to the ALP in Queensland since 1996.

We can see some further examples of this influence in New South Wales. In the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend, it was reported that in New South Wales unions which are affiliated with the ALP have 393,000 members. The Secretary of Unions NSW, Mr John Robertson, said at the weekend that only 49 per cent of them voted Labor at the last election. In terms of membership, according to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald, only one per cent of the 393,000 members of unions in New South Wales are ALP members. This stands in stark contrast to—

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 98, particularly subsection (c), which defines the matters about which a minister might be asked in question time. The minister is clearly responding on matters that are nowhere near his portfolio. I would ask you to draw him back to any part that might be relevant.

The SPEAKER —I have been listening to the answer carefully, and I believe that the minister is answering the question.

Mr ANDREWS —I was asked about registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act, which is quite clearly in my portfolio. The reason the member does not want to hear the answer is that there is a stark contrast between less than one per cent of unionists in New South Wales belonging to the ALP and almost 100 per cent of the union bosses belonging to the ALP. It is no wonder, therefore, that on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition caved in to union demands with his roll-back of industrial relations policy. When the Leader of the Opposition addressed the two state ALP conferences on the weekend, he was not addressing the workers, most of whom do not belong to the unions and most of whom have benefited by a 14 per cent increase in real wages under this government, nor was he addressing the unionists, 99 per cent of whom do not belong to the ALP. He was simply addressing the unrepresentative union leaders, the unrepresentative union bosses. It is no wonder that in an editorial in the Canberra Times yesterday, headed ‘Corruption the big ALP task’, the editorial writer said this about the leader of the opposition—

Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is an editorial in the Canberra Times relevant to the question that is asked or to the minister’s portfolio responsibilities?

The SPEAKER —May I say to the Chief Opposition Whip: as the content of the editorial has not been drawn into the debate, it is hard to answer that question, so I will call the minister.

Mr ANDREWS —As the editorial in the Canberra Times said yesterday in part about the Leader of the Opposition:

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was about registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act. Clearly, from the start of the quote that the minister just went to, it is not about that matter at all.

The SPEAKER —I will rule on the point of order. The minister will demonstrate where this is relevant to the question.

Mr ANDREWS —To continue the quote:

the Leader of the Opposition—

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: can I direct your attention to standing order 90 and the making of reflections on members in the House. Those reflections made by the minister were most inappropriate and ought to be withdrawn. They may or may not be in a quote; that does not make them parliamentary, and I can take you to the relevant bit of House of Representatives Practice on that point.

The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business has made her point. Has the minister concluded his answer?

Mr ANDREWS —No, Mr Speaker. Can I just conclude on this note—

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER —I have called the minister.

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, you may have called the minister, but I have asked you to determine whether an unparliamentary expression has been used and whether it ought to be withdrawn. You need to determine that question and ask the minister for a withdrawal.

The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume her seat. The minister is in order in quoting from whatever he is quoting.

Mr ANDREWS —I am quoting from yesterday’s Canberra Times. Indeed, for the benefit of the House, I will table the article. Can I conclude by saying this: what the Leader of the Opposition ought to be engaged in is formulating real policy instead of this roly-poly roll-back.

Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I direct your attention to page 490 of House of Representatives Practice, particularly the following sentence:

That is what the minister has just done. I have asked for a withdrawal. A withdrawal ought to be asked for now. The minister ought to withdraw those expressions. The fact that they were contained in a quote does not assist the minister on that basis. They ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the comments of the editor of the Canberra Times were very mild compared to what members opposite are saying about the Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Mr Abbott —and if that cannot be quoted in this parliament, what can be?

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat! I will rule on the—

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 90 refers to reflections on members, and it says ‘imputations of improper motives’. If you visit the Hansard on this matter, you will see that the reading of that item did not reflect an improper motive on the Leader of the Opposition; it just said he was incompetent.

The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. If the Manager of Opposition Business finds that word offensive, I will call on the minister to withdraw. The minister will withdraw.

Mr ANDREWS —Mr Speaker, I just seek your clarification. The member opposite raised a point of order about an excerpt from the Canberra Times. Is that what I am asked to withdraw?

The SPEAKER —I believe it is, and the minister will withdraw.

Mr ANDREWS —The article speaks for itself. I will otherwise withdraw.

The SPEAKER —No, the minister will withdraw.

Mr ANDREWS —Mr Speaker, can I also seek a clarification—

The SPEAKER —No, the minister will withdraw.

Mr ANDREWS —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have tabled the document.

The SPEAKER —That is not the point. The minister will withdraw.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Yes, he has withdrawn.