Senator FERGUSON(3.21 p.m.) —What a pathetic effort by members opposite to try to raise the issue of the Australian waterfront when they ought to be apologising for their efforts in regard to that issue. I had the misfortune to chair the estimates committee when Senator O'Brien painstakingly—and I use the word advisedly—asked questions to do with the maritime unions in regard to consultancies. It is not as though the former Labor government did not offer consultancies.

In relation to the efforts that have been made on the Australian waterfront over the last number of years, the Labor Party and this opposition ought to be ashamed of themselves. When it comes to the waterfront and the continuing problems that dog Australia's waterfront and hinder our trade—they are: the poor productivity levels, the poor safety records and the poor reliability and they have been raised continually—no amount of defence by those opposite will ever deny the fact that the Australian waterfront is so far behind its competitors around the rest of the world.

In September, the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics figures revealed a provisional five port average of a crane rate of 18.3 containers an hour. That is really something to be proud of, Senator O'Brien, particularly when the bureau conservatively estimates that the five port average could be 25 containers per hour. They estimate that a 43 per cent increase in productivity is achievable. This industry, and in particular the unions, must set themselves some goals for productivity improvements to try to achieve those goals. Not only the bureau but also the government believes that 25 containers per hour is quite achievable.

In the area of safety record, the incidence of fatalities on the waterfront per 10,000 employees is twice that of the mining industry and seven times the national average. The average cost of workers compensation is $1,450 per annum compared with an all industry average of $244. In 1996, the number of days lost, which my colleague Senator McGauran pointed out in his speech earlier, remains almost 10 times the national average.

Members opposite have said that jobs is their main platform that they want to run with at the next election. They say that their first priority is providing security for all Australians and that includes job security. Yet did you know that in question time in 1997 less than four per cent of Labor's questions have been related to jobs? Out of a total of 583 questions a mere 21 questions were related to jobs.

Senator Calvert —How many?

Senator FERGUSON —Only 21 questions out of 583 were related to jobs. Did you know that since the beginning of the spring session on 25 August there have been just seven questions from the Labor Party relating to jobs? These are the people who have said that job security is going to be the most important platform of their election. As a matter of fact, if you look at the three particular shadow ministers, Senator Bolkus, who is the shadow minister for employment, has asked three questions this year on jobs and not one question in this session.

The shadow minister for employment does not think jobs are important enough to even ask one question on unemployment for the whole of this session. Senator Cook has asked two questions for the year. I must admit he has asked one this session. Senator Cook has managed to ask one. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, who is part of this great push to make jobs and job security a platform at the next election, has asked four questions this year as leader.

Senator Calvert —This year?

Senator FERGUSON —Yes. But how many since August? None—not one question from the Leader of the Opposition. So the next time the Labor Party talks about jobs—jobs on the waterfront and jobs for young Australians—Australians might do well to remember that the issue of jobs as far as the Labor Party is concerned rates very low on their list of priorities in this Senate chamber. I think all Australians would do well to take note of the fact that we will get plenty of rhetoric about jobs from the Labor Party opposite, but they are not concerned about jobs at all. Otherwise, they would have raised the issue at appropriate times and asked question of ministers, but they could not do that even once. (Time expired)