Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (3:59 PM) —I want to address some of the issues that arise out of the question I asked the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman, yesterday. I know some of my colleagues on the other side have had a bit of fun with the ball, but it is about to be returned with some gratuitous comments.

Senator Kemp —Not like you, George.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —Not like me at all, Senator Kemp. The question I asked of Senator Newman yesterday was based on information which had been provided to me by members of my union in New South Wales who had gone to the Centrelink offices in Wollongong and been advised that, as a result of changes that were due and effective from 1 July 1998, construction workers would, in certain circumstances, be deemed as `seasonal workers'. As a result of that, I organised to have a question asked of the minister yesterday which went to the question of whether or not the minister could confirm the advice that was given by Centrelink to construction workers in respect of them being deemed `seasonal workers'—a change in the way in which they had been treated in the past.

The minister's response to that question, in my view, was flippant in that she drew my attention to the legislation that had just passed through the Senate a few minutes before question time took place. She did not at any time during that process attempt to answer the substance of my question. I must admit that I was a bit surprised at the minister's response and I did think at the time I had been sold a furphy, so to speak, in the terms of the advice I had received.

Since that time I have gone and made some inquiries on the matter and, in particular, on the legislation that was passed by the Senate yesterday just prior to question time. Those on this side of the chamber who were involved in the negotiations around that legislation have advised me that never at any time during the negotiations over that legislation were construction workers discussed in terms of what was defined as `seasonal worker'. In the view of those on this side of the chamber who were involved in those negotiations, it was never intended that construction workers would be caught by the definition of `seasonal worker' in the act.

Schedule 4 of the legislation, which refers to the position of seasonal workers, has two definitions. Section 16A sets out those definitions. It states in (1)(a) that seasonal work means:

. . . work that, because of its nature or of factors peculiar to the industry in which it is performed, is available, at approximately the same time or times every year, for part or parts only of the year . . .

I do not think there is any way anyone could construe that definition as applying to a construction worker. Essentially, a construction worker is employed in the industry for 52 weeks of the year—if he can get 52 weeks work in a year—on a full-time basis. The work construction workers get may well be irregular, but I believe that no-one could define it in any way as being `seasonal' or as coming within the definition of `seasonal work' as covered by section 16A(1)(a). Section 16A(1)((b) states:

. . . work that is intermittent and is determined, under subsection (2), to be seasonal work for the purposes of this Act.

Subsection (2) requires the making of a disallowable instrument by the secretary in order to specify the type of work that is covered by that section. If the minister is using subsection (2) to define that construction workers are covered by the provisions of that legislation passed yesterday, then it will require an instrument to be tabled in this parliament.

I take this opportunity to advise the minister that, if an instrument is sought to be tabled in the parliament to include construction workers in that definition, the opposition will oppose the allowance of that instrument. From talking to my colleagues, it is quite clear that never at any time, in the sorts of examples that were given by the minister or the persons negotiating on her behalf, was a construction worker conceived to fall within either of one of those two definitions.

In those circumstances, I think it appropriate for the minister to come into this chamber on the next day of sitting, preferably before question time, and give us an explanation defining which of those sections she was relying on yesterday when she answered my question. If she believes that construction workers were caught by the legislation that was passed yesterday by the Senate—and it is my view that she did not even understand her own legislation, otherwise she would not have answered my question in the way she did—then I would ask her to come into this chamber on Monday prior to question time and give us an explanation, or provide me with an explanation, as to which of the two definitions she believes a construction worker is caught under.

If she does not or cannot give an explanation, or if she believes on examination that they are not caught by those provisions, then I think she owes it to construction workers all around the country to advise Centrelink personally that they or the people who have been turned away be advised that in fact they received wrong advice from Centrelink, that they are not caught by the definition and that they do have access to the jobsearch allow ance in the same way as any other unemployed person would have access to that allowance.

I think the minister at least owes that to the persons in Wollongong who, in my view, have been misled by the advice given by Centrelink. Centrelink itself obviously have been advised wrongly by the department or by the minister's office as to the application of those definitions and the categories of employment that fall within those two definitions provided for in schedule 4 of the legislation that was passed yesterday. That, I think, is the least that the minister and the department can do in clearing this matter up.

I think she owes an apology to construction workers. I do not take kindly to the way in which the minister treated the question. It does not matter how this might affect me—the minister might want to have a bit of fun in the chamber. There are workers out there who are struggling to try to get a week's work. They are struggling to try to get continuity of employment in the same way that it is guaranteed to us. They are trying to use the already discredited job search services that this government put in place from 1 May and are being given wrong advice. When we seek to try to have this corrected, we are treated flippantly and with total disregard by the minister. I think this is totally disrespectful of these workers.

In those circumstances, I think the least the minister can do is review the contents of the question she was asked yesterday, examine the question against the legislation, try to understand what her own legislation actually means, work out who will be caught by the seasonal worker provisions and, if she is big enough to admit she was wrong, at least ensure that Centrelink, if not herself personally, offers an apology to those workers who have been turned away under those provisions.