Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) (1:15 PM) —To respond to Senator Murray first: we had a discussion about this last evening and we were all agreed that, as a matter of principle, we did not necessarily like retrospectivity in legislation. But we were all, in fact, agreed that there were occasions on which we had voted for, or supported, an element of retrospectivity in legislation. So it is not a situation of, ‘There shall never be any retrospectivity.’ That is not the position, as I understand it, of any party in this place. Having debunked that, the question then is: on what occasion should legislation be retrospective?

Senator Murray —Yes.

Senator ABETZ —I agree, and Senator Murray is agreeing with that and I thank him for that. Therefore the question is: is this matter sufficiently serious as to warrant retrospectivity? As I said last night, I can understand that that is an individual judgment that individuals will make and come down on either side of the debate. To take up and debunk Senator Wong’s point on this legislation, asserting that this is because of a hatred of a particular union, can I simply indicate that a former Liberal government introduced retrospective legislation against people who had enriched themselves in a way that was deemed to be completely and utterly immoral and at the expense of the Australian taxpayer—with the bottom-of-the-harbour tax schemes. On that occasion we took on, if you like, an element of the wealthy end of town because of the seriousness of their activities. On this occasion we are now taking on a particular trade union. What that goes to show is that we in the Liberal Party are willing to take on, without fear or favour, those that offend against the basic standards in such a way that retrospectivity is deemed appropriate by us. We do not like using it, we wish that it was not necessary, but every now and then it is required. I simply point to that previous example where a Liberal government introduced retrospective legislation against those who had sought to unfairly enrich themselves at the expense of their fellow Australians. This is not us conducting a campaign against the trade unions or an element of the trade union movement. It is about having fairness in the building and construction industry. I would remind senators of the Cole royal commission which found a culture of illegality and unlawfulness, and we as a government believe that should be overcome.

I can understand that Senator Wong, as a former CFMEU employee, would be passionate about this. Before coming to parliament she was on the payroll of the CFMEU. Good luck to her. But before she starts asserting that we are doing this because of our hatred for the CFMEU, she in fact might like to declare her interest in the CFMEU prior to entering into this debate. Let me simply say that the CFMEU has in it an ‘f’ word that the Labor Party never likes to use. Of course, that is the forestry component of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. Can I say that the forestry union was very supportive of us at the last federal election and we appreciated its support. So do not suggest, in any shape or form, that we are trying to pursue the CFMEU with this legislation. What we are seeking to do is pursue illegality by employers, unions or workers to ensure that this culture changes.

Senator Wong says, ‘We want to get rid of illegality; we want to get rid of all the things that are bad in the industry, but this particular legislation is not the way forward.’ Can I ask Senator Wong: if all the amendments are carried, would you vote for the legislation? She is strangely silent. Of course she would not. She would still oppose the legislation even if all the amendments were carried. So where is her alternative approach? There is none. As a former paid official of the CFMEU she is doing their bidding in this place. That is fine, we all come from different backgrounds, but I think those listening in to this debate should be aware of that.

In relation to retrospectivity and the need for it, I indicated the reasons last night but for Senator Wong’s benefit I will put them on record again:

That is the reason we are doing it, so do not say no reason has been offered. A reason has been offered. I can understand that those opposite might reject that reason. That is fine. That is what this debate is about. But do not come in here suggesting that no reason has been proffered. What is really being said is that no reason has been proffered as to convince those opposite—such as Senator Wong, who used to be engaged by the CFMEU. Can I indicate that I doubt that any legislation of this kind would ever be to the liking of those opposite.

Coming back to Senator Murray’s points, I understand what he says about retrospectivity. I think we are all agreed that sometimes it is necessary, so it is an on-balance proposition, and on balance we fall in favour of retrospectivity. I can understand that the Democrats, on balance, are against retrospectivity. I understand that that is the divide between us and I hope we can put it to a vote.