Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) to be included in the 2016

Olympics. We hope to get a

chance to chat about that

later. Returning to the

Federal Government's so called

Rudd Bank now which was voted Rudd Bank now which was voted

down in the Senate last night.

The Opposition is also expected to oppose the Government's

controversial changes to the

building industry watchdog. The Opposition's workplace

relations spokesman Michael

Keenan joins us now from

Canberra. Good morning. Good

morning, a pleasure to be with

you again. How do you

understand the switch off

proposal will work for coercive

powers in some parts of the

haven't seen building industry? Well, we

haven't seen the legislation

yet so I can only go on what

the Prime Minister and the

deputy prime minister said at

their press conference

yesterday but it seems to me to

be quite an extraordinary

proposal. It like you go to the

authorities and say, "Well, I'm

an armed robber but I haven't

robbed a bank in the past six

months so can you please turn

off the security system." It

makes no sense and it's unclear

to me why anyone who's actually

obeying the law would have any obeying the law would have any

concern about these powers. If

your a law abiding citizen

doing the right thing, why

would you need the laws turned

off? It doesn't make

sense. But the coercive powers

will still be available for use

in appropriate circumstances so

why can't you accept that?

Well, they're available for use in appropriate circumstances

now, which is when the law has

been broken, so I don't know

why you would need to switch

them off and can then switch them back on again if them back on again if there's a

problem. If you're obeying the

law then you have nothing to

concern yourself about these

powers. The reality is the Australian Building and Construction Commission has

been incredibly successful in

returning law and order to what

has traditionally been on

industry plagued by militant

unionism and thuggery. I don't

see any reason why you would

mess with the authority. It's been given

been given the powers to do its

job properly. It's been very

successful in doing that job so

I would suggest they shouldn't

be changing the body or the

powers at all but if they are

going to do it then at least

make a new body that has some

teeth to actually do the job

it's supposed to do. You say

Labor prefers a return to the

days of lawlessness and

thuggery, that's a bit over the

top, isn't it? Not at all.

This is an industry that for This is an industry that for

two decades has been plagued by

lawlessness and thuggery. You

only need to look at the

reports from the Cole Royal

Commission to see the way some

of the mill tBt unions have

operated in the past, using

violence and intimidation. You

see it now in Victoria with the

west gate bridge dispute. You

need a strong cop on the beat

Building and Construction to control this. The Australian

Commission was given powers,

some would describe them as extraordinary powers but the some would describe them as

reality is they were the powers

they needed to actually do the

job of maintaining law and

order within that industry. I

don't think that description is

over the top at all. It's

actually a very fair analysis

of the facts. You'll

definitely be voting against

this legislation? We haven't

even seen the legislation yet.

It's only going to be tabled in

the parliament in about half an

hour so we'll look at the

legislation but the early signs, as signs, as it's been described

to us, is a weakong the powers

and a return to the bad old

days within the industry, it

means it's not very promising.

Last night this legislation for

the commercial property lending

authority was voted down in the

Senate. You're putting

thousands of jobs at risk,

aren't you, by voting against

thatilation? Not at all and

chats just more Labor spin. The

reality is what we're doing is protecting the

protecting the interests of the

Australian taxpayer. This

Government is already, in its

very short life, going to run

up $315 billion worth of debt,

an unprecedented level of debt

in our peace time history, and

we're taking moves to protect

the taxpayer from even more

debt being laid at their door.

But what was the - jobs is what

you're on about at the moment, jobs, jobs,

jobs, jobs, jobs. This is

designed to protect jobs so how

can you justify voting against

it? Can I suggest to you it's

not designed to protect jobs

and that's just Labor spin. It

is not clear what it is

designed to do because the

Government hasn't really

justified why they need the

legislation. What we know is

we're already facing record

levels of debt. $315 billion.

It is up to the Opposition, up

to the Liberal Party and to the Liberal Party and National Parties, to protect

the Australian taxpayer from

even more levels of debt. There

is no justification for the

legislation and it is a good

thing for the Australian people

that the Senate's made this

decision. It was designed to prevent property development

companies failing. If such a

company does fail now, are you

prepared to take the rap for

the loss of those jobs? Well,

we're not sure what it's

Government really never designed to do because the

justified why they justified why they would take

these extraordinary measures to

expose the tax payer to even

more levels of debt. The

reality was it was an ill

conceived plan from the start.

The Government never justified

why we should do this and the

Opposition did what I think is

a very important part of our

job and that's to protect the

interests of the Australian

taxpayer. Michael Keenan in Canberra, thanks very much for

that. Thanks, Joe. Now you