Kevin Andrews tells it like it is.

Minister dismisses protests

The federal Workplace Relations Minister has described the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who rallied today against proposed new federal industrial relations laws as 'predictable'.

'Unions had predicted that 100,000 would attend, and almost twice as many did, so therefore it was rather predictable. And with the changes being so distressing to the public, it is entirely predictable that so many would stand packed together, despite miserable weather and the forecasts thereof, to take a democratic stand.'

Kevin Andrews said 95 per cent of workers had stayed on the job. "It's always predictable that people are out on the streets," he said.

'And if only 5 per cent are willing to risk their jobs, their goodwill with the company, and haven't been threatened or conned out of attending, then that means no one cares at all. We have indisputable proof, here in Liberal HQ, that throughout history, there has been people of various quantities on the streets of Melbourne.'

Mr Andrews dismissed the union movement's campaign against the legislation as 'hysterical.
He said public concern over the laws would subside when workers and their families began to live under the new system from March next year.

'We are entirely convinced that we can direct the public's attention away from poor working conditions and fewer rights over time. In fact, we have indisputable proof, that over time, people begin to care less about the issues that they cared about previously, which correlates with the amount of time lapsed.'

"I think that Australians, when they are sitting around their barbecue next year, as they will continue to do, or when they're sharing a public holiday with their children, will ask themselves what all this hysteria is about,'' he said in Melbourne.

'Of course, this doesn't apply to those who pawn their barbecue because their boss has, without notice, decided to bank some of the 38 hours they can average over 12 months because business is a bit slow, and need to stop the bank from foreclosing on their house. It also doesn't apply to those, for example, that do not have public holidays, or have had them removed. And the same applies for their children.'

Union and Labor leaders had falsely compared the new legislation to fascism and terrorism, Mr Andrews said.

'And also those evil Christians of all denominations, especially the humanitarian ones, are also dastardly lefties who tell lies and fibs. If you bring it changes that the public is in terror of, it does not make you a terrorist. It makes the person who explains the laws to them a terrorist. We have reduced the amount of queries in question time that allow us to be questioned, we have reduced the amount of time our bills can be scrutinised, reviewed or even debated. How exactly is that fascism?'

"It is totally over the top, equating IR changes with terrorism, saying that this is going to lead eventually to riots in the streets of Australia like we have seen in Paris, to be saying women and children will be killed.

'The LA riots, Paris riots, etc, were predominantely triggered by extreme poverty, these IR reforms do not create poverty. It merely allows business to create poverty, if they so choose. If paying a person somewhere between less and nothing makes a company more money, them's the breaks.'

"That really set the tenor of the entire approach, the entire campaign that the unions have been running.

'And again, by unions, I also mean churches.'

"I believe it has been irresponsible, it has certainly been hysterical and Australians will ultimately judge it that way.''

'When we first introduced the changes, unions predicted drastic changes. They were wrong, they were more drastic than even they could estimate, which, as detail was released, the harsher they became. At first, the union reaction was distraught, so we regressed the changes so they became mortified, and then hysterical. That was our goal, so that I could stand here and say they are being hysterical. Note that there are occasions when hysteria is entirely natural.'

Mr Andrews said he was not fazed by the possibility of a High Court challenge, a pledge made by Victorian Premier Steve Bracks during today's Melbourne rally.

'We have our ways around the traditional means of justice, don't you worry about that.'

When asked about possible opposition from rebel Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce, he replied: "I'm confident that all my colleagues are supportive of this legislation.

'Barnaby is a tough nut, but he's close to cracking. Bill's been working on some great CIA tactics to wear down the psyche of the man. We have explained to him that our corporate sponsors have paid a lot of money for these laws, money that lines his pockets. Sometimes it's hard to get the idea that our purpose is to represent the people out of people's heads.'

"This isn't something that we decided on overnight. It's at least a year ago that I started the process of consultation over this. I spent many months consulting widely, including (with) the ACTU."

'We didn't think the changes up overnight, we were told about what our corporate sponsors wanted us to introduce over the course of several days, the only thing we decided on was how loudly to agree. Initially, we "consulted" the ACTU with a manilla envelope full of $2,000 in unmarked bills, which was returned. We have been increasing the quantity of case within the envelopes, and each time it seems to get harder to return.'

Mr Andrew said the decision about whether to issue fines of $22,000 to construction workers who walked off the job would not be decided by the government.

'This is because we will just have the OEA do it for us, as it has done in the past - if the company and employees come to an agreement, and there are no fines, the OEA will enforce the fines on employees themselves regardless, despite what they "decide". That way, we can say the government didn't decide it.'

"That's a matter for the building and construction commission. It's an independent body. It has a statutory (regime) which it operates under.

'Should the need arise, we could always initiate a regime change.'

"We have put in place some laws they're about bringing about lawful behaviour and activity in the building and construction industry.

'They're mostly harsher penalties for existing laws, if you exclude the parts that give builders less rights than rapists, murderers, etc. The prior laws were incredibly successful, after a Royal Commission and vast quantities of money, we actually had one case that even vaguely made it through the legal system.'

"We would hope that in that industry, like any other industry in Australia, whatever activities are carried out will be done in a lawful manner."

'Which is like saying "we hope you act lawfully, homosexuals" just after we outlaw sodomy and being gay.'

Mr Andrews then took a swipe at the federal Opposition leader's vow to repeal the legislation if Labor were elected.

'Half a billion dollars was spent trying to inconvenience (at best) the Australian public, and to reverse it is a huge waste of taxpayer's money. This makes it more important for the Liberal Party to maintain incumbency. The company's preferred Labor's half-arsed reversals of the changes. The psychologists working for the government are going to have to put in a lot of overtime trying to figure out how to win the next election now, or else we might lose our sponsors.'

"We've had Kim Beazley out there saying he's going to tear up the entire piece of legislation and yet on the other hand we've had Kim Beazley say he couldn't undo AWAs (Australian workplace agreements) because there are too many losers.

'I don't think that came out right, can I say that again, I didn't spin it properly. I might have implied that those on AWAs are losers. I'm not a-spos-ta say that.'

"He's all over the shop. He hasn't got a policy on this.
He said 900 Australia workers had already signed AWAs."

'Of course, it does make sense, Kim says he will undo this legislation. This legislation did not introduce AWA's, it just makes it easier to employ people at a disadvantage, therefore to undo the legislation does not imply complete removal of AWAs. But I'm not going to admit that.'

Mr Andrews said the government would not extend its advertising campaign, but would instead hold seminars to provide further information on the proposed changes.

'There are two ways of manipulating the public. Lies/deception and distraction. We tried lying, and it wasn't very successful. As for distraction, which reminds me, a husband who batters his wife is bad.

It is an entirely bad thing. Terrible, must be stopped. Perhaps we will stop it.

Oh, and remember Labor's 'do not call' legislation that we blocked? We're going to introduce it, but we're going to call it Liberal's 'do not call' legislation. Of course, we are going to threaten it for ages so there is a flurry of advertisement phone calls, and then introduce it, so we look like winners, even though it is entirely our fault, on both counts. Our team of psychologists are great.'

---

Melbourne at protest time is insane.
Freakin' insane.

Mostly union worker types, but so many elderly people, so many families, even some Labor people in suits trying to imitate that silly thing the Greens do by waving triangles around. (I didn't wave my End The Lies - The Greens triangle much at all.)

After the speeches and music from Federation Square, it took me about an hour to walk 20 metres. So many freakin' people. It get's a bit scary when, even with elevation, there is no end to the sea of people in either direction.

The pre-recorded speeches were a freaking brilliant idea - religious people, political leaders (Bobby got a big cheer), workplace victims, yada yada you know the drill, you all saw it and if you didn't, know it was good.