Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

At least the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, the predecessor of the member who is interjecting now, realised in the early 1990s that that prescriptive industrial relations system did not save one million Australians from being thrown into unemployment. In the 10 years since then, we have seen a total reversal, a total turnabout in the prospects of Australian workers and their families—something that the Leader of the Opposition, when he had his hands on this country’s gear levers of policy, was incapable of changing. Over the last decade, we have seen an increase of something like 1.7 million extra jobs for Australians. We have also seen a 16 per cent increase in real wages for Australians, compared to about a one per cent increase over the total 13 years of the previous Labor government. We have seen low interest rates—a far cry from the home mortgage rates of 17 and 18 per cent, let alone the 21 and 22 per cent interest rates that small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia were paying back in the 1980s and the early 1990s. We have seen inflation rates in the band regarded as acceptable by the Reserve Bank. Whatever piece of economic data you like to take, it will match the experiences of ordinary Australians—that is, there has been relative prosperity over the last 10 years, particularly in comparison with the regime and the economic circumstances of Australia when we were living under the previous Labor government.

The other thing about the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition today is that there is absolutely nothing new about it. This is what we heard back in 1996. Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition from the Hansard of 19 June 1996, almost a decade ago. He was talking about the then Workplace Relations Act, which was being attacked by the Labor Party with the same degree of overblown rhetoric we are getting today with the Work Choices legislation. He said that the Workplace Relations Act would lead to:

... the kind of low wage, low productivity industrial wasteland we see in the United States and New Zealand where jobs can be bought at bargain basement rates ...

He said that Australia would go:

... straight down the American road on ... wages justice ... that produces social dislocation more than anything else ...

He also said:

At the end of the day, guns are a symptom of that process.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 19 June 1996. The member for Perth was saying similar things. He said:

The Howard model is quite simple. It is all about lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it is about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it is about the abolition of safety nets; and it is about pushing down or abolishing minimum standards.

No doubt we will hear something very similar from the member for Perth if he contributes to this debate today. The rhetoric from the opposition in relation to industrial relations has not changed one whit in almost 10 years.

But let us deal with some of the facts in relation to what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I note that, in question time, he talked about an AWA that had been offered—and we will look into that. First of all, we will check out whether what he says about it is correct, because past experience over a long period of time indicates we should not take on face value things that are said in this place by the opposition. The opposition leader kept talking about an AWA that had been offered. Presumably, on the words that he carefully and advisedly used, this was not an AWA that had been taken up. We will check that out, but let me deal with some facts about AWAs.

First of all, if you are an existing employee, you cannot be forced onto an AWA. If you are employed under some other form of industrial arrangement, such as an award or a collective agreement, you cannot be forced onto an AWA. If you are offered a job and the employer says, ‘These are the conditions,’ you can choose whether to take that job or not. As an employee, you have a choice of whether you take that job or not. Unlike the Labor Party, we will not stand by and allow 1.1 million Australians to be thrown onto the unemployment heap—the great economic record of the previous government. Existing employees cannot be forced onto AWAs. The Workplace Relations Act makes it unlawful for employers to terminate an employee for refusing to agree to an AWA. It makes it unlawful for employers to use duress in relation to AWA agreement making.

If employees have concerns about their rights and entitlements, they can contact the Office of Workplace Services. In the last few weeks, we have seen the Office of Workplace Services take action where rights and entitlements have not been met under industrial legislation. In addition, all employees in Australia have the right to appoint a bargaining agent to negotiate an AWA. They can have the union shop steward come in and negotiate their AWA for them. If they want to, they can choose someone else to come in and negotiate their AWA for them. Once that bargaining agent has been appointed, that appointment has to be respected by the employer in those circumstances. The employer cannot simply say, ‘I will not deal with the bargaining agent concerned.’ Employers must deal with that validly appointed bargaining agent. There are protections not mentioned by the Labor Party in relation to this.

But what are the policy alternatives of the Labor Party? Let us look at a few things in their policies outlining what they would do, and see how that is going to lead to job creation in Australia. For example, we have the ALP policy to impose a new payroll tax on business in Australia. They want to fund unpaid employee entitlements through a payroll tax on all employers of 0.1 per cent of the payroll. How long do you think it will stay at 0.1 per cent of the payroll? Firstly, their policy is to tax employment even beyond what it is being taxed at the present time.

Secondly, they say, ‘We want to abolish AWAs,’ despite the fact that people on AWAs earn more, on average, than people who are employed under collective agreements and earn a lot more than people who are employed under awards. For the nearly one million people who have entered into AWAs in Australia, the Australian Labor Party’s policy is to say, ‘As for those better conditions, that better salary you’ve got’—almost one million AWAs now—‘we’re going to rip them away from you.’ They are going to rip them away from what is getting close to one in 10 people employed in Australia at the present time.

Beyond that, they want to reimpose the abused unfair dismissal system in Australia. This is the system that led to the ridiculous situation where employers would sooner pay $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 to get rid of a problem rather than to reinstate someone.

See this speech in context