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

He says it is the resources boom. Most of that employment actually occurred in his state of New South Wales. A resources boom occurs in Western Australia and Queensland, and this was in New South Wales—and the member for Werriwa knows that as well. The reality is we have an ageing population in Australia. Some research carried out last year showed that, because of the ageing of the population in just five years, we are facing a shortage of up to 200,000 people—195,000, to be precise—which all has an impact on the availability of jobs. We have had the Reserve Bank say that one of the constraints facing the economy in Australia is that there is not enough workers for the jobs going around. I say that the government takes a sensible position in relation to visas for people coming in from overseas. As the Minister for Health and Ageing pointed out yesterday, there are something like 7,000 or 8,000 health workers in Australia who have come in from overseas on 457 visas. If we did not have that provision, people in the rural areas that the member for Werriwa is talking about would have a shortage of health workers, including doctors and nurses.

There was a suggestion made that 2.4 per cent of employees are on AWAs. That is not right. There are approximately 10 million workers in Australia. According to the Employment Advocate’s evidence in the Senate, there are something like 538,000 current AWAs. When I went to school that number would have constituted about five per cent. There have been almost a million entered into since 1997. (Extension of time granted) There were also the questions about an employee having to sign or be sacked. That is unlawful, and anybody who faced that situation ought to have the matter taken to the Office of Workplace Services. It is clearly unlawful under the legislation.

The member for Rankin asked about the Fair Pay Commission. The Fair Pay Commission is scheduled to make a decision in spring of this year. He suggested that that constitutes a wage freeze. It does not, because the Fair Pay Commission has indicated it will take into account the fact that there has been an extra length of time since the last minimum pay decision of the Industrial Relations Commission. As honourable members opposite know, particularly those with a trade union background, the reality is that, in the past, by the time the wages actually flowed through and were incorporated into awards it was often three, four, five or six months after. In some awards it did not occur at all because of the redundant awards that are on the books at the present time. But that will be taken into account.

Finally, in relation to the matter the member for Rankin raised about Welfare to Work and the sole parent whose youngest child has turned eight and has gone to school, I point out that the requirement for work is a minimum of 15 hours. A person who works a minimum of 15 hours has to be paid the minimum wage at least, which is $12.75 an hour. In addition to the income that person would receive from their private exertion, they would also continue to receive a range of welfare benefits. The result of that is that that person is better off. In fact, there are guidelines being issued in relation to what sort of job has to be taken. Part of those guidelines looks at the cost of things like transport and the time that it might require to go to a job, the cost of child care, any reduction that might occur under rental assistance from a state authority and changes in taxation. The guidelines say that a person has to be better off financially by a certain amount after all of those things are taken into account, otherwise the job is unsuitable. They were matters we looked at in consultation with a number of agencies and individuals who work in the welfare system to ensure that those provisions are ones which we believe do not work in an unfair manner. I think those are most of the things, apart from the matter that was raised at the outset by the member for Perth.

I answered the member for Perth twice in relation to this matter and that was to say, as he well knows—as was indicated in Senate estimates and as has been indicated publicly by the director of the Office of Workplace Services—that that investigation is continuing. When there is a report from the Office of Workplace Services, presumably that will be made public by the director. Honourable members on all sides of this place are fully entitled to make comments about it then, but I suggest that the member for Perth waits until that report is provided.

The Office of Workplace Services is investigating this in an independent manner. I presume honourable members opposite would want that investigation to go ahead. The member for Perth’s problem is that he was left out of any consideration recently by the Leader of the Opposition. He was only told some time afterwards that the Leader of the Opposition had made a major policy change in his area. We know he is under pressure from the unions because they do not think he is doing the job properly, and he has just spat the dummy today and walked out.

See this speech in context