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

The problem with the argument advanced by the member for Perth is that it contains a major internal flaw and contradiction. The nub of his argument goes to the mining and resources sector in Western Australia. He says—correctly on this point—that the mining and resources sector in Western Australia is booming and, indeed, that it is a major contributor to the economy in Australia. The essence of his argument is that, therefore, any changes that have been put in place in Australian Workplace Agreements are irrelevant to that booming mining and resources sector of the Australian economy, particularly in Western Australia. This is where there is a major internal flaw and contradiction in his argument. The very same sector of the Australian economy has said over and over again—and this is what Mr Chaney said in his letter, and I will come to it shortly, to the Leader of the Opposition—that part of the reason they are able to thrive and to provide more jobs and higher wages to those employed in that sector is the flexibility that this government has brought about through its workplace relations legislation.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on one hand, as the opposition wishes to do, that this is a sector which is thriving the way it is, yet say on the other hand that we are going to rip away from that sector one of the very mechanisms which has enabled it to thrive in the way it has. That is the nub of the complaint made not by me but by Mr Chaney, the President of the Business Council of Australia—a body whose members employ some one million Australians. He makes that complaint against the opposition and the foolish decision of the Leader of the Opposition—without consulting, we are told, the member for Perth, the industrial relations spokesman for the opposition; he himself concedes that—to go out to the Labor conference at the weekend and say, ‘I propose, if elected to government, to abolish Australian workplace agreements.’

What does Mr Chaney say? These are not my words. These are the words of a man who was the managing director and CEO of Wesfarmers, one of the biggest companies operating in this country, and a man who is regarded by his peers in the business community in Australia as being of sufficient standing to be the leader of the Business Council of Australia. That body has over the years been critical of this side of government, as it has been critical of the other side of government. What did Mr Chaney say in his letter? Let me quote a little bit of Mr Chaney’s letter:

For the past two years, the BCA has argued for an integrated package of economic reforms that will allow Australia to lock in its current prosperity for the long term. It has consistently argued these reforms cannot be cherry-picked for political purposes, but need to be implemented as a whole.

It is for this reason that the BCA has called for, and supported, the most recent reforms to workplace relations. These reforms continue a 20-year process of making Australia’s workplaces more flexible and responsive, and the economy more competitive. This reform process, started by previous Labor Governments, has delivered improved living standards and low unemployment.

This MPI is about living standards and international competitiveness. Mr Chaney points out that this process of reforming industrial relations, which was, as he alludes to, started by the man that the member for Perth once worked for—namely, Paul Keating, when he was Prime Minister and previously Treasurer of this country—has led to the competitiveness and the prosperity that this country enjoys today. It is obviously of some great offence that the leader of the Business Council of Australia should come out and say this. There was an extraordinary attack on Mr Chaney and the business community in Australia from the member for Perth at his doorstop press conference this morning. Mr Chaney said:

... AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity, particularly in sectors that are critical to Australia’s current and future growth, notably mining and resources.

Mr Chaney nails the argument that is being advanced by the member for Perth today. As I said, you cannot say on one hand that the Australian economy has been so dependent upon, so boosted by, what has happened in the mining and resource sector, yet say on the other hand that you are going to rip away one of the very processes, one of the very mechanisms, that has enabled that sector of the Australian economy to boom in the way it has. That is what Mr Chaney says in his letter:

... AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity, particularly in sectors that are critical to Australia’s current and future growth, notably mining and resources.

Mr Chaney goes on:

The fact is that independent research shows that workplace reform—including the introduction of AWAs—has delivered significant opportunities for Australians.

They are the words of a very successful Australian business leader, a man regarded by his peers as being pre-eminent to lead the Business Council of Australia. That is the complaint he makes to the Leader of the Opposition. It is hardly a complaint that deserves the sort of approach we got from the member for Perth this morning, who talked about business being lazy and only looking for an easy way of increasing its profits. That is what he said in his attack in his doorstop this morning. We know why the member for Perth is upset, and that is because he has been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that, for the last year or so, the member for Perth has been going around the business organisations and the major businesses in Australia trying to rebuild relationships after the disastrous relationship the Labor Party under Mark Latham had with the business community of Australia. That is the reality. The member for Perth has been trying to rebuild that relationship, as have a few others on the other side—knowing the disastrous level it got to under the leadership of Mr Latham, the previous Leader of the Opposition.

This is what happened at the weekend. It was unbeknownst to the member for Perth until he was told that the decision of the Leader of the Opposition was a fait accompli. The Leader of the Opposition, ignoring whatever advice he might have had from the member for Perth, went along to the New South Wales Labor conference and there, to the no-doubt populist cheers of the union bosses—those who have over the last 10 years donated millions of dollars to the ALP—he said, ‘I’m going to rip up AWAs.’ The egg is all over the face of the member for Perth following the announcement made at the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition.

What was the reaction to that? The reaction to that from the business community, not just from almost every editorial writer of almost every major newspaper in Australia, was one of complete astonishment. They were getting the nudge, nudge, wink, wink from the member for Perth, who over the last few months and the last year had said to them effectively, ‘Look, we’ll keep AWAs.’ The Leader of the Opposition said eight months ago: ‘There’ll be a million AWAs in place by the next election; you can’t just rip up a system that involves that.’

So you have the member for Perth, given that sort of lead by the Leader of the Opposition, going around to all the business groups in Australia and then suddenly, out of the blue, last weekend the Leader of the Opposition comes out and says: ‘No, we’re not going to keep these AWAs. We’re going to rip them up. We’re going to remove this system.’ That is the reality, and that is part of the reason why we have seen the negative reaction—contrary, I believe, to what the Leader of the Opposition expected—in the media and from the business community this week.

And it is not just the Business Council of Australia, although they represent companies that employ something like one-tenth of the workforce in Australia—about one million Australians are employed by BCA companies. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry represent companies and employers that employ about four million Australians. Equally, they have come out in condemnation of this policy from the Leader of the Opposition. And the Australian Industry Group, which represent companies employing something like two million Australians, have condemned this policy backflip by the Leader of the Opposition.

The problem with this policy is that it rips away from Australians their entitlements, their wages. It rips away from them the ability to work harder and earn more for their families. Let us take an example: the line workers, the fault workers in Telstra on AWAs. The history of that is there are ordinary, blue-collar Australian workers out there who are earning more on AWAs. Why? Because they have been able to increase their productivity, they get a bonus, which they are paid in return for doing extra work, and the result has been that their take-home pay has considerably increased as a result of being on AWAs. You can multiply these sorts of examples right across the country.

The seafood processing works that I went to in Western Australia a little while ago, where something like 80 per cent of the workforce were part-time and casual employees—

See this speech in context