Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is right, or a goose. The member for Lilley claimed that those jobs came as a result of the resources boom; they were not as a result of Work Choices at all. In fact, we have had the member for Lalor running that line in the media—it is purely the resources boom or good luck or a lucky star or whatever it might be—but when you look behind those figures, where did those jobs come from? We had 46,000 in wholesale trade, 43,000 in construction, 34½ thousand in finance and insurance and 14,000 in mining. Once again the member for Lilley has been caught out telling porkies.

What about declining wages, as was predicted? We have seen real wages grow by 17.9 per cent since this government came to power. What about industrial disputation? It is at record lows, the lowest figures ever recorded: 3.2 days lost per 1,000. Unemployment is at a 32-year low, and that is in a low interest rate environment. We paid back Labor’s $96 billion debt, which has freed up $8 billion to $9 billion a year to spend on services, to spend on the people of Australia.

I think it is pure hypocrisy for the Australian Labor Party to take on the government on the issue of productivity. They presided over double-digit unemployment; I would wager that the million people thrown on the unemployment scrap heap were not particularly productive. The Labor Party presided over a regime of restrictive work practices, and restrictive work practices are not particularly productive. They presided over economic and labour market settings that were dictated by the Australian labour union movement.

As I said, every time the government attempted to implement reform, the Australian Labor Party opposed it. They opposed unfair dismissals legislation not once, not twice but 44 times. We all know the major impediment to job creation there is in the spectre of unfair dismissals, and Labor’s plan for the future, the great brutopian future, is to bring back unfair dismissals. They want to protect those employees who are least productive. They want to protect those employees who do not have the firm’s interests at heart. How productive is that? How productive is it for an employer to spend time and money trotting down to a tribunal that has protected the lazy, the incompetent and, in many cases, the downright dishonest? I was interested to read in today’s Australian a headline that said ‘Unions, ALP clash on sack laws’. The article said:

Kevin Rudd looks headed for a union brawl over Labor’s policy on unfair dismissal laws, with ACTU secretary Greg Combet and other senior officials bluntly rejecting any exceptions to help small-business employers.

It appears, therefore, that the member for Lalor has been overruled by her union masters. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lalor make out that it is the Kev and Julia show. But in fact what the voters will get is not Kev and Julia; they are going to get Greg and Sharon. That is the real team they are actually voting for: Greg and Sharon.

When we operate in an increasingly competitive global environment, firms have to innovate just to keep up, and they have to innovate a great deal if they are going to prosper and grow. A major part of firms being able to innovate is Australian workplace agreements. Why is it, then, that the Australian Labor Party oppose one of the key drivers in one of the sectors that is a clear driver in our economy—that is, the mining sector? We have had the member for Lilley and the member for Lalor attributing our economic prosperity to that one sector, yet a major element of that sector is Australian workplace agreements, the sorts of agreements that they want to wind back. They want to wind back the sorts of productivity gains that Australian workplace agreements have been able to yield for the mining industry.

I want to return to unfair dismissals for a moment. A lot of figures have been quoted by various entities and authorities, and it is interesting to note what the World Bank has said about unfair dismissal regimes. It said:

Heavy regulation of unfair dismissal is associated with more unemployment. Flexible labour markets by contrast provide job opportunities for more people, ensuring the best worker is found for each job; productivity rises—

and I repeat that: productivity rises—

as do wages and output.

So we see the World Bank saying that a more flexible unfair dismissal regime results in improved productivity and improved wages and outcomes. So, if the Labor Party are serious about improving productivity, they will get behind the government. They will say to their union masters, ‘Look, it’s not on. We want to support the government’s position of maintaining a flexible workplace relations regime,’ and they will promise not to reintroduce those destructive unfair dismissal laws.

There is another major factor in the issue of productivity—that is, this government has brought into the workforce a huge number of long-term unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 54 per cent, to around 90,000. Some 107,000 long-term unemployed are now in the workforce. They are now contributing and have been given a chance to excel. They have now been given a chance to be the masters of their own destinies and to better themselves. Quite clearly, as you bring new workers into the workforce, there are issues relating to upskilling and learning new tasks. So I think the issue is that we are mobilising a huge cohort of the labour market which was previously not included in the labour market, which was not available or not actually participating in the workplace. It is good economic management and it is sound social policy. The quality of life that comes from having a job cannot be underestimated, and the positive impacts on our society cannot be underestimated.

Turning now to the issue of education, the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party have been saying a lot about education, but there are a number of factors that I find interesting. I think a very important point is that there can be no greater way of improving the quality of education than by improving the quality of our teachers. The stronger the quality of our teaching staff, the better the quality of the education outcomes that we can achieve.

It was interesting to read in the Australian of 5 February an article entitled ‘School heads unable to pick the best teachers’. The article by Lisa Macnamara refers to a paper called, ‘Teachers and the waiting game’, by Jenny Buckingham. She states:

Incompetent teachers are being shuffled between schools rather than being sacked, while many new graduates are being put in charge of the most difficult students.

And principals have little say in fixing the problem because they have little control over who they can hire and fire ...

So we have the Education Union driving this regime in which you have the most incompetent teachers being able to stay in the system, and it is difficult to get rid of them. It is a regime supported by the trade union movement and by the Australian Labor Party. They should stand up to the education unions and say, ‘If you’re serious about education quality and education outcomes, you will allow principals to get rid of that dead wood, get rid of those teachers who are disinterested in their classes and get rid of those teachers who are holding back the performance of schools who have many dedicated teachers in them,’ and we would achieve a much higher standard. So it is very simple to criticise but you are not willing to take those steps that could make some real and practical improvement.

I would like to comment also on the Australian technical college initiative—$456 million has been invested in Australian technical colleges. This is a tremendous initiative. There is also the Skills for the Future package—a range of measures that includes allowing older Australians to take up an apprenticeship, mobilising people who have work experience and upskilling them through apprenticeships. We have business skills vouchers, work skills vouchers, extra engineering places at universities and incentives for higher technical skills. There are a range of measures for skilling Australia’s future that will be great for the country into the future and that are going to produce quality productivity outcomes. (Time expired)

See this speech in context