Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed, one of the decisions that employees and employers can make upon the expiration of the nominal expiry date is that the Australian workplace agreement or the interim AWA can continue indefinitely. I believe the Australian public will be very interested to know that Labor’s own bill does not abolish individual statutory agreements and that, in workplaces across Australia, employees and employers are entitled to continue working under individual statutory agreements. Once again, this is all Labor’s spin and when you go to the detail the truth is revealed.

There has also been much concern raised in the Senate inquiry by stakeholders and both sides of politics about the workability of the award modernisation scheme. The coalition is particularly concerned about comments made to the Senate inquiry by Professor Andrew Stewart, who submitted that:

It is simply not possible to standardise conditions in any award-reliant industry or occupation without disadvantaging someone.

One of the minister’s own Labor colleagues, Senator Marshall, suggested last week that the ALP plan for award modernisation without disadvantaging workers or increasing employers’ costs was ‘contradictory and an impossible ask’. I ask the minister to respond to Senator Marshall’s concerns about this contradiction. Of all the areas within the bill, this is the most flawed and of greatest concern. On the one hand the ALP want to oversee the eventual demise, they say, of individual statutory agreements, yet on the other hand they are not prepared to extend the life of ITEAs until such time as there is an adequate set of modern award conditions in place. Senator Marshall’s concerns about the contradictory nature of this ought to be taken into account.

To top it off, the Senate inquiry revealed that the government had neither undertaken nor commissioned any economic modelling or economic analysis of the impact of its transition bill or indeed its industrial relations agenda more broadly. Given that unemployment is at its lowest level in 34 years and long-term unemployment has decreased significantly during the decade of workplace reform under the Howard government, we are amazed that the Labor Party are so dismissive of the impact this bill will have on jobs. They have done nothing about getting any economic modelling or analysis on its impact on jobs.

There is nothing fair about unemployment. I am at a loss to understand why Labor has not published any analysis—positive or negative—on the impact on jobs. We are aware that the minister has a report from Econtech that analysed the impact of Labor’s broader industrial relations agenda and conservatively estimated that it will result in a 2.4 per cent increase in unemployment and a potential loss of 268,000 jobs. The minister has refused to release this report publicly. What does she have to hide?

It is the responsibility of the government of the day to draft legislation that can be implemented without confusion, without complexity and without subsequent damage to the economy. The government is obliged to consider the evidence given to the Senate inquiry and respond with the necessary amendments to ensure that the legislation reflects the promises that Labor made to business, industry and workers before the election.

My initial proposal alluded to in my speech in the second reading debate, to amend the bill to extend the life of Labor’s interim statutory agreements, is no longer necessary in the light of the evidence before the inquiry. I remind the House again of the evidence of Finn Pratt, an assistant secretary in DEEWR. Existing AWAs and the new individual statutory agreements introduced by Labor can continue indefinitely—and that is what I was seeking to do with the amendment—into the future, provided neither party seeks to terminate or renegotiate the agreement. It is a well-known fact that there are thousands of agreements that have continued for many decades on the same terms and conditions. The coalition does not support this legislation but we will not oppose its passage to the Senate.

See this speech in context