Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

Whatever people think about the Howard government, one thing that no-one disputes is that jobs and the creation of jobs were at the centre of the Howard government’s mission. When the Howard government came to office in March 1996, unemployment stood at over eight per cent. When it left, unemployment was down to 4.3 per cent and it fell in February this year to below four per cent. These were the lowest unemployment rates we had seen since November 1974. It had taken 33 years for unemployment rates to return to the levels Australia enjoyed before stagflation and the Whitlam government ripped a hole in the Australian economy.

I am very proud of the Howard government’s record on jobs. There were 2.2 million jobs created; 1.2 million of those were full time. Unemployment fell from 8.1 per cent to 4.3 per cent. The teenage unemployment rate by 2008 was half what it was in 1992. During this time, there was a 20.8 per cent increase in real wages compared with the performance of the previous Hawke-Keating government, where there was actually a fall in real wages. The participation rate was over 65 per cent when the Howard government left office, the highest it had ever been. The female participation rate had increased during that period to again be the highest it had ever been. Every year we used to hear from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that industrial disputes were the lowest since statistics were first collected, in 1913. They were the lowest on record.

How pleased we in this parliament would all be if the Rudd government, when it finished its time in office, had anything like that track record. Sadly, on the evidence before us, it seems that we will be looking at a very different picture. The most recent forecast from the OECD is that there will be 200,000 more Australians out of work by 2010. We have any number of forecasts—from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank and a whole range of economic analysts—that unemployment will rise. Those forecasts put the unemployment rate by 2010 at between 5.75 per cent and 8½ per cent. Ultimately, what the Rudd government will be judged on is its performance in the area of jobs. It will be judged on its performance in the area of job creation and it will be judged on its performance in keeping Australians in jobs.

The opposition accepts that Labor has a mandate for industrial relations reform. To anyone who has not got the memo, Work Choices is dead. Campaigning in my own seat about 18 months ago, I had a conversation with a bloke about my age. He said, ‘Look, I think you’ve done a good job but you’ve gone too far on Work Choices.’ That view would have been reflected by people who voted for the Howard government in 2004 and then voted for Kevin Rudd in 2007. The opposition’s message is: ‘We want you back. We want you back and we want your support.’ We do recognise that Labor has a mandate for industrial relations reform.

The important thing in workplace relations is that we have a model which is adaptable and which suits the times, to help our businesses compete in the global arena. We need to have a workplace relations framework which fosters a mutually beneficial employer-employee relationship and ensures that flexibility is afforded to both employee and employer. It is absolutely critical that we safeguard the flexibility provisions from previous industrial relations reforms. This is absolutely critical to creating jobs, to providing job security and to ensuring that Australia is able to remain competitive in the future.

Over the last 20 years there have been a number of reforms to industrial relations, and all of these reforms have been premised on economic necessity. The reforms of 1988, 1993, 1996 and 2005 were all premised on the importance of providing flexibility, but also on the fact that there would be an economic dividend there. The dividend would be an increase in productivity, improved employment growth and reduced unemployment. It was one of the weaknesses. To give credit where credit is due, it was recognised by the Labor Party, as it was recognised by the Liberal and National parties, that the first steps towards enterprise bargaining were begun in 1988. It was a recognition that, while the Accord had kept wages down and had some impact on providing downward pressure on inflation, it had not led to improvements in productivity. So the feeling was that we needed a more decentralised system and that there would be an economic dividend from this.

The thing that I find surprising in this legislation is that there seems to be a deafening silence about what the economic dividend from this legislation would be. I would love to know what the Treasury analysis is of this legislation—whether it will increase, decrease or keep employment the same; whether employment growth will increase, decrease or remain the same; whether labour productivity will increase, decrease or remain the same. These are very important things that we, the parliament, should know and that the Australian people should know as well. What is the Treasury analysis of this legislation and what will be its impact? Does it improve our economic performance, does it detract from our economic performance or does it make no difference? There is complete silence on this, and as a member of the opposition I would be very interested in having a little bit more information about the economic analysis of these laws, because what we need in industrial relations is to have a framework that will stimulate productivity, stimulate economic growth and encourage and foster the creation of jobs.

As I said before, the Howard government had a strong record on jobs. Labor’s record on jobs is not a happy one. The Hawke-Keating period and the Whitlam period were not happy periods in terms of job creation and in terms of the unemployment legacy and the human cost that comes with that. We are now seeing evidence that we may be returning to a period of higher unemployment, after having had a period of falling unemployment and lower unemployment. The latest OECD economic outlook has forecast that 200,000 Australians will lose their jobs by 2010. This is why it is absolutely critical that the government has a comprehensive plan to do all it can to provide job security and certainty to working Australians. We are seeing large lay-offs from well-known Australian companies on a daily basis. Since 25 November last year there have been more than 20,000 workers who have lost their jobs in mass redundancies. So in speaking on this bill I want to say that job security is paramount. We need also to ensure that labour market flexibility is maintained. We cannot afford to see a return to pattern bargaining. We cannot afford to see a return to widespread industrial action. Already the signs are disturbing. On industrial disputations, the number of disputes has increased eightfold since the Rudd government came to power.

Labor has not announced a comprehensive plan to provide job security for Australian workers. What we need to know is that this reform and this bill do not have a detrimental effect or impact on reinvigorating the economy. To date we have had the tax changes which were based on our policy at the election. They will increase the number of jobs by 65,000. We do not dispute that; it is the same figure that we provided. The tax cuts will increase jobs by 65,000. The economic security package will increase the number of jobs by 56,000—that is what we have been advised. As a result of the meeting of COAG last weekend there will be an increase in jobs—it will create 133,000 jobs. I just find it curious that on the subject of the whole framework of our workplace relations the government is completely silent on jobs and what the impact on jobs will be.

In closing, I would like to read what Paul Kelly said in the Weekend Australian. He said:

... the Government will be responsible for all the consequences of imposing on Australia at a time of unusual financial crisis a workplace relations system that means higher costs, a weaker labour market, a more interventionist umpire and a union movement with greater legal powers.

That goes to the heart of my concerns, which relate to jobs. That should be the concern of all members of this House. We should be doing all we can to create jobs, especially when it is very clear that we are approaching a softer labour market and a period of higher and rising unemployment. As an opposition we need to have all the evidence before us in terms of the economic impact and the Treasury analysis of this legislation.

See this speech in context