Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hear an interjection from a new member here, but I suspect that he ought to spend a few more minutes in the parliament before he tries to be arrogant and to interfere in a colleague’s presentation to the parliament. I think that is another typical example of the personal abuse and arrogance coming across from a new member of the House. We have seen in this last week of the sittings, when perhaps most of us are looking forward to going home and being with our families, some of the dialogue across the chamber extend beyond robust, civil political exchange to a tad of abuse, and that is very, very disappointing indeed. I think others will judge accordingly.

If my views as a member of the opposition do not count for anything with those in government then I, like my previous colleagues, take the government to the words of a very significant political commentator—one who has certainly on occasion, when he thought it was appropriate, fired both barrels of the shotgun at the Howard government. On this occasion, I think he is firing both barrels of the shotgun at the Rudd government, because his words are very profound and instructive. I think it would be in the interests of the government to read the article by Paul Kelly—again, from Saturday’s Weekend Australianwhere he says:

The new workplace relations model introduced by Gillard is a significant step into the past. It does more than abolish the Howard government’s Work Choices model; it goes beyond Work Choices to Howard’s 1996 reforms and even further to Keating’s 1993 reforms in reshaping the system. It is hard to imagine how its impact will be other than to weaken productivity and employment.

It is a very, very good article that I commend to all members of the House, because I think that of all the commentators in this country Paul Kelly stands head and shoulders above his peers. As I say, he is one who calls a spade a spade. When the Howard government felt his wrath, it did so with interest. I think that this time Mr Kelly’s words are very, very insightful indeed into the Rudd Labor government.

This test that the Rudd government now faces is pretty straightforward: is this bill going to help put people into jobs or put them out of jobs, as Paul Kelly alludes to? Will this bill create growth or hinder growth, particularly at a time of great economic challenge across economies and across the world? Will this bill erode labour market flexibility and options for the hardworking Australians who do not want to be part of a union workplace? Is it going to be something that the Labor Party regrets because it has not learnt from the very recent experience of the Howard government in going too far? I think that it is incumbent on members of the opposition to acknowledge that, and I do so with regret that I did not get an opportunity to be heard more when the Howard government passed its legislation, but perhaps that is the nature of politics. It is a very good lesson that this bill, going way over the top and going beyond the mandate of the Australian people, is going to be something that the Labor Party will regret. As Paul Kelly says, at a time when we should be focusing on how to create greater productivity and get people into jobs, the last thing we need is to craft an industrial relations regime that will be counterproductive to those aims. We certainly oppose this overreach by the Rudd Labor government.

While the opposition should, as the federal Leader of the Opposition has said, acknowledge that Work Choices is dead, it should also, in another sense, note our record in creating jobs and ensuring that those who found jobs were able to stay in those jobs. We should be very proud of that. We should continue to let the Australian people know, and certainly say in this parliament, that our record in this area is without peer. Let us not forget that, when the Howard government came into office, the economy was really in tatters. I think the size of that particular victory in 1996 reflected not only contempt for then Prime Minister Keating but a desire by the Australian people for a new government to manage the national economy and fix the mess that was created by the then Labor government.

The first thing that should be said is, of course, that the Howard-Costello government was confronted with a $96 billion debt. Repaying this was not something that took place in a matter of months or years; indeed, it took a decade to pay off. We should continue to remind the Australian people that, when the Labor Party has its hands on the Treasury, the DNA of the party is such that it cannot help itself; it has to spend more than revenues allow, and eventually the country is taken into a deep, dark deficit—and who suffers the consequences but everyday Australians trying to run their own businesses and everyday workers in those businesses who will end up facing unemployment?

So I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that the Howard-Costello years will stand as a beacon of national prosperity and growth. The tragedy of it all is that we are seeing the first signs of how this will be squandered by a Labor government—and of course we are gravely concerned about the impact of this bill on jobs and job creation, particularly in the current climate of economic uncertainty. Our focus has always been on jobs and it will always be on jobs, and the 2.2 million jobs that we created over the 11 years of the Howard government are evidence of that. I know it is an inconvenient truth for the Labor Party, but those 2.2 million jobs were real jobs. Unfortunately, in the first Rudd budget this year we saw them trying to signal to the people that some 134,000 jobs would have to be lost—and that was before the global financial crisis hit, so I am not sure how they are going to find work for people who lose their jobs, because certainly the policies of the government are not enhancing that prospect.

For my electorate of Ryan, I want to compare what might lie ahead for the unemployment rate with the situation at the time the Howard government left office. In Australia in October 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.3 per cent, an over-three-decades low, and had been below five per cent for 21 consecutive months. The male unemployment rate was 3.6 per cent and the female rate was 4.4 per cent. In contrast, if we go back to 1992 under Labor, the unemployment rate peaked at nearly 11 per cent, leaving almost one million Australians unemployed. Those are the hard facts. That is real evidence. I know that those opposite, the government, do not like references to those figures, but that is the inconvenient truth for them, and those of us on this side of the parliament must always remind the Australian people that, in our credentials in managing this $1.1 trillion economy, we are without peer.

I regret to say that my thoughts about where the national economy is heading under a Rudd Labor government are not positive. I note that the ambitions of the 2020 Summit were to make Australia the best place in the world to live and work, and to be among the top five nations in the world in terms of GDP per capita ranking—very fine sentiments, and with the right stewardship by the right people certainly very attainable, but with the Labor Party in office I suspect that we will not be going anywhere near a GDP per capita ranking among the top five nations in the world. (Time expired)

See this speech in context