Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do note that the member for Perth is not even on the speakers list. If she could get herself on the list and have a go, it would be far more effective than just yelling interjections. If the member for Fraser put himself on the list as well, we could see him try and counter the argument that the member for Hume put—based on the member for Fraser's own research.

Youth unemployment is something that is of concern to everybody in this country, but you cannot increase youth participation unless you improve productivity. As soon as you say 'productivity', those opposite will say that it is an excuse for lowering workers' terms and conditions. It is not, because the whole basis of productivity is doing something smarter and more efficiently. Let us use a very simple example so people can absorb it. If you are an old-fashioned farmer and you have a horse and a plough, you are not going to be very productive. If you are old-fashioned farmer and you have two horses and a plough with some wheels on it, you will be more productive. If you are an old farmer and you have an old Fordson tractor, you are going to cover a lot more ground.

It is all about using innovation and technology to be more productive, and this is what this bill today is about. It is to encourage workers, before seeking a pay rise, to talk about what is on offer. We are not talking about quite reasonable pay rises in terms of CPI. Just because somebody has put up an ambit claim, you cannot expect an employer, a mum-and-dad employer who is trying to run a business with half a dozen people, to say, 'Oh, yeah, you can have everything you have asked for.' It just does not work like that. You would send those businesses broke. In fact, you would put young people in particular out of work, because you would price them out of a job. At the end of the day, productivity is the keynote to growth in this country and it is the hallmark of anything that we want to do to address Australia's debt.

The reason that those opposite oppose this is that they are told to oppose it by their union bosses. I will give you an example. The train drivers in the Pilbara, who essentially only work six months of the year, are on something likes $300,000—for working six months of the year. Have a guess what is happening—companies like Rio and BHP are now putting in driverless trains because those drivers have priced themselves out of the market. I say to those opposite: if you are going to be sensible about this, think about what you can bring to the business.

Earlier I heard one of the members over there—the member for Bendigo, I think—saying: 'All they want to do is make people work harder.' They do not want to make people work harder; they want to make them work smarter. If you work smarter, you can do more in the same period of time. That is Australia's unbelievable advantage in the region.

I will quote from the member for Hume's article of 1 December:

… targeted innovation will add to productivity across labour and capital, particularly in government services. Whether it is applying new IT technologies, establishing new management practices or simple measures to increase workplace flexibility … innovation is the cheapest lunch of all.

So I say: this whole bill is based on the fact that, yes, bargaining and all the things we have talked about are very important, as long as they get those steps right, but the real key to this legislation is: yes, wages can be increased, as long as you can be productive.

See this speech in context