Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the analysis by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations overnight in relation to any economic benefit from the government’s extreme industrial relations laws that ‘this is going to take three to five or six years to have any economic effect’? Is the Prime Minister also aware that a Treasury analysis has not been able to estimate any productivity benefit and in fact suggests a negative impact on productivity in the short term? Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that these extreme changes are not about the Australian economy now or in six years time; they are simply about slashing workers’ pay and conditions today?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think of a number of things in relation to the very interesting question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Think of England!

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will actually think of England. I will think of what the Prime Minister of Great Britain said: ‘Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.’ I will think of England, but I think more of Australia. I think more of the workers of Australia, and I care about them a lot more than those in the Australian Labor Party. That is why my proudest boast in the last election campaign, when I spoke to the men and women of Western Sydney, was that we had delivered higher wages, lower taxes, lower unemployment and vastly lower interest rates.

There is nothing more absurd in the attack mounted by the Leader of the Opposition on the government’s industrial relations policy than to say that our aim is to cut the wages of Australian workers. That is absurd because it defies history.

Opposition Member:

Just give a guarantee now!

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My guarantee is my record, and I am very proud of my record. I will tell you what: that record gets better and better. During the election campaign I could only talk of real wage increases of 14 per cent. Here we are, almost halfway through the current term, and the real wage increase has gone to 16.8 per cent. Amazingly, it has gone from about 13 per cent in the last 18 months to 16.8 per cent. Yet the Leader of the Opposition runs around saying that I am trying to cut wages. Apart from it being an exercise in stupidity and unfairness to try to cut wages, it flies in the face of the government’s performance.

Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition: as the years go by and you look back on the inanity of your attack on these changes, you will be comforted by the fact that that inanity was matched by the absurdity of the allegations you made in 1996 that our changes were about cutting wages. In 1996 the Labor Party ran around the country saying that the Reith reforms were about cutting wages. Here we are, 10 years later—you are still over there and wages are up by 16.8 per cent.

Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Has the minister seen media reports criticising aspects of the government’s new workplace relations system? What is the minister’s response?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his abiding interest in reform of the workplace relations system in Australia. Indeed I have seen some media reports of the ACTU beginning what it has called its ‘naming and shaming’ campaign. The target of the union vilification is a small Melbourne construction company that operates in the construction sector both commercially and domestically. This morning on AM the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, attacked this company and Work Choices because of three employees who were made redundant.

Let me deal with the facts in this case rather than the wild rhetoric that has come from the ACTU. Firstly, these employees were indeed made redundant because of a downturn in work in the commercial building sector in Melbourne. Indeed, that is what the owner of the firm said on AM this morning. He said:

Our work is predominantly sporadic anyway at the best of times.

So here is a business dealing with sporadic work in the commercial sector and it has actually offered work in the domestic sector to these employees. Secondly, I am advised, even as I am speaking here, that arrangements for the redundancy provisions for these workers are being undertaken now and that these workers will get their full redundancy payout. The Office of Workplace Services, which I spoke about yesterday, has been boosted and will ensure that that provision does indeed operate.

The third fact is the most telling in relation to this matter. We have had Mr Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, on national radio this morning and in the press saying that these redundancies are as a result of the Work Choices legislation. The reality, the fact, is entirely true. These redundancies are the result of a certified agreement, certified in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 4 April 2003. One of the parties that took that agreement to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to put these provisions in place was none other than the CFMEU. If Mr Combet were going to be honest, he would be saying that what he is complaining about is an agreement put in place by the CFMEU for the building construction industry in Melbourne. But he is not saying that and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Worse than that, there have been redundancies under this agreement over the couple of years since it has been put in place. Have we heard one word from Mr Combet or the Leader of the Opposition about previous redundancies under this agreement? This shows that this is a despicable campaign on the part of the ACTU. I remind the House that last year we had the President of the ACTU on the Lateline television program saying: ‘What I need for my campaign is the family of a worker who has been injured or maimed. That would help our campaign.’ This is outrageous. It is despicable. That is the first thing that can be said about this. The second is that this proves from the very outset—the very first case raised by the ACTU—that you cannot believe what they say. No doubt we will see more claims like this over the coming days as they trawl through to try to find more, but the very first case is an agreement with the CFMEU—what hypocrites!

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his consistent refusal to guarantee that no individual Australian employee will be worse off as a result of his extreme industrial relations changes. I also refer the Prime Minister to his earlier answer where he said that his guarantee is his record. Prime Minister, is it not the case that the government’s and your record on the minimum wage is as follows: if the government’s submissions to the Industrial Relations Commission had been agreed to, over the government’s period in office, those on the minimum wage would currently be $50 a week or $2,600 a year worse off? Is it not the case that the only future for Australian employees is a drop in the minimum wage in real terms?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Perth for asking me a question about my record. I am delighted to tell him of my record.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Stephen Smith interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Perth has asked his question.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by saying, firstly, that the real wages of Australian workers have risen by 16.8—

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. He was asked a question about the fact that he wanted the commission to knock $2,000 off ordinary workers and he now has his chance.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is entirely in order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start again. The real wages of Australian workers have risen by 16.8 per cent over the last 9½ years. In real terms, the federal minimum wage has risen by more than 12 per cent under the coalition. Australia’s consistent economic growth and tax cuts in recent years have resulted in an increase in the disposable income of the average Australian production worker. They are the people the Labor Party used to be interested in before they abandoned them and embraced the chattering classes. There was a time when the Labor Party could speak with some heart and authenticity about production workers in this country, but they have long since ceased to bother about representing their interests in the Australian community.

Let me remind the House that average household incomes in Australia have grown by no less than 20.7 per cent in real terms over the period 1994 to 2003-04. The real income of low- and middle-income households—let me emphasise this—has increased by a proportionately greater amount: that is, by 22 per cent. In other words, the Labor Party like to chatter and interject on a point like this—let them go ahead and try to silence me from reminding the Parliament of Australia that under this government the people have enjoyed the greatest increase in household disposable income—

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last thing I want to do is silence you on the minimum wage.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It used to be called muscling up but that expression is not very popular now because of the author of it. Since 1996, real net household wealth has risen by an average of 8.8 per cent a year. Australia’s unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent in March 1996—

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question explicitly on the government’s stance on the minimum wage. They have opposed virtually—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia’s unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent in March 1996 to 5.3 per cent now. That is about a 30-year low. A total of 1.7 million new jobs have been created under the coalition. Inflation has been contained, averaging just 2.5 per cent per year. Finally, of enormous interest to the people the Labor Party used to try and represent—that is, the home buyers of Australia—household mortgage interest rates are about 7.3 per cent, well below the 17 per cent seen in the early 1990s and the 10.5 per cent in March 1996. On an average new mortgage of about $220,000, the reduction in interest rates since March 1996 saves Australian families about $585 a month in interest charges. I am delighted to be questioned by the opposition on my record.