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 Freehills, the government’s law firm of choice, which helped draft the government’s industrial relations changes. Is the Prime Minister aware that, in a presentation in February this year, Freehills concludes that the average annual wage increase between June 2004 and June 2005 for employees on AWAs was 2.5 per cent—the same as the inflation rate? Is the Prime Minister also aware that Freehills concludes that average annual wage increases over the same period were in non-union collective agreements, 3.5 per cent; in agreements generally, four per cent; and, in union collective agreements, 4.3 per cent? Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that the government’s own hired legal gun says that AWAs will deliver lower wages than collective agreements?

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

I have not seen or been briefed on that particular presentation, but I have seen and been briefed on the Bureau of Statistics, which publishes a survey every two years of employee earnings and hours. The results from the most recent survey, conducted in mid-2004, became available earlier this year. This survey allows a comparison to be made between the earnings of individuals on AWAs and those on registered collective agreements.

The published data showed that the average weekly total earnings of employees working under AWAs are on average 13 per cent higher than for those employees covered by certified agreements. Both managerial and non-managerial employees on AWAs have higher average total earnings than equivalent employees on certified agreements. Managerial employees on AWAs have earnings that are on average 19 per cent higher than those on collective agreements. The earnings of non-managerial employees on AWAs are on average five per cent higher than those on collective agreements. These comparisons are made on the basis of average weekly total earnings as opposed to ordinary time earnings. It is entirely appropriate to make the comparison as traditional rigid employment categories, such as full time, part time and casual, are less common in AWAs, where a premium is placed on flexibility. A focus on weekly take-home pay recognises that many employees on AWAs enjoy greater flexibility in the hours they work.

I have a message for the people of Australia who are enjoying the enhanced benefits of AWAs: the Leader of the Opposition is after your aspirational prosperity. The Leader of the Opposition wants to dent your aspirational spirit. The Leader of the Opposition wants to rip away the incentives now available to you under the system. The Leader of the Opposition wants to take you back to the backwoods of industrial relations in this country, to a system that presided over more than a million Australians being without a job.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and follows on from the answer given by the Prime Minister to the previous question. Would the minister advise the House of additional and particular benefits enjoyed by employees currently privileged to be on Australian workplace agreements? Further, is the minister aware of any threats to these particular benefits?

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 Fisher for his question. As the Prime Minister indicated earlier, according to the official Australian Bureau of Statistics data, employees on Australian workplace agreements earn, on average, 13 per cent more than employees covered by certified agreements. If you compare those individuals on AWAs with those on the instrument of choice of the Labor Party, the award, those on AWAs earn, on average, 100 per cent more than those who are on awards.

The member for Fisher asked me whether there are any threats to these benefits which are enjoyed by Australians on individual agreements. There are indeed threats, and those threats come from the labour movement in Australia, who want to abolish Australian workplace agreements, who want to rip away, from these Australians who are better off, those benefits that they have obtained under Australian workplace agreements.

Of course, in return for $50 million worth of funding from the unions over the last 10 years to the Australian Labor Party, we had this craven caving in by the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend, a caving in to the unions in Australia which has been almost universally condemned in the media today. For example, in the Australian, Matthew Stevens says, and the headline is, ‘Beazley bombs as economic manager’. In another article in the Australian, Peter Switzer—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

They don’t like it, do they, Mr Speaker? The headline is ‘Beazley backs wrong horse in industrial stakes’. What about the Daily Telegraph, with ‘Sop to the unions’? Or there is the Australian’s editorial, which says, ‘Beazley’s backflip: The Labor leader’s populist move on AWAs is poor policy’. The Financial Review, also on the same theme, says, ‘Beazley goes back to the ’50s’. The Courier Mail

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

You don’t like to hear it, do you?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to page 554 of House of Representatives Practice, and I note that we have only had five questions so far today. It says:

Ministers have often been advised that, should a question require a lengthy response, the proper procedure is for the Minister to state that fact and to seek leave to make a statement after Question Time.

Mr Speaker, we would be willing to accommodate the minister after question time, and I would ask you to suggest that to him.

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

The member for Grayndler has asked me to rule. The minister has been going for just over two minutes. I call the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

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

I was asked about threats, and these threats have been highlighted in almost every major newspaper in Australia today. The Advertiser from Adelaide has ‘Beazley fires wide of a sitting duck’; the West Australian newspaper, from the Leader of the Opposition’s own state, ‘Beazley plans return to an unwanted past’; and the Herald Sun, in Melbourne, ‘Beazley steps backwards’. But of course it was one above all that really hit the mark, and that was the Sydney Morning Herald, with ‘Beazley’s real agenda: his job’.

Every major newspaper in Australia has condemned this weak response by the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend—simply doing their bidding in return for $50 million from the unions in Australia. What is next? Have we got the secret accord coming along? Already we have the union leaders in New South Wales, John Robertson and the like, gloating that the Leader of the Opposition can now keep his job—as if it was a gift of the union bosses in Australia that the Leader of the Opposition can keep his job.

In relation to these matters, as the Prime Minister said, the reality for Australians is this: a 4.9 per cent unemployment rate announced last week, the first time in 30 years that unemployment has gone under five per cent in Australia. What we had under the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the employment minister, was 11 per cent unemployment—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Surely it is out of order to have filibustering in question time? This has gone on for seven minutes—

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

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is question 5.

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

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat and not argue with the chair. The member for Grayndler would be well aware that there is no power residing in the chair to limit answers to questions. There is only one relevant standing order, standing order 104, and the minister is in order.

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

This side of the parliament is interested in jobs for all Australians. That is why we put in place economic reforms that have driven down the unemployment rate from the 11 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment to 4.9 per cent. That is why this side of the parliament has seen a 16.8 per cent increase in real wages compared to 1.2 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for employment. There could be no more stark contrast in relation to this matter, and a government interested in—

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

The minister has completed his answer.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister again to Freehills, the government’s law firm of choice, which helped draft the government’s industrial relations law. Is the Prime Minister aware that, in its presentation in February this year, Freehills said that 20 per cent of employees are paid on awards, 40 per cent of employees are on collective agreements, 20 to 25 per cent have individual arrangements—common-law contracts—and 2.4 per cent are on AWAs? Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead Australians about the prevalence of AWAs when there are only 538,000 AWAs, compared to nine million employees on other workplace arrangements?

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

Mr Speaker—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister has the call, and the Prime Minister will be heard.

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

I do owe the member for Throsby an apology. Unfortunately, in using the figure of a million, I was relying on the estimate of the Leader of the Opposition.