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

I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The risk to Australian families and the Australian economy from the Government’s workplace relations laws which are unfair, complex, flawed and a burden for business.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a pity that the government cut and ran from question time today because we had a series of questions for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Let me say this in relation to the one question he answered: one question, one gaffe. The case of this government since parliament convened this year has been that Work Choices creates jobs. The Prime Minister has said it, the Treasurer has said it and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations sitting at the table has said it. Now the minister, confronted with the fact that employment growth was stronger before Work Choices than it has been afterwards, has made a fatal concession in answer to a question. He conceded that the government does not create jobs, that its laws do not create jobs, but that it is businesses and a growing economy that create jobs. And so we should never again hear in this House from the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the minister or any members of the Howard government backbench this nonsense that Work Choices is about employment growth.

I am going to speak about these matters a little bit more later, but I want to start by saying that this matter of public importance debate today is truly one for Australian working families. We know that it is important for Australian working families because, even if they have not been directly affected, Australians are bighearted enough to be concerned about what happens to their neighbours and to their friends. Parliament is often criticised for being an ivory tower and certainly some of the behaviour we see on display from the government shows how distant from ordinary life they really are. But today, in what can be criticised as being an ivory tower, we are talking about the same thing that Australians are talking about in their workplaces and in their homes.

When they have those discussions, I think I know what they are saying to each other. They are saying to each other that they think the Prime Minister and his government have changed. They are saying to each other that there was a time when they thought the Prime Minister and his government were doing a good job. There was a time when they thought that, but these harsh laws have caused them to think again. And they are thinking again, and they are thinking, ‘The Howard government is trying to hurt me and my family.’ They believe the government has changed and they believe that that is a fork in the road.

In response to this sentiment in the Australian community, what has the Howard government done? It has appointed a new minister. It has not done anything of substance; it has appointed a new minister. When the Prime Minister gave us this new minister he said that he was ‘a good media performer’, that he was an ‘avuncular sort of bloke’. He actually contrasted him with the previous minister, whom he described as having ‘command of the detail’, something he obviously thought the new minister would never achieve.

So it is apparent from the government’s initial announcement of the new minister that they are not intending to help Australian working families by getting rid of these laws. It is the same old laws, the same old product, the same old politics from the Howard government, and changing the salesman does not fix that. These are the same unfair laws, and this is the same arrogant government. It does not matter who holds the job of Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The Prime Minister might well describe this minister as a ‘big bear of a man’, but fronting these shameful laws means that he is more grizzly bear than teddy bear—because the truth is that these unfair laws have dire consequences for hardworking families, employers and employees throughout this country, and no-one is going to be distracted by the window dressing.

We know that these laws are unfair because they have caused Australians to lose pay and conditions. We know that they have ripped away basic award conditions, penalty rates, overtime, leave loading, public holidays—all of these have been taken away from Australian families through Australian workplace agreements. We know these laws have jeopardised the ability of families to plan their time together with regularity and that hours clauses and the ability to know when you are going to be at work and to plan your non-working time with your family have been torn up by these laws and by this government.

Earlier this year the Herald Sun ran a poll which had an alarming result. It said that 31 per cent of respondents did not spend enough time with their families. They felt that their families were missing out on the very basic thing they had to give, which was their personal time, care and concern. This government’s laws make that worse. They make the pressures on working families stronger. We already know that working families are struggling just to keep their heads above water. With this new pressure on them, it is too much for many of those working families to bear. We know many working families are struggling to balance the pressures of work and family life in the modern age, and these new laws undermine their ability to do so.

The government pretends that it is proud of these new laws, but if you hold these new laws up to the white light for a period of time, if you scrutinise them intently, they do not hold up to analysis. The government that is proud to spruik them in the broad does not actually want you to see the details. If the government was proud of Australian workplace agreements, if these AWAs were heralding a new era of flexibility, good working conditions and work-family life balance, you would think that the government would be publishing each of these AWAs. Of course it would take the individual identifiers off, but it would be publishing each of these AWAs. It would be publishing statistics about them. It would be only too proud to tell you how many of them have family flexibility clauses, how many of them gave people a huge, big pay increase.

But of course the government does not do that. It tipped out one set of stats which showed us that 100 per cent of AWAs had taken something, an award condition, away; that 64 per cent of AWAs had removed leave loading, 63 per cent had removed penalty rates, 52 per cent had removed shiftwork loadings and 41 per cent had taken away public holidays. The government knows they are a bad set of statistics. Since then, it has covered it up.

The challenge for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is at the table, if he is really proud of these AWAs—if they are so glowing, so good for workers—is that he has a chance this week in Senate estimates to tell us all about it, and if he does not publish those statistics there will only be one reason. Why: because, whilst they pretend to be proud of these laws, they know the truth is shameful and they want to hide it. They do not want us to know what is going on with these laws. When you hold up to the light of day their spin that these laws have created jobs it falls away. It fell away in question time today with the statistics I put to the minister about employment growth—and of course there are more. Employment growth since Work Choices, from March 2006 to January 2007, has been 2.39 per cent, whereas in the same period in 2004-05 it was 2.64 per cent and in 2002-03 it was 2.79 per cent.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s about the participation rate.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister wants to make arguments about the participation rate he could get up in question time every day and say: ‘I acknowledge Work Choices does not create jobs. I acknowledge that businesses actually create jobs, and I’m now going to tell you about the participation rate.’ But of course that is not what the Howard government have been doing, is it? They have been trying to pretend these laws create jobs and they do not.

When you look at the pattern of employment growth, it is abundantly clear that it is the resources boom that is driving employment growth. It is the states of Queensland, Western Australian and the Northern Territory that are leaping ahead. Mining is showing annualised growth of 15 per cent. To use a well-known political catch cry: ‘It’s the resources boom, stupid!’—not the Howard government’s industrial relations laws—that is driving employment growth in this country.

Then they would have you believe that somehow these laws are doing something for productivity. But, once again, if you hold it up to the light of day, the truth is something very different. In the six months to September, after the introduction of the Work Choices laws, productivity went backwards by 1.6 per cent.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the drought?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister at the table is full of mealy-mouthed excuses, but he has not been above claiming that these laws are good for productivity. They are not, because productivity has gone backwards by 1.6 per cent. If the government had been proud of these laws then they would have been out each and every day in the last election campaign saying to Australians: ‘Vote for us because we’re going to give you this thing we call Work Choices. Vote for us because this is what Work Choices is going to do to you.’ But we all know that they were not doing that in the last election campaign. Indeed, the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was confined to party headquarters and doing the daily spin from there. He would wander out every day and say, ‘Ooh, industrial relations is a big battleground in the election!’ Journalists would say to him, ‘If it’s a battleground, where’s the Liberal IR policy?’ He never gave an answer to that. If the government had been proud of these laws, they would have put them to the electoral test. They did not.

When it comes to industrial relations, the Prime Minister and his ideological laws are the past and Labor is the future. In industrial relations we will restore the balance and we will reclaim the middle ground. Australians believe that these laws have gone too far, that the pendulum has gone too far and it should come back to the middle. Balance should be restored. We should be reclaiming the centre ground in this debate and in a whole series of other debates in this nation—and we will.

Labor believes in a productive, fair and flexible industrial relations system that will put the balance back into Australian workplaces. We want higher wages and we want real productivity growth. That can only be achieved when employers and employees treat each other with respect, and that is what our industrial relations system will deliver. Yes, there will be flexibility. There will be flexibility upwards. There will be flexibility to balance work and family life. There will not be the flexibility downwards that this government says it is proud of but will not give you the details of. Yes, we will make sure that people can plan their lives with some security and some safety. We will make sure that there are common-law agreements that can help people make arrangements in that way if that is what they choose to do.

We will make sure there are sensible transitional arrangements for people who are on Australian workplace agreements and we will restore to the centre of the industrial relations system a sense of democracy. If the majority of workers in a workplace want to bargain collectively with their employer then they will be able to do so. What is wrong with that? If the majority of workers in a workplace all get together and say, ‘Hey, instead of going to see the boss individually, why don’t we all handle this together?’ they will be able to do so. That is something that is not achieved under these laws because they are fundamentally undemocratic and fundamentally ideological.

We will get the burden of red tape off the business community. The business community is complaining. Every time they turn round, these laws have been changed again. We have had laws which mean all employees, including managers and executives, have to fill in time sheets, and then we have had amendments to try and fix this, which created more headaches. We have had rules about leave accrual which meant employers had to give employees more annual leave when they worked overtime—something they had not had to do before. We have had amendments which tried to fix the rules about cashing in leave, and they have caused more confusion. We have had record-keeping obligations which were so onerous they were deferred and then deferred again. We will get the burden of this kind of red tape off the back of business so that they can do what they want to do, which is to go about doing business.

These laws are harsh, complex and not in the national interest. The laws we have will put working families first, they will drive up productivity and employment growth and they will get the burden of red tape off the back of business. Under Labor these laws will go—make absolutely no mistake about that—and they will be replaced by laws that work for working families, businesses and the nation. (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am the minister for jobs. Together with the Treasurer, every other member of the frontbench and all my colleagues in the coalition, I am focused on how we can help to build an economic infrastructure that encourages business to create jobs. In this area, perhaps more than any other, there is a clear difference between the Labor Party’s approach and our approach to economic policy. Our belief is that our laws are evolutionary, that they are responding to the changing workplace. With a flexible system, where people can enter into individual agreements, non-union collective agreements and union collective agreements, we can meet the challenge of a changing workplace in the 21st century.

The Labor Party’s proposal is simply to tear up Work Choices. Their total proposal is that all the ills of the world will be fixed by ripping up Work Choices and returning to the ACTU plan of centralised negotiations and centralised agreements. We reject that and so does the OECD. Interestingly, in its report last night the OECD said that, in countries such as France, Germany and Spain—with stringent employment protection legislation for permanent workers—youngsters and women are crowded out from employment and suffer from erratic career paths. What the OECD is saying is that the most vulnerable people in the community are the most disadvantaged by prescriptive laws that cut to the heart of workplace relations.

The reason why we are freeing up the marketplace and have put in place evolutionary laws is that there has been a comprehensive change in the workplace over the last 10 years—even before that. It was even recognised by Hawke in 1988 and Keating and Brereton in 1993 that the workplace was changing, that individuals were engaging more with bosses to come up with working solutions that were more practical, helped to improve productivity and embraced new technology.

The laws that the Labor Party was so proud of—the laws that governed the workplace in the eighties and early nineties—were so inflexible that they failed to recognise the development of job sharing. They failed to recognise the outsourcing of work to people working from home. They failed to recognise technological change, such as the internet, email, SMS and BlackBerries. They failed to recognise that the global marketplace had changed and that we now had competition in our time zone from China and most of Asia that was cutting to the heart of our economic prospects. And Labor failed to recognise that these laws, and the award system in particular, were so inflexible. And the OECD—not some whacked-up professor from Griffith University—last night again said that the award system is like a ball and chain on the freeing up of the marketplace and the ability of the marketplace to respond with productivity improvements.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about productivity. It is a fact that, with our workplace changes in 1996, what took five hours to deliver in goods and services now takes four hours. That productivity improvement is not solely linked, of course, to any workplace relations laws, but they are part of the fabric of it that allows people to engage individually. And the people most empowered by that are in many cases the most disadvantaged. That is how you get 4½ per cent unemployment. That is how you have an economy that creates two million jobs. That is how you end up with more people today in full-time employment than at any other time in Australia’s history. That is how you end up with real wages increasing under the coalition by 17.9 per cent compared to 1.7 per cent under the Labor Party for the previous 13 years. That is not by accident; that has come about because of hard work and economic reform, which includes workplace reform.

Yet the Labor Party wants to tear that all up. I know—I am not sure if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows—that her proposal to tear up AWAs is going to cut to the fabric of enterprise. On the one hand she says that a lot of the jobs growth is in the mining sector and on the other hand she says she is going to tear up AWAs, and of all the industries the mining sector has embraced AWAs more than any other. She is tearing up agreements that she believes have helped to create disharmony in the workplace, and yet the mining sector, in the belief of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is the only thing that is driving our strong economy. In fact, that is quite incorrect. Of the jobs growth that occurred over the February to November period in 2006, only 14,000 jobs were created in the mining sector, 46,400 in wholesale trade—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do it as a percentage!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, percentages—I am happy to do that: 6.8 per cent in the mining sector, 22.6 per cent in wholesale trade, 21 per cent in construction and 16.8 per cent in finance and insurance.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Snowdon interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari says, ‘How many full-time?’ Eighty-three per cent full-time. Two hundred and forty thousand new jobs, 83 per cent full-time, since the introduction of Work Choices.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Snowdon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Lingiari wishes to speak, he should seek the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about jobs growth in the period from March to January. On a preliminary look at the figures, I note that the participation rate in 2004 was 64.1 per cent and the unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent. In 2006 the participation rate was 64.8 per cent and the unemployment rate 4.5 per cent. Somehow she thinks the great King Kong hit has come upon this side of the parliament and somehow she believes she has scored a killer blow. I will tell you what a killer blow is: every time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets up and says she is going to rip up Work Choices—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will refer to the member by her title.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets up and talks about ripping up Work Choices, the people and the workers of Australia want to know what the alternative is. You do not have to dig too deep. It is everything that Greg Combet, Bill Ludwig and John Robertson have been saying for the last few weeks. They said: ‘We’re not for turning; we’re going to reintroduce the unfair dismissal laws’—the same unfair dismissal laws that have been such a burden to small business; the same unfair dismissal laws that, according to the OECD, have been one of the greatest barriers to women, young people and those susceptible to long-term unemployment entering the workforce. Yet the Labor Party want to reintroduce those laws—and why? Because the trade union movement are telling them to.

You know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? This is the irony of it. On the one hand, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of business and con them—they are very smart but she is trying to con them—into the belief that somehow she is going to water down these laws. We know that is not right. We know that it is a matter of principle for the Labor Party and the unions that unfair dismissal laws should cover everyone. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has voted 44 times with that principle in her back pocket. Somehow we are meant to believe that that principle flew out the door in February 2007. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party will be caught out if they try and walk both sides of the street.

We recognise that the workplace has changed. We recognise that individuals really do want to negotiate with their bosses and to have a flexible workplace arrangement that can accommodate home based business and that allows people to work the hours that suit them. And do you know what? The best environment for that will be 4.5 per cent unemployment and record levels of workforce participation, particularly of women.

Somehow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition believes that jobs are created by government legislation. I say to her: say that to the one million Australians who were unemployed in the 1990s. All the legislation in the world under Labor could not protect their jobs. The Labor Party wants to reintroduce a no disadvantage test. That subjective test did not work. The proof that the subjective no disadvantage test did not work was one million Australians unemployed in the 1990s. Go and tell them that there will be a government introduced test that is somehow going to protect their jobs. The opposition believe that it is an absolutely inflexible notion that government regulation creates jobs and that government regulation protects jobs; it does not. The only guarantee of a job is a customer walking in the door, and no amount of regulation is ever going to be a substitute for that. You have to do hard yards.

I would never suggest that workplace relations laws are in any way the sole pillar upon which you build a strong economy. You build a strong economy because you make hard decisions. You introduce taxation reform and fiscal reform that get the budget into surplus. You introduce reforms that get rid of $96 billion of government debt and set up future funds to inoculate us against some of the vagaries of the marketplace over the next few years. You introduce education reforms. We have doubled our education commitment over the last 10 years. You introduce reforms that give women choice—and this is very important—such as family tax benefits, the baby bonus, the tax deductibility of child care and the childcare benefit. All those initiatives help to give women choice so that they can re-enter the workplace, especially after they have enjoyed a higher education. You introduce reforms in workplace relations that get rid of the state systems, such as awards in New South Wales that refuse to allow school based apprentices. You introduce a flexible system; you give workers choice. The greatest moment of choice for workers is when you have an unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent, higher levels of participation and real wages increasing. That is the very best environment you can have in order to create jobs. Business have the courage to create jobs because they know they are not going to be held to ransom by the Labor Party’s unfair dismissal laws and because they can see in the distance that the economy can remain strong, that the interest rate environment is manageable and that inflation is manageable.

It is not Joe Hockey saying it; it is the Reserve Bank, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. Even the editorial in the Australian a few days ago said—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She laughs. She cites a quack of a professor from Griffith University as the absolute authority on these sorts of things. It comes back to this: there is no simple solution in the creation of jobs. If you want to talk about work and family, you need to have one thing—you need to have a job. The government helps to put in place infrastructure that creates jobs.

A lot of the reforms the government have put in place have helped to create jobs, and we recognise that the workplace is changing. Jobs that exist today were in many cases never thought of 10 years ago. The award system, even the collective agreement system that Labor had, was so inflexible that it did not recognise the changing workplace. I heard with interest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say on Sunday, ‘We believe in having non-union collective agreements.’ Between 1993 and 1996, non-union collective agreements needed the approval of the unions. That is their law; that is what they want to reintroduce. They want the trade union movement front and centre of every piece of the industrial relations laws under the Rudd-Gillard-Combet combo. That is what it is: a combo; a hand-in-glove partnership. We are committed to jobs. We are committed to choice. We are committed to well-paying jobs. We are committed to helping people develop careers. Notwithstanding the changes in the workplace brought about by changing trading environments or anything else, we believe in creating a flexible environment. (Time expired)

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Intentionally or otherwise, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations came clean today and it is no longer the case that the government can take credit for any causal link between Work Choices legislation and jobs growth. In answer to a question during question time today, the minister said:

I say this to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: governments do not create jobs; business creates jobs.

After that answer, the member for Blair asked this dorothy dixer of the minister:

Would the minister inform the House how a flexible workplace relations system contributes to jobs growth and economic prosperity?

The minister had already answered that question in his answer to the earlier question by saying:

... governments do not create jobs; business creates jobs.

Let us not hear any longer from the government or from the minister that there is some causal link between Work Choices legislation and jobs growth. As we know, we are in a mining boom and as a result there is jobs growth—and Labor are happy about that. Labor are happy to see jobs, but we are not happy to see workers treated unfairly. We think workers deserve to be treated fairly in their workplaces. There is an epic battle going on about what sort of country Australia will be in the future—whether Australia will be economically strong, socially cohesive and nationally secure, and whether we will continue to embrace the ‘fair go’ ethos; or whether, on the other hand, because of the deeds and the words of this Prime Minister and his government, we will sacrifice our long-held virtues of fairness and decency.

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister announced, on 28 September, his industrial relations policies. In doing so, there were no references by him to the abolition of the role of the independent umpire, the abolition of the no disadvantage test and the abolition of employment protection for four million employees. But after the election the Prime Minister embarked upon his unannounced agenda to introduce an extreme and unfair set of laws regulating employment conditions for the Australian workforce. In doing so, the Prime Minister showed what little regard he had for the electorate. It was the action of an arrogant government. It was the action of a government out of touch and out of puff. It was a lazy and ultimately wrongheaded approach to improving Australia’s productivity and to enhancing Australia’s quality of life.

Labor has always stood for economic growth, national security and investing in our future. Labor also considers fairness, including fairness at work, to be a cornerstone of our society. But through the enactment of Work Choices, the Howard government has shown signs of arrogance and a cold-hearted willingness to throw fairness out the back door. The Prime Minister may have changed ministers in this area, the area of industrial relations, but the policy is unaltered. In other words, Hockey might be the jockey but it is still the same old horse.

Let us look at the horse’s track record. The first signs of the erosion of wages and conditions of employment came in the form of statistics provided at estimates. In May 2006 Labor uncovered information in Senate estimates that, amongst other damning news, revealed that 100 per cent of AWAs removed at least one award condition and 16 per cent removed all award conditions. What an indictment of these extreme and unfair laws! Of course the government did not want the facts disclosed, so they effectively removed the information. We are no longer being provided with the information that we need to openly debate this particular matter. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated, there was a time when the government provided this information, which we then elicited through Senate estimates. But the government has closed down this transparent opening by which we were able to look at the way in which the new industrial instruments were being formed and by which we would have been able to make proper comparisons since the enactment of Work Choices.

Labor’s IR task force travelled to 20 electorates last year and found similar results. Moreover, Labor found disquiet amongst small businesses over the complexity and prescription of Work Choices. When we met in Rockhampton, Darwin, Townsville, Gladstone, Tweed Heads, Launceston and other places, we found businesses concerned about the level of red tape. Yesterday Professor Peetz, who has been much maligned today, reaffirmed the findings of the Senate estimates of last year in terms of the way in which workers—in particular, women and the low paid—are hit by this legislation.

The key conclusions drawn by that research include that women’s pay has dropped dramatically under the new laws, with women’s real average earnings in the private sector falling by two per cent, and that approximately 20,000 workers are losing award coverage each month and are being placed under AWAs or other industrial instruments stripping overtime, penalty rates and rest breaks. The research showed that the rate at which overtime is being removed by AWAs has doubled since Work Choices was enacted, with 82 per cent of Australian workplace agreements either reducing or abolishing overtime pay, 63 per cent of AWAs abolishing or reducing penalty rates, 64 per cent axing annual leave loadings, 69 per cent abolishing or removing rest breaks, 73 per cent reducing or abolishing public holiday payments and more than half abolishing shiftwork loadings. The research also put paid to the lie that there are one million workers on AWAs. That is not true. There have been one million AWAs implemented over the period since 1996; however, 400,000 people, or less than four per cent of the Australian workforce, are currently on Australian workplace agreements.

As has already been said, the government only intervenes in matters which are in the public eye or are unhelpful to supporting the falsely asserted proposition that Work Choices helps ordinary working families. We saw this during the Cowra meatworks dispute when the company chose to sack their workers. The government intervened but it did not fix the problem. It tried to get enough publicity to suggest that somehow the system in place was going to mitigate or indeed rectify the problems that Labor uncovered in that particular matter. We saw the government move into damage control when a Spotlight store cut the ordinary wages of its staff—again no solution to that problem but only a flurry by the government to attempt to show concern to the electorate.

Now we have the new minister—the new jockey, if you like—creating the appearance of concern over the continued maltreatment of low-paid workers by Tristar. Tristar, for its part, puts up the facade of pretending that there is productive work available. How very shameful for a company to treat their workers the way in which Tristar has chosen to treat its workers. Then there is the fact that the government, wanting to exhibit some level of concern, brings in the workforce and brings in the company and then the minister makes sure he is on television big-noting himself. He gets out there, being seen to be intervening in a particular matter where workers are actually vulnerable and suffering. But what has happened at Tristar since that intervention? Nothing—nothing for those workers. So what sorts of laws do we have in this place? Indeed, what sort of government do we have when a minister can publicly intervene in a particular matter and resolve nothing? That is the case with Tristar.

We on this side of the House always concern ourselves with both employers’ and workers’ interests. Labor believes that we are better off by working together as a nation or, for that matter, in the workplace. Labor wants to work cooperatively to produce successful outcomes. We do not support throwing fairness out the back door. That is why Labor will restore the balance if the electorate places its trust in us. Labor will repeal the Work Choices legislation. Labor will ensure that an independent umpire in the workplace matters. Labor will abolish AWAs. Individual contracts that fall below accepted standards will be unfair. The ‘take it or leave it’ offers of substantially inferior agreements compared to those enjoyed by existing employees at a workplace are unconscionable and will not be tolerated. Labor, if elected, will reintroduce a no disadvantage test. Industrial relations, or workplace relations—call it what you will—is exactly that: it is about how to regulate relations between employers and employees and between employees and between employers. Labor looks to unite the nation and encourage workplace cooperation, whereas this government seeks to pit worker against worker. Through Work Choices it encourages bad employers to behave badly and it forces good employers to look to do the same. Enough of division and conflict, enough of the callous disregard for hardworking Australians; it is time to restore some balance in our country’s workplaces, and it is time for a Rudd Labor government.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst some faces are new, some faces remain the same. I am pleased that I am following my colleague the member for Gorton in this debate once again. It has taken six days of the new parliament for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the newly appointed shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, to ask her question and to make a move. One has to ask: why has this taken place today, and in what context? It comes within 24 hours of a report made available yesterday in the press by Professor David Peetz. I will come back to that report very soon. The member for Lalor stated in her debate that no-one is going to be distracted by the window-dressing and that we have the same old salesman. She is right in one regard. We may have different spokespeople on the other side, but their message has not changed. We still have the same old scare campaign taking place that was so evident throughout the debate last year.

We have seen the outgoing shadow minister, the member for Perth, moved to the side. He had a record of bringing into this place examples and cases which ended up being discredited. We saw that shadow minister removed for not making a hit and for bringing in discredited cases, but what has the new shadow minister, the member for Lalor, done on her very first day in this debate in the House? She has maintained the ALP record of bringing in discredited information and flawed research and only telling half of the story that should be told about what has taken place in employment growth throughout the term of this government and, in particular, since March last year. She mentioned that working families are struggling to keep their heads above water. She says that, as she goes around Australia, that is what they say to her. There is one thing that is certain: during the time that Labor was in power, working families were not just struggling to keep their heads above water; a lot of them were sinking. A lot of them lost their jobs, their investments, their family homes and their businesses. That is the reality of what took place under Labor, and what they said would take place under our Work Choices legislation has not come to pass.

The member for Lalor went on to recite employment figures from 1994 versus some from 2006. What she failed to mention was that in 1994 we had 7,800,000 people employed. What do we have today? We have over 10 million people in the workforce. The workforce has increased by around 2.9 million people during this time. Why do we have more people in work? Because businesses are growing, the economy is strong and the policies that this government has introduced over 10 years have encouraged businesses not only to keep their doors open but also to grow their businesses and have further employment take place. Certainly she can come in here and state some figures, but she should make sure to tell the full story.

There was a bit of employment growth in 1994, but we have to look at the context in which that was taking place. We had a recession. It was the ‘recession we had to have’. There were a lot of people out on the scrap heap. People who had not had an income to bring to the family table found jobs as we were moving out of the recession. Yet today we have jobs growth continuing in a period when there are high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. From the 10.9 per cent or so unemployment that existed under Labor, we now have an unemployment rate of somewhere around 4½ per cent.

Let us put these arguments into context and make sure that we are comparing like with like rather than just looking at the simple statistics—coming out of the ‘recession we had to have’ versus the strong economic growth that we have today. Against that backdrop, this time last year—and even in the six months prior to this time last year—those on the other side were saying, ‘As soon as Work Choices comes in, there will be mass sackings.’ In fact, I think the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, was even saying that the divorce rate was going to go up at some stage because of what these laws were going to do to the country.

Work Choices has had a beneficial effect on the Australian economy. It has not been the doom and gloom that the members on the other side have maintained it would be. This government has been a good friend to Australian families, not simply through creating jobs and making sure people have a wage to take home to pay for their kids’ education and clothing and to put food on the table but also through other means to ensure that wages growth continues at high levels, that we have a friendly tax system—there have been tax reductions in the last seven or eight years that this government has been in power and there have been changes to the assistance provided to families to balance their work and family responsibilities. Contrast this to Labor’s 13 years in power, when families struggled and real wages decreased by 1.7 per cent. They decreased, I say to the member for Lalor and the member for Gorton. They did not increase; they decreased by 1.7 per cent. After 10 years of the Howard government, we have seen real wages increasing by 17.9 per cent.

The context of the recent claims, made by the industrial relations academic David Peetz of Griffith University, that wages for full-time adult workers fell by 1.1 per cent in the six months to August 2006 must also be presented in this parliament. It is important to remember that Peetz has based his research on a number of selective and shifting assumptions. One cannot be terribly surprised by this. If those on the other side present only half the information then obviously their ‘academic of choice’ is doing the same thing. Although currently there are 700,000 AWAs in operation, Peetz has based his research on a selection of 250 agreements. The selection he has used represents less than 0.05 per cent of agreements currently in operation.

It is interesting to note that as Peetz released his research a survey by the National Australia Bank was also released. What did their survey say compared to Peetz’s research? It paints quite a different picture. It shows that wages are certainly not dropping; rather, it highlights that wages are increasing at a rate of 5¼ per cent—a 5¼ per cent increase versus a decrease according to Labor’s academic of choice. The wage increase of 5¼ per cent is the highest growth rate since 1998. Added to that, the statement on monetary policy released today by the Reserve Bank of Australia outlined that the underlying annual rate of wage inflation remained at around four per cent.

These results are a stark contrast to Peetz’s assertion. I would certainly take the word of these respected authorities over that of someone who has made a name for himself producing half-baked information and suspect research paradigms. I have debated Peetz in public forums and, frankly, I do not know how a person who claims to be an academic can get away with that kind of research. Not only is he bringing his research into disrepute but also he is bringing the institution he represents into disrepute. The question must be asked: if this is the sort of research that is going to be allowed by the university and by the Labor Party then why should we believe anything that Peetz is going to come up with in the future?

The member for Lalor is trying to present herself as the new face of Labor’s industrial relations—that she will be kinder and friendlier than Work Choices. Using her words, the salesman has changed, but the message has not changed. We still have a scare campaign and we still have a labour movement, led by Greg Combet and others, which has basically said that it wants these laws to be ripped up. The Labor Party’s response is, of course, to say that they are going to throw all the good things that the coalition has done out the window. No matter how they couch those words and no matter how user-friendly and ‘walk both sides of the street’ they may be, the result will be that the economic growth we have seen will be jeopardised by those on the other side. (Time expired)

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this matter of extreme public importance today. The crux of this debate is the fundamental question of whether efforts to facilitate maximum productivity and competitiveness in Australian business are best served by throwing the notion of a ‘fair go’ out the back door. On this side of the House we believe that a fair go, as an enduring principle of the Australian Labor Party, is fundamental to being Australian and, similarly, that it is fundamental to a productive and competitive economy. Sadly, in my electorate of Adelaide I have witnessed first-hand how the Howard government’s extreme laws have tipped the balance and gone too far. This can be seen on at least two levels affecting Australians: firstly, on a micro level, by disintegrating the potential to maintain a realistic balance between work and family; and, secondly, at a macro level, by adding burdensome requirements to businesses which can affect productivity and increase inefficient regulatory restrictions.

Let me first look at the impact on Australian families. The result of the government’s deregulation of working hours has resulted in it becoming even more difficult for families to find an adequate balance between their work and family life. According to Professor Barbara Pocock, Director of the Centre for Work and Life at the University of South Australia, the capacity in AWAs to cast aside family-friendly work conditions has been widely utilised to date. Research has shown that those on AWAs are significantly less likely to have family-friendly provisions in their work conditions than those covered by awards or collective agreements. She has said:

Individual agreements, if we look at the data on them, are incontrovertibly less family friendly in terms of their annual leave, long service leave and sick leave—the fundamentals for working carers … A very small proportion (of AWAs) in 2002-03 had family or carers leave—way less than in collective agreements. Only eight per cent had paid maternity leave and five per cent had paid paternal leave. All of that data suggests that AWAs are family unfriendly.

These findings are alarming and illustrate just how, on this barbecue stopper issue, the ability to juggle family and work commitments is being steadily disintegrated by this government’s extreme industrial relations laws.

This says nothing of the young Australians who are now being exploited in workplaces across this country and their very worried parents. I have previously raised in this House the example of young Billy Schultze, whose case was investigated by the Office of Workplace Services, after I raised it with the Prime Minister in question time last year, and is now being pursued in the Federal Magistrates Court. The question is: how many young workers out there are being exploited and do not have the opportunity to have their cases raised in the federal parliament? The clear anguish this situation has caused Billy’s father has shown me yet again the disturbing repercussions of these workplace laws.

I would also like to talk about the impact these laws are having on business. The Labor parliamentary task force on industrial relations, of which I was a member, heard first-hand criticism from businesses about the complexity and prescriptive nature of the IR legislation. In my electorate of Adelaide, with some 20,000 small businesses, I am always interested in the realities of how these workplace laws are impacting upon them. Professor Andrew Stewart, Dean of Law at Flinders University in Adelaide, told the task force that the story for most employers is one of:

… a hopelessly confused, inept set of laws being made more inept with every bit of fiddling the Government does and that’s causing business massive problems.

The task force also heard from a small business owner in Gladstone, Queensland. He stated:

I don’t really understand the legislation ... Small business like mine are the backbone of ... this economy and clearly we can’t spend that time to understand all this legislation so who is it helping? Who’s gaining out of this? I have no idea ... Every day there’s more and more of it and this WorkChoices is just another example.

This is the reality of how these laws are impacting on small business. Similarly, in my electorate of Adelaide the feedback from business has been that Work Choices is a step too far, and that what was sold to them as legislation for greater choice in the workplace has in reality resulted in greater complexity, confusion and a more immense burden. As this matter of public importance today points out, these laws are unfair, complex, flawed and they are a burden for business. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened with interest to the speakers on the opposite side and their contributions to this debate and I have to come to the conclusion they do not live in the real world. I dare say that everyone knows that my seat of Page is on the North Coast of New South Wales. It is bounded by Richmond in the north and Cowper in the south. The area has always had an unemployment rate that is well above the national average. I think everyone also knows that I have been around for more than 50 years, so I have seen a fair bit of this on the North Coast of New South Wales.

The recent unemployment figures, announced only a week or so ago, showed that in the seat of Page the unemployment rate has come down from 16 per cent when I took over seat, which was the rate of Paul Keating and the Labor government, to 5.2 per cent at the present time. Yes, there are a number of things responsible for that, but one of the things I will claim very clearly is changes to unfair dismissal legislation. When I went around doorknocking to seek the seat of Page in the federal parliament, small business made it very clear to me that one of the huge inhibiting factors that they had for employment was unfair dismissal. They were terrified of unfair dismissal, because some of their colleagues had been caught out on it. We all know that employers and employees do not always get on together. That can be either’s fault. It might be the employer’s fault or it could be the employees fault, but there is one thing for sure: they should not be held together just because of unfair dismissal legislation. There was even the outrageous case that went to court where an employee had been stealing from the till and the court said, ‘You should have told them not to.’ That was the outrageous situation.

I have no doubt in my mind that in an area like the North Coast it is the small business community that is employing those people who were on the unemployment queues. I think the headline the other day in the Northern Star, the paper that comes out of Lismore, said: ‘No longer the dole bludgers’ capital of Australia’. We no longer have the highest unemployment rate in Australia. We are down to ninth or something like that. It is undoubtedly the small business sector that is driving a lot of that employment.

If you look closely at these laws you will find it is the flexibility that they allow. When I was in the New South Wales parliament we never had late-night or weekend shopping. We now have all that practically right across Australia. How does the Labor Party think that is organised? Of course there is an agreement between the employee and the employer that they will work a Sunday, or half a Sunday, or Saturday, or at night and they will get time off in lieu. I know a number of people on the North Coast who find that very convenient. They go fishing or surfing for two days through the week when the crowds are not around. Of course, if you want flexibility in the workforce it is often the female partner who would like to do some work at night. Flexibility in the call centres allows people to do that. It provides the flexibility which they need, especially with a young family.

The member for Lalor made a lot of the mining industry. Yes, the mining industry in Australia is undoubtedly booming at the present time. But that is the exact reason why we need some flexibility. I have young people on the North Coast of New South Wales—mostly male, farm boys, relatively unskilled, but they are trained on the job—travelling to Central Queensland to work. They go to Brisbane, they are flown onto the job, they do three weeks on, I think it is, and one week off and they are on $100,000 a year. That is very good money for young fellows who are relatively unskilled and are trained on the job. If you had an award system, how would you get that flexibility between the employer and the employee? That is the type of flexibility you need. Without it, if you wanted to increase the wages so that miners could get employees, you would have to lift all the other awards across Australia, and what would that do to the economy?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the discussion has now expired.