Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how economic reform has strengthened the Australian economy? Is the Prime Minister aware of any proposals that would roll back this reform? What effect will this have on the prosperity of Australian workers?

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

I thank the member for Bass for his question. It is an undeniable fact that the strength of the Australian economy in 2007 is a direct result of 20 years of economic reform—indeed, perhaps a generation of economic reform. The real essence of the debate about Work Choices that is going on in this chamber and around the nation is whether, for the first time, this nation is going to be so unwise as to reverse one of the great economic reforms of the last generation, which has given us the prosperity we now have.

It would be unthinkable for anybody to propose to re-regulate the exchange rate, to reimpose foreign exchange controls and to go back to the old days of a regulated financial system. It would, I think, be unimaginable that we would seek to reimpose tariffs as a method of protecting Australian industry. It would be unimaginable that we would go back to the pre-1998 days in relation to the Australian waterfront, when the crane rates were 17 or 18 an hour. They are now 27 or 28.

It would surely be unimaginable if we were to reverse the new taxation system to bring back the wholesale sales tax, to overturn the introduction of the GST or to turn our backs on all the hard-won reforms that existed there. It would be unimaginable that this country should go back into deficit, that we should accumulate $96 billion of government debt. It would surely be unimaginable—and even the Australian Labor Party has indicated that it would be unimaginable—that we should seek to renationalise former government owned enterprises such as Telstra, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank.

Therefore, that recitation, that statement of the obvious, makes a very clear and compelling point: that what the Labor Party is proposing to do in relation to Work Choices is to reverse a generation of economic reform that has been contributed to by both sides of politics in Australia.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Yes, it has been contributed to by both sides of politics. There is, however, a caveat to be placed on that observation, and that is that the Liberal and National parties, when in opposition, supported those reforms of the former government that were beneficial to the Australian economy, whereas those reforms of this government which have been beneficial to the Australian economy—such as taxation reform, waterfront reform, getting the budget back into balance and paying off $96 billion of government debt—have all been trenchantly opposed by the opportunistic members of the Australian Labor Party who sit opposite.

What Labor want to do is to turn back the clock. What Labor want to do is, for the first time in the modern era of economic management in this country, reverse a major economic reform. What they are proposing to do—driven by their real masters, the bosses of the ACTU—is akin to reregulating the financial system, ending the floating of the Australian dollar, dismantling taxation reform and going back to the bad old days of the waterfront. They are not only talking about rolling back Work Choices; they are also talking about rolling back the reforms that were introduced in 1996, because what we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a description of an industrial relations system which takes us back beyond the reforms of 1996. Why is this occurring? This is not occurring in the name of helping the working men and women of Australia; this is occurring in the name of reimposing union domination over the industrial relations system.

As I look along the Labor Party frontbench—no disrespect to them as individuals—70 per cent of them are former trade union officials. They are going to be joined, of course, after the next election by an honour roll of the brothers and sisters.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

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

Order! The member for Hotham!

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

You have Bill Shorten. You have Doug Cameron. You have Richard Marles. You have Mark Butler. And I reckon, after the equivocal things he has said in the past few days, you have Greg Combet. If I were the member for Charlton, I would be pretty concerned that Greg was after my seat. But this is not about the rights of workers; this is about the power of union bosses. That is what this is about. It has nothing to do with the rights of workers. If they had concern for the rights of workers—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

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

The member for Hotham is warned!

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

they would not be adopting the policy they have. The last thing I want to say is this: I saw in a newspaper this morning from a very respected columnist a suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition was going to do a Blair at the ALP national conference. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the defining moment in the march of Tony Blair to respectability as leader of the British Labour Party was when he told the Trade Union Congress in that country that, if he won office, he would retain the industrial relations reforms of the Thatcher government.