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

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on how the government’s workplace reforms are helping all working Australians by contributing to a stronger economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies that seek to appease sectional interests in the community?

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

I thank the hardworking member for Deakin for his question and note that he is an illustration of exactly what is at stake at the next election. We have someone who has real-life experience in the workplace, having worked in the private sector, and his Labor opponent running against him is an ETU official—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

That is right, like Dean Mighell—with no real-life experience. As the member for Deakin knows, 417,900 jobs have been created since we introduced our reforms to the workplace relations system—417,000 jobs have been created since the introduction of Work Choices, 84 per cent of which are full-time jobs. The Labor Party predicted that real wages would fall with the introduction of Work Choices. In fact, there has been a three per cent increase in real wages—that is, after inflation—since the so-called industrial relations Armageddon, and unemployment is at its lowest rate for 33 years, since 1974, at around 4.3 per cent.

During the break we had the Labor Party release Forward with Fairness mark 2. This is the Labor Party’s second industrial relations policy—they could not get the first one right. They made such a hash of it that they had to have a second policy within six months. When they released the policy, isn’t it interesting that not one credible person claimed that the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy would create more jobs or deliver higher wages. There was not one person. Not even the Leader of the Opposition in announcing his policy claimed that the Labor Party’s policy was going to be good for the economy and good for workers, delivering high real wages and more jobs. They did not claim that at all. Instead, what they are trying to do is swing their so-called pendulum back and putting it in odd places, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition started to allude to.

Ultimately we must ask ourselves: ‘What is the motivation of the Labor Party in delivering a workplace relations policy that ultimately appeases the union bosses?’ We have done a little bit of analysis of the Labor Party candidates in the upcoming federal election. We have found that over 50 per cent of the candidates that the Labor Party is fielding in existing Labor seats are ex-union officials; 95 per cent of their Senate candidates are ex-union officials or Labor Party staffers; and 70 per cent of their front bench are former union officials. Just to add to the rich mix of the Labor Party front bench, they are bringing in Bill Shorten, Greg Combet, Richard Marles, and our old mate Dougie Cameron! There are four union bosses coming into the Labor Party to enrich its ranks with diversity by expanding the union officialdom! The bottom line is this: does anyone really think that a Labor Party dominated by union bosses would ever have the courage to stand up to those union bosses in government? Does anyone really believe that? They can run all the rhetoric they want today, they can run all the rhetoric they want tomorrow, but ultimately you have to look within their own ranks and identify that the Labor Party is full of union bosses. They want a union run agenda and the only people that will benefit are the union bosses; the people that will pay the price are the workers of Australia.

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

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and former political staffer. Can the minister confirm that the government’s 2004 IR election policy contained nothing about allowing award conditions to be stripped with no compensation, nothing about allowing ‘take it or leave it’ AWAs to be offered to employees and nothing about removing unfair dismissal protections from over four million Australian workers employed by business with fewer than 100 employees and other employees under so-called genuine operational reasons? Why should the people believe anything the minister says about the government’s intentions for industrial relations after the next election?

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

Because our policies have delivered higher real wages, more jobs and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years. We wanted to remove the unfair dismissal laws from small business on 44 separate occasions and the Labor Party voted against it on each occasion. They would have you believe that suddenly they are converted and care about small business. We wanted to remove the unfair dismissal law from small business because, although we have always been concerned about people losing their jobs, we are more concerned about people getting jobs in the first place. The unfair dismissal law was one of the single greatest impediments to small business employing people, particularly those people who were long-term unemployed. It was the OECD, and not some paid-up union hack writing an academic report for the Labor Party, that said that the people who are most vulnerable in the community are the greatest beneficiaries of the removal of the unfair dismissal law from small business. That is because small business is now prepared to take a punt and employ someone with a chequered employment history or someone who has been out of work for a long period of time. AWAs have been around since 1996 and there has been no secret about the government’s commitment to creating a flexible workplace environment that increases productivity and creates more jobs that deliver higher real wages.