Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The dramatic collapse in business confidence and the ongoing uncertainty about the impact of the government’s industrial relations laws on small business and employment.

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—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the coalition members were denied the right today to speak on the government’s motion—the fact that they were gagged from speaking on the government’s motion—this matter of public importance assumes even greater significance. Australia is facing a period of economic uncertainty. There are challenges in the United States with their financial system. The impact of that is flowing through to the Australian share market and will be felt in the broader economy. There are concerns about the stability of the world economy as the subprime crisis continues to take its toll.

While the Australian economy remains strong, with the latest jobs figures showing the lowest unemployment rate for 34 years, we cannot take this for granted. Small business is the powerhouse of our economy. Many small businesses are family businesses. People often take significant risks to start and run a small business. The almost two million small business operators in Australia are the single biggest business employment sector in this country. It is vital that business remains strong and that business confidence remains high so that small business, in particular, is able to continue providing job opportunities in record numbers.

This year, the Sensis business index—the SBI survey—questioned 1,800 small businesses in the three months to March. The federal government approval indicator—that is, the small business support for federal government policies—dropped 34 percentage points over the quarter. That is the biggest fall in the survey’s 15-year history. The report finds that small business does not approve of Labor’s changes to industrial relations policies and that small business is pessimistic about the economy. This is an alarming finding, but there is more. In March, it was found that confidence among Australian consumers had collapsed to the lowest level since 1993. Members will recall that 1993 was in the middle of the worst recession Australia had experienced since the Great Depression. The March index was down 23 per cent from a year earlier. So we have the Sensis business index dropping 34 per cent over a quarter and the March index dropping 23 per cent from a year earlier.

Attitudes and expectations play a major role in economic outcomes. It has been concerning to hear this new government talking down the economy in its mad rush to demonise the Howard government. Obsessed with scoring political points, the Prime Minister and his ministers have used reckless language and shown disregard for the impact of their comments on the confidence of the nation. Small business should be concerned, because the government—the Labor Party—has not undertaken or commissioned any economic analysis, any economic modelling or any impact statement in relation to its industrial relations laws. What do we get from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations? In the middle of a crisis in business confidence in the government and in the middle of a crisis in consumer confidence, we get the minister, full of hubris and arrogance, going on the attack by moving a self-congratulatory motion after the transition bill had passed the House. Then the government denied opposition members the opportunity to speak on that motion. The arrogance is becoming a hallmark of this government.

The attack by the minister reflected on every business operator and employer in this country—the people who create the wealth, who create the prosperity and who offer the opportunities for Australians to have a job. We have had years of this minister demonising employers who dared to negotiate individually with their employees. Once again, today in the House the minister stuck her boots into employers. Does everybody remember her attacks on the Lilac City Motor Inn operators?

Opposition Members:

Yes!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And does everyone recall her attacks on beauty therapy operators and nail technicians?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—Yes!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These attacks and her hypocrisy in this matter do not go unnoticed in the business community. The minister is, though, strangely silent when it is pointed out that union officials have been negotiating collective agreements that trade away the terms and conditions that individual agreements focus on. And yesterday the minister refused to answer a question about the fact that union officials, in this case a Labor senator-elect for South Australia, negotiated away terms and conditions of a union collective agreement against the wishes of the union members. The minister says nothing about that. She cannot bring herself to utter even a mild rebuke of the Labor senator-elect or union leaders who exploit their members, but she never hesitates when it comes to small business.

Last year, when employers dared raise their concerns about Labor’s industrial relations laws, she threatened them with ‘injury’ if they dared to voice their concerns publicly. I am told that the minister is not shy about making veiled statements to business operators during her meetings with them—heavy on the innuendo. And don’t forget: this is a party that thrives on payback, retribution and revenge.

The minister is antibusiness to the core. The minister, whose very DNA is antibusiness, truly believes that family-run small businesses are there purely to exploit the workers. This kind of antibusiness rhetoric belongs in another age; it does not belong in the workplaces or the parliaments of the 21st century. The minister’s demonising of employers who offered individual contracts is of great concern. The minister has effectively accused every employer who has ever sat down and negotiated terms and conditions of employment with their employees, for their mutual benefit, of ripping them off. That is what the minister has charged small business with. Their crime in the minister’s eyes has been to sit down and individually negotiate an employment contract with an employee for their mutual benefit.

The minister will no doubt use the same emotive language she has been using for months and years about how workers are being ripped off by unscrupulous employers. But the minister should be mindful that her words are resonating out in the business sector, resonating amongst small business, and continuing to drive down their confidence that the national government of this country is supportive of them. The minister is fond of repeating the claim that an exemption for small business from unfair dismissal laws is designed to make it easy for small business owners to sack good workers for no reason. She said it again in the House on 17 March:

… if you were a long-term worker, the breadwinner in your family and you had always done the right thing by your employer, it was okay if you went to work one day and were dismissed for no reason and you had no remedy.

Does the minister truly believe that small business employers in this country scour their workplaces looking for good workers who have always done the right thing and then sack them for no reason? Is that what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is saying about the business owners and operators in this country? It is such an outrageous claim; it reveals that the minister has no idea how businesses in this country operate. Can anyone in this place seriously envisage a small business operator scouring the workplace, finding the best employees and then sacking them for no reason?

The minister showed her true ideological colours today. Time and time again we have heard repeated attacks from the minister, and the Labor Party when they were in opposition, on the two million businesses across the country, who are simply trying to have a go and keep their heads above water—in an economy that, under Labor, in less than three months is starting to go backwards. In just three months the minister appears to have forgotten that it is the business community, in conjunction with the economic management of the coalition government, that for the last 10 years has largely been responsible for creating over 10 million jobs, the highest number of jobs in this country since World War II. Our country is currently enjoying the lowest level of unemployment and the highest number of jobs created in decades.

I appreciate that the minister has limited experience in business, but I can assure her that Australian businesses are treating their good workers with kid gloves. They want their workers to continue to support the businesses, to ensure that these businesses can continue to operate in challenging economic times. The recent unemployment rates released by the ABS show that we should be proud of the 10 years of economic and labour market reform that have enabled us to experience the lowest unemployment rates and highest participation rates in this country for 34 years—over three decades.

How long will our business community be able to continue creating jobs with the uncertainty surrounding the Labor Party’s industrial relations laws? The minister has created new legislation, and it passed through the House, but the evidence to the Senate inquiry showed that it is adding to the regulatory burden of businesses across the country. In particular, the most important new regulation introduced by the Rudd government—and certainly Labor’s first substantive piece of legislation—clearly fails the test set out under Labor’s own guidelines indicating that policy proposals that are likely to have a significant impact should be subject to detailed analysis, including compliance costs measurement to be undertaken and documented in a regulation impact statement. None of this has occurred—no economic analysis, no regulation impact statement and no economic modelling. Where is the analysis of the business compliance costs of the transition bill?

Evidence before the Senate inquiry highlighted the high level of confusion and the difficulty there would be for business, particularly small business, once Labor’s transitional workplace relations legislation was in place. Businesses raised concerns about increased costs associated with industrial action and disputes. Under the 10 or 11 years of labour market reform under the Howard government, industrial disputation fell to the lowest level in Australia’s history. The number of strikes, the level of industrial disputation, fell to the lowest level ever. But, believe me, the unions now think they are back in control. Businesses also raised concerns about the costs associated with the reinvigoration of the award system, and Senator Marshall of the Labor Party suggested last week that the Labor Party plan for award modernisation without disadvantaging workers or increasing employers’ costs was ‘contradictory and an impossible ask’. So, if a senior Labor mem-ber believes that award modernisation will disadvantage workers, and the senator in charge of this legislation in the Senate, Senator Wong, has refused on three separate occasions to give a guarantee that workers will not be worse off under Labor’s industrial relations laws, then is it any wonder that business confidence in government policies is plummeting?

Where is the analysis of the costs imposed on businesses from the abolition of AWAs and from award rationalisation? Where is the economic analysis conducted by the minister’s own department providing a guarantee that Labor’s changes will not lead to a reduction in the unemployment levels and increases in inflation? There is none—well, certainly none that the minister is prepared to share with the Australian public. The government know that their changes will have a damaging impact on the economy. They know that their recent bill will increase regulation for small business. They know that it will disadvantage workers. (Time expired)

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly do not agree with the contention that is expressed within the MPI—that is, that the business community has lost confidence in the government. That could not be further from the truth. The fact is that the Rudd government has been negotiating now with the business community and employee representatives, unions and others, about the transition bill and about the substantive provisions of the bill that will come before the House later in the parliamentary term. The conversations being held by the Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—with the business community are going very well. They are held often. They are amicable. And the reason they are amicable is that those people representing employees and employers are at the table. This is the first opportunity in more than a decade to ensure that, when we discuss the way in which we will regulate employment conditions in this country, employees have a voice—a formal voice.

There is no question that the business community are involved in that process. They have already publicly spoken about the positive cooperation that is occurring, and I am advised that there has been much movement on areas of difference. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the bill that was debated in this House and has gone through to the Senate was a culmination of the negotiations of this government with industrial parties across the spectrum. That is unlike the previous government, which just sent off to some law firms its views on the world without properly consulting with employee representatives or unions or even consulting with unions at all—indeed, without even properly consulting with many of the employer bodies. Unlike the previous government, this government believes in proper consultation. That has occurred, and the transition bill is the outcome. And I can say to those opposite that the business community are very happy with those proceedings.

I think it is also important to ask: if the opposition is being in any way genuine about the criticisms that they have with respect to the transition bill, then why didn’t the opposition senators seek to move amendments to that bill in the Senate? Why is it that, if there are problems with the bill, the opposition senators failed to move amendments to that bill in terms of the way in which it was expressed in the Senate report? There has been no indication by the opposition senators that that would be the case.

I think it is very important that we discuss this matter, to really get down to what we are talking about. And what we are talking about is removing one of the most radical pieces of legislation this parliament has ever seen—one of the most radical, pernicious pieces of legislation affecting working families that this parliament—indeed, this country—has ever seen. We needed to remove that law. And we will continue to debate and prosecute the argument on behalf of working families until we have finally removed all traces of Work Choices, because we know, as the people of Australia know, that at no time before that bill was introduced into this place did the then Prime Minister, John Howard, or any minister representing the former government, say to the Australian people prior to an election: ‘This is what we will do in the area of industrial relations.’ On 28 September 2004, during the election campaign, when the then Liberal government announced its industrial relations policies, there was not one word or sentence that went to the main provisions of the Work Choices legislation. And, after winning that election and winning a majority in the Senate, the government then brought into this place the most pernicious provisions we have seen in the area of industrial relations, without any notice being given to the people of Australia. So there was no genuineness, no consultation and no capacity for people to raise concerns. The Senate committee that was set up to consider that legislation went for five days and never left Canberra. It did not involve the working families that would be affected. And can I say, as the then shadow parliamentary secretary in the last parts of the last parliamentary term, that after visiting 60 electorates across this country I am very well aware of how many people were hurting as a result of the Work Choices legislation.

I met young workers in the hospitality industry who said to me that they were now working on Saturday and Sunday evenings without penalty rates, without overtime. I met administrative workers who had been working in one particular job for more than 20 years and were sacked for no reason whatsoever. A person who had shown competence was sacked for no reason whatsoever, because that was what the law allowed.

One of the most revealing things to me was when, in a hearing of the House of Representatives committee on employment, the head of a peak employer body said to the committee—and it is in the transcript—that the great thing about Work Choices is that you can now do lawfully what was once illegal. That to me underlined the fundamental problem, the fundamental unfairness, of Work Choices. That representative said that in the hospitality industry you could now do legally something that was once unlawful. I can assure those opposite that no previous conservative government would have introduced that legislation. That is one of the reasons—and there are some others—why they find themselves on that side.

It was extraordinary to watch the performance today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney, playing games in this place, not confirming to the Australian people one way or the other whether in fact they support or oppose Work Choices. What we could not believe today was that the opposition voted against a motion that effectively reflects the expression of the will of the people that occurred on 24 November last year. The motion said, in part:

That this House agrees:

(1)

At the last election the Australian people voted for the end of Work Choices which has hurt working families by allowing pay and conditions to be ripped off and decent hard-working Australians to be sacked without reason or remedy …

The opposition voted against that. The motion went on:

(2)

the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, just passed by the Parliament, is the first step in ending Work Choices …

They voted against that. The motion went on:

(3)

from the coming into effect of this bill there will be no new Australian workplace agreements and from 1 January 2010 there will be no new statutory individual workplace agreements of any nature …

They voted against that. What they now have to do is to explain to the Australian people, via the parliament, where they stand in this area. They have to get up on their hind legs, come up to the box here and indicate to the people of Australia, via the parliament, where they stand on industrial relations.

What we do know is that there are those in the Liberal Party room who support Work Choices and will support it to its death and others who want to at least provide the appearance that they do not support it. We do not know where they stand. The people of Australia do not know where they stand. At least we did not know until today, because today they confirmed to us for the first time—before now there was equivocation; there was fighting going on within the Liberal Party room—by voting against that motion, that they have not changed one iota in relation to the Work Choices legislation.

If we thought they were going to in any way show some form of contrition for their acts of not providing consultation and of introducing such a piece of legislation into this place, there were no signs of contrition; indeed there was an acknowledgement, by their willingness to vote against the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister, that they have not changed their position one iota in relation to industrial relations. So that is where they now stand.

As a result of the motion moved today—despite the shenanigans of the opposition in playing games with the processes of the House—at least we now know that they were not fair dinkum when they said they had changed, when they said they actually considered that Work Choices had gone too far. We have it on the record that they are willing to support the major tenets of Work Choices legislation. That is a very important thing for the people of Australia to understand.

Let us remember: Work Choices was never put to the Australian people before an election. Then for the first time, at the last election, the Australian people had a chance to make their views clear—and they did. But the opposition are contemptuous of their views, do not support the mandate of the Australian people and are willing to fly in the face of the democratic expression of the Australian working families of this nation. They should be condemned for that behaviour.

Let us just remember how bad some of those Australian workplace agreements were. It was revealed in the Office of the Employment Advocate report of May 2006 that 64 per cent of those agreements cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, just over half cut shift work loadings, 51 per cent cut overtime loadings, 48 per cent removed monetary allowances, 40 per cent cut rest breaks and 36 per cent cut declared public holidays. The list goes on. The AWA—the statutory capacity to remove people’s entitlements—was a vicious instrument used against working families and used effectively. The only way that was ever going to stop was with a change of government.

As we have seen today, if the Howard government had been re-elected we would have had WorkChoices-plus. There is no way that the former Prime Minister would have listened to the concerns of ordinary working families. The coalition would have introduced further legislation into this place to even further erode the employment conditions of ordinary working families and remove the conditions that allow unions to operate in workplaces—discussing and negotiating with employers, collectively bargaining and ensuring employees have the capacity to be represented at the table. Those regulations—whatever was remaining in the industrial relations laws prior to the transition bill—would have been wound back further. We know that because we know that the opposition members really have no regard for working families. We know in the end they are so ideologically blind when it comes to unions that they will do anything to destroy unions and will be willing to hurt working families when they do so.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should listen to yourself. Are you listening to yourself?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking to the member opposite. We know his form. This man does not have the guts to get up and speak on industrial relations. Do you want to get up to the dispatch box now and say you support Work Choices? You should get up and say you are supporting Work Choices.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not even know what you are talking about; I spoke to the bill.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff will get his turn in a moment.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff voted today against the motion that effectively said Work Choices was hurting working families, was hurting people. The fact is that the member for Moncrieff today showed his true colours. He voted, and all the workers and working families of his electorate in Queensland know he now supports Work Choices. You supported it then, you supported it today and you will continue to support it. I say to the honourable member: don’t worry, the constituents of your electorate of Moncrieff will understand your behaviour with respect to that! Not only the member for Moncrieff but every member of the opposition voted against it. The member for Farrer is another member—

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Constant calling of ‘you’ and insulting other members across the chamber is unparliamentary.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the minister.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be seen by me as an insult to be told that I was supporting Work Choices. I would understand the member for Farrer would see it as an insult. It would be an insult if it were expressed to me that I was supporting Work Choices. As we know, the members opposite supported Work Choices at the time and today they showed their true colours. They revealed that they have not changed their minds and that in no way are they contrite with respect to the impacts of Work Choices. They continue to support that policy. What will happen at the next election is that the Australian people will make their judgement. If indeed the opposition have not changed their view, there will be a day of reckoning for those members—those that still have their seats. The constituents of this country spoke loud and clear on 24 November, when they said via the ballot box that they do not support Work Choices and they do not support its effects, and they got rid of the Howard government. (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to this matter of public importance. I note that the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy was not even able to make it into the chamber for this debate on issues that affect some two million Australian small businesses. I note that the minister that comes to the dispatch box to speak on this is the Minister for Employment Participation. The MPI that is before the House goes very directly to the core of small business confidence in the Australian government and, more broadly, in the Australian economy. It is no wonder that small businesses know that they can have no confidence in this government, no confidence in the Treasurer and absolutely no confidence in the minister for small business.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff will be heard in silence.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason why the two million-plus small businesses of Australia have zero confidence in this government is that they know what this government is actually all about. They know the real motive of the Rudd Labor government. The real motive of the Rudd Labor government is tied up in the whole history of the Australian Labor Party. You hear the Prime Minister stand up in this chamber and talk about how proud he is to see $2 million go towards the Labor ‘stump of knowledge’. We hear the Labor Party talk about its proud union history. We start to uncover some very interesting things about the Rudd Labor government and about the Labor Party more broadly. Recently there was an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph that spoke about the way the Australian Labor Party operates and the way that the Rudd Labor government deals with small business. It spoke about the TWU, the Transport Workers Union, one of the unions that we hear members opposite talk about so often and in such glowing terms. What do we find out about the way the TWU operates? I quote from the newspaper:

Union whistleblower Tony O’Donnell alleges union officials were ordered to perform time-consuming company inspections for alleged breaches of workplace safety laws until they agreed to pay into the fund. If they did not allow you entry, you’d have them over a breach of the law, Mr O’Donnell said. A legitimate inspection can bring a small business to a grinding halt, a medium business pretty close to it ... I could ask for records over the last five years.

That is the Labor Party record: ‘Let us apply whatever pressure we can on Australia’s small businesses and on Australia’s medium sized businesses and rake in all that money to the Labor Party coffers.’ We know they have form because the Labor Party were happy to suck in rivers of gold, millions and millions of dollars from Australian taxpayers, through Centenary House—and now we know that the Labor Party are happy to shut down small businesses to protect their union mates. Why? Because they take the money for their campaigns. I have no doubt that the minister at the table probably took money directly from the TWU.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The fact is that I haven’t, but I also ask the member to withdraw that statement.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to withdraw.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What statement am I withdrawing? That Labor members took money from the TWU?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff made a statement about the individual member taking money.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take back that the member opposite took funds from the TWU if he says he did not, but no doubt other members opposite did. No doubt other members opposite took money from the TWU, money that came from the pockets of the two million hardworking men and women of the Australian small business community, who have no representative in the government because the minister for small business is nowhere to be seen. He is not even speaking to this MPI, a matter that goes to the very core of Australian small businesses and their lack of confidence in this new government.

I asked a question the other day of the Prime Minister. I asked the Prime Minister whether he had any particular comment to make about the fact that, according to the Sensis business index, small business confidence in the government has plummeted to the lowest level ever. That was the track record, according to the business index, of the new Rudd Labor government. The Prime Minister got up and spoke about the Australian economy and he belted on about inflation coming from the opposition—that old hoary chestnut. It is the only possible negative thing they can say about the Australian economy. On what do we know the Prime Minister has never uttered one word? He has not uttered one word on why small business confidence in the policies of this government is at its lowest level ever.

I say to all members opposite: it will be very clear what the implications of your policies are. They may not want to do the economic modelling about the impact of the repeal of Work Choices and about the impact of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. They may not want to know what the answer is in terms of the economic impact. But let me tell you what the unemployment impact will be: the result of this government’s policies on unemployment will be that it will go up, in the same way that the result of this government’s new taxes on fuel excise will be that fuel prices will go up. So we will see more Australians on the unemployment queues as a direct result of this government’s attack on small business in Australia.

I am not surprised that members opposite do not truly understand small business, because so few of them have any knowledge of or background in small business. In fact, the vast bulk of them have probably only entered a small business to shut it down. I have no doubt that the union hacks opposite think that the only way they should deal with a small business is to shut it down. As someone who comes from a part of the country that has the highest concentration of small businesses on a per capita basis, let me explain some fundamentals. I wish the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy was here because, quite frankly, he could do with a lesson. Especially when unemployment is down to 3.97 per cent, small business employers know one thing: the key asset of their company is its employees. That is the most fundamental lesson a small business person will talk to you about. What do we get from members opposite? What we get from the Deputy Prime Minister of this country is a full-frontal attack on employers, on small business people, on men and women who mortgage their home to take a risk in small business. They are directly attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister, who makes a claim that small business employers will go around looking to sack employees. That is the kind of representation that this union based, union owned party brings to the Australian parliament. It is absolutely an indictment on the government that that is their track record.

I could not help but reflect on the previous member’s contribution to this debate, when he spoke about the evils of Work Choices and about how the Labor government would make sure that they never supported any aspects of Work Choices. Last night in the Senate, on three separate occasions, Senator Wong was presented with an opportunity to guarantee that no Australian worker would be worse off under these new labour laws that the Labor Party has introduced. How ironic it is that, all three times, she refused. But perhaps the greatest irony is the fact that the Labor Party actually voted to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal exemption threshold of 100 employees. The Labor Party voted to keep the Work Choices 100-employee threshold in place. The member opposite stands up and says that Labor will have no part of Work Choices and that the Labor Party is concerned with looking after Australian workers. The Labor party professes all this concern about employees, but it actually voted to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal exemption threshold. That is what the Labor Party did. How remarkable! It highlights the hypocrisy of the Rudd Labor government that it would vote to support the current Work Choices threshold.

It must be a sad day for Sharan Burrow and the ACTU. They pumped tens of millions of dollars into getting the Rudd Labor government elected, they bought them the campaign, and they thought to themselves, ‘We’ll overturn the unfair dismissal exemption.’ What happened? The Labor Party turned their backs on the 15-employee threshold. They had the opportunity to vote for it last night but they turned their backs on it and kept the Work Choices threshold. The reason is that the Labor Party just want to run a scare campaign. They are happy to talk down Australian small businesses. They are happy to scare Australians by telling them they can be fired for no reason at the drop of a hat. That is what the Australian Labor Party like to do.

The member opposite sought to have me withdraw my statement that he had not received funding from the TWU, yet I note that the member opposite, the member for Watson, is a member of the Labor Party in New South Wales and that the TWU actually contributed $129,000—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have got the wrong member.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to tell the Queensland member for Moncrieff that I am from Victoria.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understood it to have been a New South Wales seat. Nonetheless—(Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a perfect end to such a pathetic performance. Today the people of Australia are breathing a sigh of relief. At long last, AWAs are being buried—and not a minute too soon. Like all members on this side of the House, I welcome the passage through the Australian parliament today of legislation to abolish AWAs. This will be a great relief for the working people of Australia. It will be a very great relief for the working people of my electorate of Blaxland, many of whom have suffered from these extreme and unfair workplace laws. I know this because everywhere I go, whether it is to a street stall, a railway station, a shopping centre or at the coalface in the workplaces of my electorate, I hear shocking stories from people who have lost their jobs or their working conditions. They have had their shift loadings, leave loadings, rest breaks and penalty rates all stripped away and unfair contracts shoved down their throats.

What was confirmed on 24 November last year is that Australians care about fairness. They expect fair workplace laws—and that is why they threw that lot out. In November 1907, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins handed down the Harvester decision, which enshrined the concept of fairness in our industrial relations laws. What happened in November 2007? The people of Australia threw out the party that had installed and instituted a lack of fairness into our industrial relations system and workplace laws—piece by piece and chunk by awful chunk. The Deputy Prime Minister has revealed in this place the horror stories of Work Choices and AWAs. Here is the smoking gun. Since the election, the Workplace Authority has confirmed, from a sample of AWAs from April to October 2006, the types of protected award conditions that were removed by AWAs. It found that 89 per cent of AWAs removed at least one protected award condition, 83 per cent excluded two or more, 78 per cent excluded three or more, 71 per cent excluded four or more, 61 per cent excluded five or more and 52 per cent excluded six or more. What were the most commonly removed protected award conditions? Seventy per cent removed shift work loadings, 68 per cent removed annual leave loadings and 65 per cent removed penalty rates.

This is what they did. This is what they wrought on the people of Australia. This is what they imposed on working families and this is why the people of Australia threw them out on their ear. What did they do as soon as they got control of the Senate? They implemented laws that they had been craving to implement for over a decade. As soon as they got their hands on the Senate they instituted these horrendous laws. They rammed Work Choices and AWAs down the throats of Australian workers. This is the former government, whose years in government the member for Warringah last week told us would be remembered as ‘the golden age of compassion’. I repeat: last week in a debate the member for Warringah had the gall to stand up and say that the Howard government years would be remembered as ‘the golden age of compassion’. Only today he said that Work Choices was ‘good for Australian workers’. The people of Australia did not think it was much good for them and they did not think it was very compassionate. That is why they threw the Howard government out.

Work Choices was an abject failure. It hurt people and it hurt them for no good end. It was bad for working families, it was bad for the economy and it was bad for business. The Howard government said that Work Choices would deliver low inflation. Where are interest rates? Interest rates are at record highs—the second highest in the developed world. They are at the highest level they have been in 16 years.

This matter of public importance is all about business confidence. I will tell you what destroys business confidence: it is inflation. I had a look at the Sensis business index on small and medium business enterprises from February this year and this really goes to the point of the opposition’s argument. It stated:

... concerns about rising interest rates were the key reasons for SMEs lacking confidence—

in this quarter. It went on:

... the main reason businesses gave for feeling worried about their prospects related to concerns over increasing interest rates ...

Well, there you have it. That is what business is saying. Interest rates are sapping business confidence. And who is responsible for rising interest rates? Who is responsible for the highest interest rates in 16 years? Who is responsible for the second highest interest rates in the developed world? Who ignored 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank?

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Higgins.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, that is right; it is them! But it is not only business that is hurting. The failure of the former government to rein in inflation has a human face and it is a human face that people on this side of the House know only too well. Today 1.1 million Australians are suffering from housing stress. Last year 9,751 Australians lost their homes. Today in my electorate of Blaxland three families will be evicted from their homes. This is the human face of their failure. As I told the House earlier this week, no-one is suffering more than the people of my electorate. Last year 300 families lost their homes. The year before that, another 300 lost their homes. I speak with some trepidation here, but the data indicates it will only be worse this year. In the last six months the number of evictions has doubled. The Sheriff’s Office at Bankstown Court House is now evicting 15 families a week. So don’t come in here and lecture us on economics. The party of Work Choices is the party that has inflicted that on my electorate and on the people of Australia.

For those who could keep their heads above water, Work Choices made it all the harder. Keeping up with repayments meant living with the looming threat of Work Choices and the loss of job security. Those opposite also say that Work Choices would increase productivity. What happened to productivity? It has fallen to zero. They said that Work Choices would be good for business. What does the evidence tell us? The evidence says that Work Choices imposed compliance costs on business of more than $950 million. That is almost $1 billion. That does not sound ‘good for business’ to me. At least John Howard had the guts to stand up in Washington DC the other week and say that he still believes in Work Choices, which is a lot more than opposition members are prepared to do today. At least he has the guts to say what he thinks. The opposition did not even have the guts to turn up to a division today to tell us what they think. They want us to assume they have seen the light. They want us to assume they have backflipped on Work Choices, like they backflipped on Kyoto and the stolen generation.

I have never met John Howard, but he must be a terrifying man. He must have been a very strong and tough leader because they want us to believe that they all disagreed with him—that John Howard wanted Work Choices, that John Howard wanted to oppose Kyoto, that John Howard said, ‘Don’t apologise to the stolen generation,’ but they disagreed with him. But no-one had the guts to tell him and no-one had the guts to tell him to go. That draws into question their capacity to lead. They are pretty good followers but they are not good leaders. That is now over because they want Australia to think there is furious agreement in this chamber—that we all believe that Work Choices should be thrown in the dustbin of history, that we all believe in signing Kyoto, that we all believe in apologising to the stolen generation. All the climate change sceptics have disappeared, all the Work Choices advocates have vanished and all the opponents of an apology have had a change of heart. I can only assume they are all republicans now as well. If only that were true.

Do not hold your breath, because they revealed their true selves today when they ran out of this chamber with their tail between their legs. They say Work Choices is dead, then they say it is alive again, then they say it is dead. They breathed life back into Work Choices again today when they told us it was good for Australian workers. Be under no illusion: this is the party of Work Choices. They cannot be trusted not to bring it back. It is the zombie policy that will rise again from the dead if the people of Australia re-elect them to run this country.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. When we look at the business report card on the performance of this government we need to look no further than the plunge in business and consumer confidence to actually have an idea of what business is saying and thinking about the performance of this government, because confidence is a foundation stone. It is a foundation stone that underpins the effective operation of any market. Confidence is a factor that underpins hiring decisions for businesses large and small. If we had a situation where every small business in this country hired just one more employee we would, in theory at least, totally eliminate unemployment.

The government reminds us regularly about the decision the people of Australia made on 24 November. We accept that and we acknowledge that, but business is sending another message to this government. It is sending the message that it does not like the sorts of decisions it sees being made in this place and that they are having an adverse effect on its capacity to be confident and, in being so, to offer opportunity. We hear the members opposite talk long and loud on the issue of terms and conditions relating to people’s employment. But that is the whole point—they are talking about terms and conditions relating to people’s employment, not unemployment. We see around the country jobs for people who want them. Yes, in some areas we have more to do, but under the coalition government we saw the creation of jobs, the creation of opportunities and the building of a stronger community through what those opportunities provided and meant to the people who got those jobs. With this loss of confidence perhaps we are seeing a turning of the tide. Perhaps we are seeing a real watershed in the future of this country. It was interesting to see in the Australian today a little editorial that said:

... the Government has made one lasting mark on the reform process: it is the only government in 30 years to wind it backwards.

So the government has as a badge of honour the status of being the first government in 30 years to wind the reform process backwards.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Sullivan interjecting

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear you trotting out your tired lines. When I became a member of parliament I had seen in previous years young people without any hope or opportunity. They were in a state of despair, but the improvements in the economic standards in this country meant that they did have an opportunity and they were getting jobs. It was a very positive experience for them and a very positive experience for the community. But we see that perhaps about to change. We see confidence falling. As I get round my electorate I see businesses now very fearful of what the future holds for them. It is a very different situation now indeed. They see that where they once had confidence they now have concern, and a business that has severe concerns is not going to be rehiring. It is more likely to be shedding labour than hiring. Under the previous government we saw unemployment fall to 33-year lows. The previous government created jobs.

What is this government going to do? First step: destroy confidence. Next step: destroy jobs. Members opposite will not be able to spin it to people who lose their jobs because of the decisions they make in this place. They will know that they are out of work, and no amount of spin from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is going to save that. They will know, and you will pay for that. You will pay for the decisions that you make in this House if they are not correct. I maintain you are taking this country down the wrong path, and the members on this side of the House maintain that you are taking this country down the wrong path. Just as this government stood on its record, you will be judged by your record. We already see falling confidence. We already see businesses being less likely to hire than they once were. We already see the fact that the lack of both consumer and business confidence is going to be translated in the weeks and months ahead into changes to the way that these firms approach the hiring of labour.

There is no fairness in unemployment. You may come here and rant and rave about various terms and conditions, but there is certainly no fairness in unemployment whatsoever. If you talk to someone who has lost their job, they do not see the fairness in unemployment. They would rather have a job than no job at all. That is perhaps a concept that is foreign to many of the members opposite, but it is an important concept. We need a strong small business sector. We see this government eroding small business confidence and eroding opportunities. (Time expired)

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise in this matter of public importance debate on business confidence this afternoon. As we know from the Sensis reports, the key issues that are affecting business confidence are increasing interest rates, due to the member for Higgins; a skills shortage that occurred on the watch of those opposite; and staff retention. One of the biggest reasons they have problems with staff retention is that good working Australians will not sign their stinking contracts. I can tell you, though, that there is one measure of business confidence that did not change throughout 2007: business was very, very confident that the 2007 election would be won by the Australian Labor Party, and they were right about that.

I will talk for a couple of moments about some of the contributions that have been made. The member for Cowper indicated that he felt that business was unhappy with the decisions being made by our government in this place. Business is just going to have to get used to having a federal government in this place that sticks by what it says in election campaigns it is going to do and delivers on its election promises, and I do not think any one of us would make any apology for that. The member for Moncrieff had 10 minutes in which about the only worthwhile contribution he made was to indicate that the key asset for small business is its employees. I accept that, that is a truth, but principled employers have been caught between a rock and a hard place. They have been caught between the need to be competitive with others in their industry—and following them down the path of ripping off pay and conditions from their workers—or facing bankruptcy. I do not want to say too much about the cheap shot that the member for Moncrieff made about the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy not being here for the debate and then packing his bags up and taking off out the door straight away himself. He shows absolutely no interest in this debate this afternoon either.

I always enjoy this one. The member for Curtin raised this one: ‘We have got the lowest unemployment for 34 years.’ If the member for Curtin takes some advice from me and takes her shoes off, uses her fingers and toes and counts back 34 years, she will find out the Prime Minister at that time was a fellow by the name of Edward Gough Whitlam. Thirty-four years ago unemployment was lower, and in those days you needed a full-time job to be counted as somebody who was employed, not just an hour a week.

The opposition like to sing the praises, as the member for Curtin did, of the coalition’s economic management. At a conference dinner in Sydney in 2007, John Howard delivered a speech which must have had them choking on their prawn cocktails. He talked about the five greatest economic advances of the last 20 years. He named them and he gave the Labor Party credit for 2½ and he took credit for 2½ himself. The first two of those five economic advances were the deregulation of the banking industry and the floating of the dollar; he said that the ALP were responsible for those, and that is great; you can now hear the opposition choking in retrospect. The next was tariff reform, and he shared that with the ALP; he thought that was good. And, for himself, he claimed tax reform and industrial relations reform. The GST and Work Choices were what John Howard was most proud of—the two most hated policies that have ever gone through this parliament.

Let me tell you what the people opposite have done in terms of encouragement for business. In their term in parliament, they encouraged businesses to treat their workers impersonally. They encouraged businesses to ignore the impact of their actions on wage earners’ dependants. They encouraged business people to behave in a way that I consider un-Australian—behaviour that certainly did not offer a fair go for working Australians and certainly was not what those people who came before us sought to establish as a hallmark of this country. The opposition established a regime whereby the most unscrupulous employers could rip away wages and conditions from their employees, and if their more principled competitors wanted to stay in business they were forced to follow suit. We hear that the opposition did not know that that is what they did. The member for North Sydney told us that the frontbench of the now shadow cabinet—the then cabinet—did not know that their legislation was capable of doing that.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.