Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in this place. Is the minister aware of comments by the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that using the Fair Pay Commission to set minimum wages will see a slowdown in the rate of growth of minimum wages?

Didn’t the president say ‘that is what the Fair Pay Commission is for’? Don’t these comments by the President of the AIRC, who of course was appointed by this government, highlight the impact on the low paid of the government’s new workplace laws? Can the minister now explain why the government thinks the nearly two million Australians already only getting the minimum wage of $12.75 an hour should get smaller pay rises in the future?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate that I am not personally aware of the comments, but I will take a punt and accept them at face value only because it is Senator Bishop asserting it. If it were some of his other colleagues, I would not be as confident in accepting their comments at face value. Even if we were to accept that the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission made those comments, it remains to be seen whether or not that assertion is proven.

Of course, what we on this side have had to tolerate, year after year—indeed, for a full decade now—is that each time we have come in with a reform—be it the goods and services tax, the waterfront reform, our first tranche of industrial relations changes or the first sale of Telstra—no matter what our reform program, it has been met by a chorus of doom and gloom from a whole host of people, some of whom are very well informed but all of whom, I must say, have been proven to be incorrect.

We as a government have presided over a decade of seeing the low-income earners of this country enjoying increased wages to an extent unparalleled under the previous 13 years of the Labor government. Given that, I pose this question: why on earth would we as a government, having this wonderful record over the past decade, all of a sudden say: ‘Well, let’s try and lower the wages—after having increased them for a decade, let’s try and decrease them’?

It does not make sense, it is not on our agenda and, if there is one thing that the Prime Minister can be very proud of, it is the way that he has looked after the battlers of this country. That is why in common parlance today they are referred to as Howard’s battlers—because he is the one to look after them.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, arising from that response, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that, if the government had got its way over the last 10 years, the nearly two million Australians on the minimum wage would be paid $2,600 a year less than they are being paid now? Why does the government always want to pay the nearly two million Australians on the minimum wage less?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable senator knows that that is a very old, hoary argument that has no substance to it whatsoever. What the honourable senator knows is that, at the end of the day, people judge us on what is in their pay packet as a result of 10 years of the Howard government in comparison with what they got under 13 years of the Hawke-Keating government when the ACTU had its feet under the cabinet table and the Hawke-Keating government was able to deliver about a 1.2 per cent increase for the battling workers of this country. We have presided over an economic scenario where their wages have gone up above inflation—and, what is more, interest rates have been kept low so that, when they have had to borrow for a house, a car or something else, they have been able to do so on a sustainable basis.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Abetz. Minister, are you aware of any recent comments in support of a modern industrial relations policy in this country?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You already know that! The Liberal leader in Tasmania—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Sherry!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you also aware of any alternative policies on this important issue for Australia’s continued growth and economic prosperity?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, if you heard the question over the interjection from my left, I would ask you to answer it.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn’t need to hear it; he wrote it!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did hear the question, and I thank Senator Johnston for his loud, booming voice, which did allow me to hear the question above the din from those opposite. I am aware of a number of comments in support of a modern industrial relations system in this country. Indeed, in recent times Mr Bracks, the Victorian Premier—and when I say ‘in recent times’ I mean a decade ago—said that the Labor opposition ‘supports in principle the concept of a single national system of industrial relations’. Prior to that we had the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, who famously said:

In a nation of 17 million people—

as we were at that time—

struggling to modernise its economy, seven separate systems of industrial regulation are an absurd luxury.

Or how about the opposition IR spokesman, the member for Perth, who said last year:

It is possible to consider ... a single or a unitary system. It’s not a novel policy idea, and you can contemplate a whole range of efficiencies ...

What these three quotes show is that the Australian Labor Party know what needs to be done to modernise our industrial relations system. I will give them another quote to assist them. It is this—and I would ask honourable senators to listen to it, because it is very important:

It is going to be necessary to strike an alternative industrial relations policy [that has] regard to the open-trading nature of the economy ...

Those opposite can squirm as much as they like in listening to it, because they know it was said by their real leader—and by their real leader I am not referring to Mr Beazley but to Mr Greg Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU. So we have the prospect of the ACTU itself recognising that you cannot go back, you have to move forward. But what is Mr Beazley’s policy in relation to the reforms we have just introduced? It is a ripper. He is going to rip up our policy and go back to that which existed prior to 1996, when his own ACTU secretary, Greg Combet, has finally been mugged by reality and now acknowledges the need for reform in the open economy in which we now operate.

While the Labor states are trying to mount a constitutional challenge against this unitary system, we have the Victorian Premier supporting the unitary system; the former New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, supporting the unitary system; the member for Perth, Mr Smith, supporting the situation; and even the ACTU secretary, Mr Greg Combet, supporting the notion of the need for modernisation. If I cannot convince them, I trust that the Rt Hon. Tony Blair can convince them, because when he addressed the Trade Union Congress after becoming Prime Minister he said this about the Thatcher reforms:

We are not going back ... We will keep the flexibility of the current labour market, and it may make some shiver, but, in the end, it is warmer in the real world.

I encourage those on the other side to join us and Mr Blair in the real world. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to his answer yesterday about the government’s decision to remove unfair dismissal protection from nearly four million Australian workers. Can the minister confirm that under the government’s new system employers will be able to sack their workers today but offer them the same job back tomorrow on a lower wage? Can the minister explain why the government thinks that employers should be able to take advantage of the new system simply to cut costs?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Inherent in that question is the old Marxist concept of the class conflict between capital and labour. In this day and age, in the 21st century—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this, the 21st century, those sorts of notions have been dismissed, as I just pointed out in my previous answer, even by luminaries of the labour movement such as the Rt Hon. Tony Blair. What we are looking for is flexibility at the workplace—and flexibility at the workplace requires the confidence of small business employers to be able to put on staff without having the yoke of unfair dismissal legislation around their business necks. Mr Beazley himself has acknowledged the problems with the unfair dismissal laws as they existed in the past but, having acknowledged the problem, his answer is: ‘I will go back to those problems. I will not accept the reforms of the Howard government.’

I do not know of any employer who takes delight in sacking a worker. I know there are people like Senator Conroy who take great delight in seeing parliamentary colleagues sacked, but I do not know of an employer who wakes up of a morning and says, ‘Who can I sack today?’ They are concerned about the welfare of their business enterprise—the welfare of which determines their capacity to employ the workers within that enterprise. That is why, especially within the small business community, there is that close relationship between employer and employee—something which has driven up productivity and employment opportunities for our fellow Australians. Indeed, small business has been the engine room of economic activity and employment growth. All we had to do was ask small business, ‘Why aren’t you employing more people?’ and the one answer that came through loud and clear, time and time again, was, ‘The unfair dismissal laws act as a disincentive to employment.’

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What sized business was that at the election?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Small business, Senator Evans. What we are about is seeking to ensure that there is appropriate and proper cooperation between employer and employee. This is what Work Choices is all about, and the thing that those opposite are so concerned about, as ex-trade union officials, is that trade union membership in percentage terms has actually declined, despite their ongoing $50 million scare campaign against Work Choices throughout the community.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell, shouting across the chamber is disorderly.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I was trying to listen very carefully to that answer from Senator Abetz, and a very detailed answer in response to the question it was, too.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Robert Ray interjecting—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But one thing I will not be doing is spending all my time in New York, Robert Ray, I can tell you that.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left! Senator Kemp, what is your point of order?

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that I think we should have far more order from that side of the chamber, because it is impossible to hear the answers.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all know that shouting across the chamber is disorderly, Senator Wong. Continuing interjections are also disorderly. I remind senators on both sides of the chamber that shouting across the chamber is disorderly, and I ask Senator Marshall to ask his supplementary question.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, as a supplementary question, doesn’t this show that Senator Minchin was right when he said that the great majority of Australians do not support what the government is doing on industrial relations; they violently disagree? Isn’t a system that allows an employer to cut wages by firing workers then rehiring them on a lower wage and inferior conditions simply unfair and un-Australian?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the last part of the question, the answer is clearly no. Having said that, can I indicate that it is quite natural for our fellow Australians to express some concern at the changes that the government has implemented. They expressed similar concern when we introduced the goods and services tax, and Labor thought it could lazily ride into government on the alleged wave of GST discontent. Of course, the people of Australia said, ‘That’s not good enough.’ This is what Labor is trying to do again: ride into government on a scare campaign and a wave of discontent. But I suggest to those opposite that, just as they had to suffer the humiliation of doing their backflip on GST, they get it out of the way now, do the backflip today and save themselves the embarrassment tomorrow. (Time expired)