Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of reports that the new Nationals MP for Tweed, Mr Geoff Provest, has concerns about his 26-year-old son, Patrick, standing to lose penalty rates under Work Choices? Does the minister agree with Mr Provest that ‘there’s some more work to be done in terms of protecting those penalty rates’? Is the minister concerned that one of Mr Provest’s successful election strategies was to disown Work Choices? What will your government do to protect the wages and conditions of those like Patrick Provest and others at the Tweed bowls club?

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

First of all, I congratulate the new member for this particular seat—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Tweed. I thank my friends on the opposition for that assistance. I hope they are as cooperative throughout the rest of question time. First of all, I congratulate the gentleman on his election. I am more than happy, and I am sure a lot of my colleagues would be happy, to disabuse him of some of the views that he may have in relation to Work Choices, because, as we celebrate the first anniversary of Work Choices, there is nothing but good news for the working men and women of this country, and for Australia.

If the National Party strategy in Tweed was to disown Work Choices, I am not sure that that necessarily follows with the New South Wales election result, because, as I understand the New South Wales election result, there was in fact a three per cent swing against Labor. In other words, the Labor Party are saying to the Australian people that the three per cent swing against Labor was as a result of Work Choices. Indeed, in the union heartland of the Hunter—so ably represented by senators from New South Wales—can I indicate that there were substantial swings. I understand that, in relation to the New South Wales election, the Premier asserted that when he stood at a polling booth—I think it was in the seat of Menai—everybody who came up to him at the time talked to him about Work Choices. The unfortunate fact for the Premier is that there was in fact a federal member at the booth at exactly the same time, and that assertion by Premier Iemma is simply false, incorrect, untrue, because she witnessed him gladhanding a whole row of people without engaging in any meaningful way other than to say hello. So what we have here is a desperate attempt by the Australian Labor Party to rewrite the history of the New South Wales election, as they tried to do in Victoria and Tasmania. For over two years—and keep in mind that Work Choices has only been in for one year—the Labor Party has been condemning Work Choices and what it might do for the people of Australia.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Wong, are you taking a point of order about noise?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Mr President, I rise on a point of order about relevance. The minister was asked about the loss of penalty rates for the son of the new National Party MP. He has not come close to addressing that issue. I would ask him to return to the question.

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

Minister, you have just over a minute to finish your answer. I would remind you of the question.

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

I thought I had got very close to it and, in fact, right on top of it when I said that I would be happy to talk to the National Party member and disabuse him of those certain views that he might be holding. I am not sure how young or old the son of the new member for Tweed is, but I do know that youth unemployment, since Work Choices, has gone down by 0.8 per cent. He may well be in another demographic like the very long term unemployed. Do you know what? Since Work Choices, the number of very long term unemployed has gone down by 25 per cent. What I challenge the Labor Party to do is tell me the demographic in which this young man or gentleman fits into and I will tell you how that demographic has benefited as a result of Work Choices.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us if the government agrees with Pru Goward, who stated, ‘I can’t deny that Work Choices was a factor’ in costing her votes at last Saturday’s New South Wales election? Minister, aren’t your own candidates in the field seeing the negative impact Work Choices is having on hardworking Australian families? Given that the Howard government has stopped listening to the community, will you at least heed the warnings from your own candidates?

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

In relation to the person that I hope will be the successful candidate for Goulburn, I do note that what she said—and listen to this very carefully—was that those people who did not want to engage with her, those who were quite short and abrupt at the door, raised the issue of Work Choices. So you would imagine that there is a cohort in the electorate that would be against Work Choices—and we do not deny that—and they are vehement about that. Just as much, if the Labor candidate were honest, he would say that he got short shrift at certain doors from people who said: ‘The trade union domination of the Labor Party is such that we cannot vote for your party.’ I am sure it happens on both sides of the equation. The only difference is that Pru Goward was honest enough to tell us what happened at the doors, whereas the defeated Labor candidate remains strangely silent. (Time expired)

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Abetz, and follows the question of Senator Wong. I note the minister’s reference to the fact that this is the very welcome first anniversary of Work Choices. In that context I ask the minister: what does the empirical, factual evidence reveal about Work Choices? How does this factual evidence compare to the doomsday predictions made about the policy before its introduction, and to the false claims made by its critics?

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

I thank Senator Chapman for his question. Today is an important milestone for the workers and families of Australia. It does, as Senator Chapman indicated, mark exactly one year since Work Choices came into effect on 27 March 2006. What a great year it has been for the families and workers of Australia. Let us look at the empirical, unquestionable, solid facts.

Unemployment is at a historic, 30-year low of 4.6 per cent. In the year since Work Choices was introduced, unemployment has fallen dramatically, by a full half of one per cent. This represents the creation of 263,700 new jobs, 87 per cent of those being full time. The participation rate has increased from 64.4 per cent to 64.9 per cent. Teenage unemployment has fallen by 0.8 per cent. Mature age employment has increased by 96,800, or 2.6 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 14.5 per cent. Very long term unemployment is down by almost 25 per cent. These are solid, irrefutable, hard facts.

Work Choices has not led to the mass sackings those opposite so falsely claimed it would. It has in fact led to mass employment. And yet, incredibly, we see the Labor Party and unions continuing to deny the facts. Just yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julia Gillard, incredibly claimed: ‘Work Choices hasn’t led to a new era of job creation.’ Try telling that to the 263,700 of our fellow Australians who know that that assertion is simply false.

Similarly, the independent, solid, hard, Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that real wages have increased by 1.5 per cent since Work Choices—that is over and above inflation, and more than Labor could manage in its 13 years in office. Yet, incredibly, Labor and the unions claim, like Mr Cocker in Tasmania this morning, that we have seen a loss of take-home pay—a desperate, barefaced, brazen lie in the face of the statistics from the bureau.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of the almost two year campaign Labor and the unions have subjected the Australian people to over Work Choices. It is a bit like the Greens—‘Do not bother with the facts; do not let the truth get in the way of a good headline.’ And, whilst I am on the Greens, I happened to note that their policy website is still down. And so, to coin a phrase, it would seem that their policies are still ‘on ice’.

But back to the Australian Labor Party. Take the New South Wales election. The New South Wales Labor Party had a swing against them and they claimed Work Choices was the reason they had a swing against them. What a desperate attempt by those opposite to rewrite history and the indisputable fact that over 260,000 of our fellow Australians now have employment because of the tough decisions that we as an Australian government have taken. I invite the Labor Party to show that they have not only changed leaders but that they have actually changed policies and come on board with Work Choices as they so reluctantly had to do with tax reform and so many other reforms that we have undertaken on behalf of the people. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that John Anderson, the member for Gwydir, has raised concerns that the Christian concept of a regular day off is being undermined? Hasn’t Mr Anderson stated that:

I would hope the law would facilitate such a choice—

to spend more time with your family. Don’t these comments back up the findings of the report An unexpected tragedy: evidence for the connection between working hours and family breakdown in Australia, which the member for Gwydir advised on, that the quality of family life is being progressively eroded because of long and irregular work hours? Hasn’t Work Choices only added to these pressures, by taking away protections for workers with little bargaining power?

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

The most damaging pressure that any Australian family can be placed under is that of the scourge of unemployment. And when we came to government we ensured that we would devote ourselves to getting rid of that scourge. And today we celebrate a generational low, a 30-year low, rate of unemployment of only 4.6 per cent. Having said that, there is a lot more to be done and a lot further to go, and we as a government look forward to those opportunities.

In relation to Mr Anderson, I happen to agree with his view that the concept of a day off, especially for religious worship, is very important. That is what Work Choices is all about.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

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

People can go to their employer and say: ‘I am a committed Seventh Day Adventist and I do not want to work on a Saturday but I would be available to work on a Sunday’—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

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

as can somebody who may be of the Catholic persuasion or the Reform persuasion, who might want to have Sunday as sacred. Indeed, the same would apply to the Jewish community, who might want—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

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

Senator Carr, you are warned.

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

Saturdays off. This is about choice, whereas, when you have a look at some of the awards that the trade unions negotiated—including, may I add, the one for the media in this country—public holidays and other things were wiped out for an increase in wages, and they have to work on those days.

If that is what workers want to do, that is their good luck. If they do not want to, we are putting into the workplace system the possibility of flexibility. I simply say to the workers of this country: if you are a good worker, like the vast, overwhelming majority of workers are, you have nothing to fear from approaching your boss, exercising choice and asking for flexibility, because the vast majority of employers in this country know that their greatest asset is the Australian workforce. That is why we have seen productivity levels go up. We are saying—

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

Order! Senator Polley and Senator Sterle, shouting across the chamber is disorderly.

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

get rid of the ridiculous red tape that those from the other side made a living from creating and allow flexibility in the workplace, which will allow for people of a particular religious persuasion to exercise choice in having a Saturday, a Sunday or whatever day and working it out with their employer.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Haven’t international studies shown that in families where both parents worked atypical hours, the parents display less effective parenting and their children show higher levels of aggression? In other words, tired and stressed people do not make good parents. Don’t the government’s IR changes only increase those pressures, with some employees being forced to work longer hours or weekends and holidays?

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

What a desperate attempt by the honourable senator! Everybody in this place knows that the worst social indicator is mum or dad or both being unemployed. That is the legacy that the Australian Labor Party left to over one million Australians. I am proud to say that, as a result of 11 years of the Howard government, school leavers at the end of last year were practising job application forms; whereas when we came into government school leavers at the end of the year were practising filling out dole applications. That is the cultural change that we have brought to Australia. We are proud of it, but we need to build on it even further.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will follow the theme of the questions so far today and ask the Minister for Finance and Administration if he would outline to the Senate the importance of flexible labour markets to the continuance of Australia’s strong economic performance over the last decade. Does the minister know of any alternative approaches to this issue?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for that very good question. As Senator Ian Macdonald well knows, today is the first anniversary of our Work Choices reforms and, as Senator Abetz noted, in the first year under Work Choices we have had some tremendous results: 263,000 new jobs, real wages up in one year by 1½ per cent—more than was achieved in 13 years of Labor—and the lowest level of industrial disputation since records commenced in 1913.

We have to look at Work Choices in terms of the economy as a whole. Under our government, the Australian economy has achieved its longest ever run of continuous expansion. We are experiencing unprecedented rises in real incomes. In the past, strong economic growth and high commodity prices inevitably led to rising inflation, wages break-outs and a boom-bust cycle. As the result of our reforms, we have secured and sustained our current economic strength without those consequences that inevitably used to be the case. Those reforms include the independent Reserve Bank, which was opposed by Labor; they include the medium-term fiscal strategy, aimed at keeping the budget in balance over the economic cycle and keeping pressure off inflation and interest rates; and they include the elimination of all government debt and an increase in our national competitiveness through privatisation, waterfront reform and tax reform. All of these things were opposed by the Labor Party.

Most importantly, our ongoing workplace relations reforms since 1996 have been critical to underpinning our extraordinary run of prosperity. Without that workplace flexibility, productivity would inevitably suffer because we would have the old days of centralised tribunals dictating workplace practices in individual firms. Without legal sanctions against secondary boycotts, we would see a return to union inspired wildcat industrial disputes, further undermining our productivity and our reliability as an exporter. And if we had the return of unfair dismissal laws we would see again the reluctance of small businesses to hire new staff, just as we saw before the introduction of Work Choices.

With Labor’s proposed return to union dominated pattern bargaining, we would see wage rises in strong sectors of the economy like mining flowing through to other sectors of the economy that cannot afford them, inevitably resulting in widespread unemployment. That is exactly what happened in the previous commodity price boom of the 1970s and it is exactly what happened when a certain Labor senator was in charge of the metalworkers union, resulting in mass unemployment in his union.

In the current economic climate, it really would be a recipe for general wage pressures, inflation, higher interest rates and job losses if we followed that path. And yet with incredible timing, on the first anniversary of Work Choices, what does Labor do but reveal that its industrial relations platform is all about the return of unfair dismissal laws for small business, a preference for pattern bargaining, the scrapping of secondary boycott protections and a return to centralised industrial relations with tribunals interfering in workplace relations in individual workplaces. The Labor Party, just like the Australian people, face a stark choice. You can have either this union-inspired industrial agenda or a continuation of low unemployment, low inflation and strong economic growth, but you cannot have both.