Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

I think Senator Abetz had a slip of the tongue today when, in answer to a question from me about the government's record on jobs growth, he talked about the government's record on employment. I think what he really meant to say was the government's record on unemployment. We have in this country the highest unemployment record for decades, at 6.4 per cent, and those opposite—who live on some parallel universe—think they have some record on employment. The facts and figures are there—800,000 Australians out of work and people becoming unemployed every day of the week—yet this government tries to pretend that it has some record on employment. History will show, and the statistics show, that the only record it has is one of unemployment, the highest employment records in history—the highest for many, many years. What a shameful, disgraceful record that is for the Abbott government to have. To try to pretend that it is somehow about growth and employment is just a fabrication.

Again today, for the second day in a row, we asked the Minister for Employment to rule out or rule in what the government's intention is on penalty rates. We know this government's record when it shifts around and avoids the questions, because we have seen it before. That means it will do what it has wanted to do from day one, and that is reduce penalty rates. This fabrication where the Prime Minister is on the public record as saying that reducing penalty rates creates more jobs is an absolute myth. No economist would suggest that. I do not know how you make people poorer by taking their penalty rates off them and you create more low-paid jobs.

But I want to focus again on the seat of Canning and the town of Mandurah. The government's record in that area is an absolute disgrace. Perth, we know, has higher than average rates, but Mandurah, in the seat of Canning, consistently falls behind. The latest ABS stats show that Mandurah has an unemployment rate three per cent higher than the Perth metro area, and the youth unemployment rate is four per cent higher.

How can the government say it is committed to jobs and growth when, in an electorate it has held—and with due regard to the passing of Don Randall—the unemployment record is higher than anywhere else in Perth, and youth unemployment is higher than the national average and quite a disgrace at 14.3 per cent? What we know about Mandurah is that, unfortunately, the unemployment rate has consistently increased since the Abbott government came to office. In fact, since the coalition came to office, a thousand more people in Mandurah are unemployed. That is not a record of employment; it is a record of unemployment. Labor reduced unemployment rates in Mandurah when we were in power, but this government has let that slip.

The Abbott government will not give a straight yes or no answer on penalty rates. In Mandurah, we know that 25 per cent of the population rely on penalty rates—penalty rates that the Abbott government want to cut. There are 63 per cent more people on Newstart under the Abbott government. That is not a record of employment; that is a record of unemployment in the seat of Canning. That is disgraceful and it stands well and truly on the Abbott government's record—a record where the people in Mandurah are relying on penalties that the government want to take off them and where there are a thousand more people out of work since the Abbott government came into power in Mandurah. That is not any kind of record to be proud of and the government need to be held to account. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite Orwellian to rewrite history in the way that the Labor Party seek to do at the moment. They think that if they repeat it often enough or loud enough or in a shrill enough voice that somehow that will make it fact. Well, the facts speak very clearly for themselves. Let's go to this issue of employment and the unemployment rate and the figures that have come out. I will repeat what I said last night in this place, because clearly Senator Lines and members on the other side did not listen.

Michael Janda, business reporter for the ABC—and the ABC is no great friend of the coalition—stated in his article published yesterday, 'The reason unemployment jumped, despite the much better than expected growth in employment, was that the participation rate soared.' That means that because there are more people now who have the confidence to put their hands up and say, 'You know what, I'll give it a go; I'll see if I can get a job.' The participation rate is higher. In fact, there was an increase of some 78,600 people who decided that conditions looked good enough that they thought they had a chance of getting a job, so they put their hand up and said, 'We'll give it a go.'

All the economists were saying, 'Yes, we were expecting some jobs growth but 38,500 in the quarter to July was beyond our expectations.' That is why this government can say, looking at the number of jobs that have been created—336,000 jobs to date—that we are well and truly on track to achieving the creation of one million jobs in the first five years of this government. The important part, though, that the ALP just do not seem to get their heads around is that you need to create the right conditions for employment, for employers to have the confidence to invest and to employ people and to create jobs.

Let's go to things like the Productivity Commission—yet another scare campaign from members opposite and another scare campaign from the unions. Look at the serious people within the ALP, like their shadow employment minister; what does he say? He says, 'Those arguments about things like penalty rates, I believe those arguments should be put and submitted to the independent umpire'—the independent umpire, what a good idea. That is the same approach that the coalition has. That is why it was established. Rather than have a scare campaign about things like penalty rates, the independent umpire is there to deal with it. Mr O'Connor, in fact, has said that all these things should be looked at. He says, 'I'm not suggesting for a moment that there aren't provisions, including penalty rates, that should not be looked at.'

Rather than running a scare campaign against the coalition, the facts say that we are increasing business confidence. The rate of jobs growth is four times under this government's watch than what it was under Labor when we came to power in 2013. The actual number of jobs is increasing. We are well on our way to a million. The important part is that we are changing the conditions: things like the carbon tax. People ask: why didn't BHP go ahead with their development at Olympic Dam, which would have created thousands of jobs in South Australia? Well, in 2012 when they decided to pull their plans, that was when the carbon tax came into effect. BHP is the largest user of electricity in South Australia. Why? The second highest cost in running a copper mine is electricity. So at the very time when they would have been hoping to start recouping their investments from the expansion of Olympic Dam, under Labor's plan the carbon cost was going to be $350 per tonne. At $23 a tonne, that contributed to South Australia's electricity being the most expensive in the country.

Labor have not learnt from that. They are still looking at reintroducing pricing on carbon that, according to their own modelling, will push the price back to $209 per tonne. Is it any wonder that they do not understand that the way to create jobs is to set the conditions so that people have the confidence to invest? The coalition is doing that. We have abolished the carbon tax and we have introduced small business tax cuts. We are creating the opportunities for jobs and we are seeing those results. (Time expired)

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers, particularly with respect to the issue of penalty rates and, if time permits, the rising tide of unemployment, which is bringing misery to households across the nation, especially in my state of Western Australia, and I will trash some of the patently optimistic assumptions underpinning the Treasurer's deceptive budget.

I do not know what it is in the water at the Productivity Commission that gives rise to the hatred of shop assistants. Prior to last week's release of the draft report of their inquiry into the workplace relations framework, their most recent assault on the working conditions of shop assistants was effected through their inquiry into the low-value threshold relevant to the application of the GST to goods purchased online. The Productivity Commission largely left this issue unaddressed and focused on recommending that retailers open their doors 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and that employees' penalty rates be slashed. Here was an ideologically-driven body that was prepared to sidestep real issues of concern to the retail industry in order to pursue its own agenda of attacking workers' conditions.

I ran for the Senate to defend workers and their families from the attacks that I felt the election of a Liberal government would rain down upon them. I believed that the public repudiation of the Work Choices regime would ensure that the government would seek to act moderately during its first term while developing the grounds to claim a mandate for radical industrial relations changes, should they achieve a second term. I did not know how the government would develop industrial relations as an issue, but when the workplace relations framework was referred to the Productivity Commission, I knew. When interviewed after the West Australian re-run Senate election I focused on the role of the Productivity Commission and predicted its findings. I said, amongst other things, that they would attack penalty rates in the retail industry. Penalty rates are a critical component of the matrix of working conditions applicable to Australian workers and a meaningful component of the take-home pay upon which they and their families depend.

Every Australian benefits from the dedication of workers who provide services to the community seven days a week—whether those workers be police and nurses, emergency service workers, shop assistants or hospitality industry staff. These workers give up their family and leisure time to provide services for us all. The bargain has always been that, in recognition of this sacrifice and the penalties endured by these workers, work at socially unacceptable times attracts a special compensating rate—a penalty rate.

In 2009 every award was reviewed as part of the process of modernising the award system. Every condition was examined to ensure it was consistent with current community standards. The new, modern award system which came into effect from 1 January 2010 reflected the outcome of that review—the most comprehensive award review ever undertaken. The penalty rates were determined as a result of that process. Penalties compensating workers for work at unsociable hours are the recent product of this comprehensive review by an independent umpire.

It is these penalties that the Productivity Commission proposes to substantially undermine. But it is not for all workers—because it understands the community backlash that this would provoke—but for the industrially weak and low paid; for the shop assistants and hospitality workers; workers they apparently believe have little choice but to meekly accept a pay cut, and whom they are prepared to regard as workers second class. I do not regard shop assistants as second-class citizens. I have never regarded shop assistants as second-class citizens and I will fight, as I have always done, to ensure they receive a fair go in employment.

I will not be accused of being hypocritical. My union has negotiated reductions in penalty rates over the years, but these reductions have always been accompanied not only by wage increases reflecting at least the full value of the penalties forgone but also by rostering provisions requiring employers to have regard for employees' family commitments and personal circumstances; sporting, religious and study commitments; notice for roster changes and dispute settling procedures for rostering problems. Rosters, like pay rates, are important to our members and are relevant to work at penalty times. In short, where penalty rates have been varied, monetary and non-monetary benefits have been achieved, which more than offsets any loss.

This is not what the Productivity Commission proposes. They propose that the independently-assessed penalty rates be stolen from workers with no offset being given to them in return. It is this shabby, mean-spirited ideological approach to the working conditions of hundreds of thousands of Australian families that the government proposes to hide behind in taking its reform agenda to the Australian people in 2016. This has always been their plan, and it will be their undoing.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see here again today is the opposition coming up with this fantastic tactic of opposition-attacks-government. It is all that they have got in this place. They have no policies or ideas, despite 2015 being declared by the Leader of the Opposition as 'the year of ideas'. Here we are in August, and what ideas have we seen? Nothing. Nothing but that tried-and-true tactic of Labor opposition attacking the government—'Attack, attack!'

Australians are not fooled by taking words out of context and trying to turn them into something that they are not. Australians know that that is just another trick by Labor whereby they are trying to be too clever by half. Telling Australians that A is B so, therefore, B must be A just does not cut it. Australians are not going to be fooled. They are too clever and they are not going to let that one go through and convince them of anything that is not the truth.

The real issue in this place is good governance, not the overly clever extrapolation of a few words into something that means something quite different. But those few ideas that Labor do have, or have demonstrated, are things that Australians should be scared of. Most recently, at the Australian Labor Party's federal council, they announced their new carbon tax policy. This new formally-adopted policy is nothing other than a supercharged version of their carbon tax, and Labor's own modelling confirms this. Treasury's modelling shows that Labor's carbon tax will need to rise to $209 a tonne by 2030—that is almost 10 times the level that it stood at under Julia Gillard, who pledged that there would be no carbon tax under a government that she led.

Further, Australia's GDP would be $633 billion lower, cumulatively, between 2015 and 2030 on the basis of Labor's supercharged carbon tax, according to Treasury analysis. Wholesale power prices would go up a whopping 78 per cent—that is a 78 per cent increase in wholesale power prices. We all know, and Australians know, that the cost of energy—the cost of their electricity bills, the cost of their gas bills—is a major cost to Australia's household budgets. The increases in electricity and energy costs are a major concern to many, many households right across Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition's carbon tax will see tens of thousands of jobs lost if it is implemented. Power bills will skyrocket, wages will be—again, according to Treasury—six per cent lower in real terms and cumulative economic output will be well over half-a-trillion dollars weaker. This is coming from the opposition who, during question time today, sought to attack us over jobs.

Senator Lines made some comments earlier when she took note of answers by ministers, and, may I say, her comments did nothing other than to underline the 'economic illiteracy'—to quote Senator Cameron—of the Labor Party. Her comments demonstrated that the Labor Party fail to have any knowledge whatsoever about how an economy works or about the use of economic statistics. She was talking about the number of people receiving employment benefits having gone up. What that shows is the number of people who are out there actively seeking work. As we all know, in order to receive unemployment benefits there are requirements to be actively seeking work. But at any given time there are people out there who could be working who are not actively seeking jobs. There are a range of reasons for that, one of which is that they do not think they are going to get one and so they think there is no point in going to the effort of actively seeking jobs. Just in the last month there has been a massive increase in the participation rate, which means that a lot of those people who were not looking for jobs have now decided that they have enough confidence in the economy to get out of their houses and go out and start looking for a job. That adds to the number of people who are on unemployment benefits, but it is also a reflection of increasing confidence in the economy. This is demonstrated by the fact that if you removed from the equation the increase in the participation rate of the last month and looked at the participation rate of a month ago, the unemployment rate today would be 5.9 per cent. That is an absolute, simple fact. If the participation rate were the same as last month, when there were fewer people looking for jobs, there would be fewer unemployment recipients, and that would mean the unemployment rate would be lower. It is a simple economic fact.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By any objective measure, the Abbott government has completely, totally and fundamentally failed on its mantra of 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. It has failed on the economy, it has failed on jobs and it has shamefully betrayed Australian workers. Unemployment is now higher than it ever was during the global financial crisis. In fact, it is higher than it was at any time under the former Labor government. The sad truth is that this government's botched management of the economy has meant that Australia now has the highest number of unemployed people since 1994. Not only that, but those opposite have a track record of meekly sitting by and watching while Australian jobs walk out the door.

Take the case of the 280 workers in Burnie on the north-west coast of Tasmania, who were dealt a savage blow in April when Caterpillar announced that their jobs were going overseas. This is a massive hit for a small town and it could result in the loss of up to 1,000 jobs from the region. Federally, the government hoisted the white flag on Caterpillar jobs right from the very beginning. Local member Brett Whiteley rejected out of hand opposition leader Bill Shorten's suggestion that the Prime Minister should pick up the phone and try to convince the company's US headquarters to intervene in the decision that was made by the Asia-Pacific arm of the company. Just a few months later we saw the Abbott government sit meekly by while the crew of the Alexander Spirit lost their jobs. This Caltex oil tanker was docked in Devonport for three weeks after the crew were told there would be no more work for them upon their return to Singapore—despite the fact that they were told previously that their jobs were safe until 2019. Yet again the government was missing in action and the workers were hung out to dry. In fact, there are seven state and federal Liberal members of parliament who live on the north-west coast of Tasmania, and not one of them had the basic decency to head down to the ship and meet these workers—let alone to attempt to fight for their jobs. Again this week we see history repeating, with almost 100 workers at Hutchison ports being cruelly told, by text, after dark, that they did not need to come in to work in the morning. Unsurprisingly, we have yet to see anything from this government to say that they are going to stand up for these workers.

It is also telling that senior Liberal Senator Abetz sees absolutely no problem with sacking by text. It is shameful. Clearly the senator sees workers as an expendable resource who do not deserve the basic respect and consideration that I am sure the senator himself would expect from others.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think Senator Abetz was asked a direct question about that yesterday and made his position quite clear. I believe that Senator Urquhart is misrepresenting his position on that matter.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bushby. Misrepresentation is not in fact a point of order, so there is no point of order.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gets worse. Not only does this government raise the white flag when Aussie jobs are being sent offshore; it actually develops policy to hasten this outcome. Take the renewable industry, for example, which has suffered a massive 88 per cent drop in investment since this government set out to sabotage every policy that Australia has to respond to climate change and transition to a low-carbon economy—or the wind industry specifically, where the Prime Minister did a dirty deal with certain crossbench members to add extra layers of bureaucracy in his coal-addled determination to bring this multi-billion-dollar industry to its knees. Not only that, but he directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to stop investing in this cheap and clean energy source that promises many hundreds of jobs in regional Australia. Or we could look at Australia's vital strategic shipbuilding industry, which saw the Abbott government blatantly ignore its own advice that Australian submarines should be built in Australia and its own pre-election promise to build 12 submarines in South Australia. Let us not forget that. It was a pre-election promise that there would be 12 submarines built in South Australia under the Abbott government. Astoundingly, the Abbott government actually excluded Australian shipbuilding companies from the tender process for the construction of two new naval supply ships. Or how about the appalling coastal shipping legislation which plans to sell out Australian jobs by removing the preference for Australian-flagged and cruise ships operating on our coastlines?

Let's be clear: The Abbott government has absolutely and totally failed to create the conditions for growth. It is clear that this government has no plan for Australian jobs. This is a government stuck in a permanent, fatal opposition-mode loop. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.