Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The first point to make in this debate on young workers is that there are youth protections under Work Choices. Australian workplace agreements require a written adult consent for any employee aged under 18 entering into an agreement. That would be either a parent or a guardian. If that has not occurred, the requirements for approval of an AWA have not been met. Secondly, any employee can appoint a bargaining agent. This can be a parent, a family friend or a trade union official. Thirdly, youth wages are adjusted by the Australian Fair Pay Commission. When the Fair Pay Commission adjusts wages, it must ensure that they are competitive in the labour market.

It is important to look at the record of the Howard government over the last 10 years. The second part of the motion expresses deep concern about the number of teenagers who now find themselves employed. This was never a problem under the Labor Party, when one in three teenagers was unemployed. The teenage unemployment rate was 34½ per cent under Labor. But let us just have a look at the record of the Howard government: over two million Australians have begun apprenticeships and traineeships over the last 10 years. That is more than triple the number under Labor in their last 10 years in office. The unemployment rate for young adults aged 20 to 24 has almost halved. The number of young people in full-time education has increased by 69.3 per cent.

The approach of the Howard government is to provide people with opportunities to enable them to get jobs. Under Labor, youth unemployment peaked at 15.8 per cent. It is now 9½ per cent. The teenage unemployment rate was 34½ per cent. This occurred with all the protections in the world in place under awards and industrial relations law. None of them helped the young people who could not find a job to get a job. If you want to provide people with a job, it is important to have a strong economy. It requires a lot of discipline and a lot of experience to run an economy which is now over $1 trillion.

When Labor left office, there were almost 100,000 more 15- to 24-year-olds unemployed compared with those unemployed now. Think of the human cost of 100,000 young Australians not being able to find work. When we look at the electorates, we see that 10 years ago in my electorate of Boothby, for instance, the unemployment rate was 7.3 per cent; it is now 3.8 per cent. Under Labor, the unemployment rate in the electorate of Adelaide—and the member for Adelaide has not even stayed to hear the debate on her motion—was 10.8 per cent; it is now 5.6 per cent. It has almost halved.

Since Work Choices was introduced, 165,000 jobs have been created, and 129,000 of them are full-time. The unemployment rate at 4.6 per cent is the lowest in 30 years. Total rates of pay, excluding bonuses, have increased by 1.1 per cent in the June quarter and by 4.1 per cent over the year to the June quarter. Under the Howard government, real wages have increased by 16.4 per cent since March 1996. They actually fell during Labor’s 13 years in office.

In relation to strikes, we have now seen the lowest number of days lost in industrial disputation since records began in 1913. There have been 3.1 working days lost per 1,000 employees compared with over 100 working days lost per 1,000 employees in the December 1992 quarter under Labor. We are seeing strong productivity growth, lower strike rates, higher pay and more jobs with Work Choices. Labor argued against this policy in 1996; its predictions have not come about. Instead, we have seen higher pay. Mr Beazley has been found wrong on every single count in relation to Work Choices. Statistics point to more jobs, higher pay and lower strike rates. The Labor approach is to apply more protection. This is the way to higher unemployment and lower pay.

All the protection in the world under Labor did not stop one million Australians from being out of work. This motion is embarrassing. It is not surprising that the member for Adelaide has raised it. She is, after all, the delegate of the SDA in this parliament. (Time expired).

See this speech in context