Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the appropriation bills for the 2006-07 budget. Contrary to much that has been said in this place this morning, I think what a disappointing budget this is. I see it as being more about politics and less about our future as a country. The tax relief in this budget is welcome but long overdue. Families will need every cent of it to pay for the rising interest rates and the rising cost of petrol, all with the threat of declining wages into the future—all thanks to this government. This budget has failed to invest in Australia’s future. This will have serious ramifications for all Australians. The budget does nothing to solve the problem of the current account deficit, it will not solve the skills crisis in the Australian economy and it will not do anything to help those who are being savaged by the government’s extreme industrial relations legislation.

Firstly, I would like to discuss the skills shortage. The latest skilled vacancy figures show that the shortage of skilled tradespeople and professionals is continuing to hurt the Australian economy. According to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations skilled vacancies index of May 2006, which was released last week, skilled vacancies have continued to rise, with a 1.8 per cent increase for the month. The index rose in all areas, with trades vacancies up 2.9 per cent, associate professionals up 3.5 per cent and professionals up 0.1 per cent. The index shows that vacancies in electrical and electronics trades rose by 3.3 per cent, construction by 2.1 per cent, automotive by 2.9 per cent, chefs by 3.9 per cent and hairdressing by 6.3 per cent. In the professions vacancies building and engineering rose by 1.7 per cent, while in associate professions building and engineering rose by 2.4 per cent.

People living in my town of Canberra know all too well about these skills shortages, and the ACT Chamber of Commerce has been most forthright in its calls for something to be done about them. The Reserve Bank recently identified the shortage of skilled workers as ‘one of the most significant constraints in our economy that is putting pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates’. The Treasurer’s decision to seemingly ignore training and education in the 2006 budget is unforgivable, especially when you consider that everyone from the Reserve Bank to the OECD, the AiG and the ACCI are sounding alarm bells on the dangers of ignoring the skills crisis. Of equal concern is the current account deficit. Australia’s persistently large current account deficits and spiralling $500 million foreign debt are not sustainable. Australia’s current account deficit is one of the highest in the OECD, despite record high commodity prices. It just shows how the government has squandered many opportunities.

Many view Canberra as a town of fat cat public servants, when nothing could be further from reality. Yes, we have a high proportion of public sector employees; however, we also now have a growing private sector employee base—in fact, it is larger than the public sector. The reality here is not much different from that being experienced in the rest of Australia. Many families in Canberra struggle with balancing their bills, planning their family’s future and working hard for fair reward. Many are single-wage families and many face increasing mortgage payments. They are worried about rising interest rates—and, under the Howard government, they have every good reason to be. The budget does not do enough to put downward pressure on interest rates. As my colleague the member for Lilley said, ‘Four years into the global commodities boom, instead of achieving strong trade surpluses, Australia’s half trillion dollar foreign debt will continue to grow.’

The government must come to terms with Australia’s continuing export failure. Export growth has collapsed since 2000-01, with average growth in export volumes of just 0.6 per cent compared with the 20-year average of 5.9 per cent. As in previous years, the budget promises export growth of seven per cent but delivers just two per cent. Despite years of promises of a lower current account deficit, in 2006-07 the deficit will surge a further $6 billion to $63 billion—the highest on record and the second highest of any major developed economy.

In early May, Access Economics warned the government of this interest rate risk and the danger of a ‘sudden and messy vengeance’ when the commodity boom ends and financial markets lose their patience with Australia’s spiralling foreign debt. But the budget ignores these serious risks. Despite increasing both tax and spending by one-third, the government has failed to tackle the supply side problems that are adding to the inflationary pressures and to Australia’s export constraints. Australia has had a resources boom, but it will not last forever. The government has not used this boom to build this nation and protect our future. It has been looking an economic gift horse in the mouth and it has not used this resources boom for any great vision for this country. It is shameful, in my view, that the government has missed this incredible opportunity.

I have had a very careful look and I cannot see any government in living memory that has faced such favourable world conditions. I fear that, in future, commentators will look back at this period and shake their heads in disbelief at the irresponsible actions of this government. I would like to quote from an editorial by Jack Waterford in the Canberra Times of 10 May this year. The title is ‘Costello triumph—or is it? His dream run relies on boom times lasting’. The editorial argues that the government was lucky to inherit a healthy economy from the Hawke and Keating governments and lucky that they came to power at a time when Australia’s terms of trade turned significantly. But it warns us all of what we may face in the future and argues that the government has not prepared us for changes to our economy’s fortunes. It says:

The Costello nightmare perhaps even the worst if he imagines it coming to pass just as (or if) he succeeds to the throne is that the long boom comes to an end, and that the neatly arranged bottom lines blow out into substantial deficits, and structural difficulties in getting back into gear again. Given his record with reducing government debt, he might retort that he would be in an excellent position to borrow, but that is not the point. The point will be what he has done to insulate the economy against such earthquakes, and how he has prepared the community for the further adaptations necessary for the economy to rise again. It may be here that lack of attention in this budget—and most before this—to education and training, and renewal and reinvestment in the national infrastructure, is what will haunt him.

I would now like to turn to another issue that is of major concern to my constituents, and I believe to most Australians, and that is industrial relations. Just last week we saw a major assault on the wages and working conditions of Australian employees, using the government’s Work Choices legislation. Spotlight, a major national retailer, is using the government’s industrial relations changes to cut the take-home pay and slash the working conditions of their new employees. New Spotlight employees are being offered an Australian workplace agreement, an AWA, that contains no provision for any penalty rates and no provision for any overtime. What is being offered as financial compensation for this? In this particular case, 2c an hour additional pay.

Under the new AWA a full-time adult employee who works a roster including late-night shopping and weekend work is paid around $90 a week less than a fellow employee on the existing award. Other wages and working conditions slashed under the new Spotlight AWA include the elimination of paid rest breaks, breaks between shifts, maximum and minimum shift lengths and a cap on the number of consecutive days worked. We have asked the Prime Minister to justify the actions of Spotlight. In my view, the Prime Minister’s reply is just unacceptable. This is what the Prime Minister said:

At the end of the day, the test of workplace relations laws is the contribution they make to the general health of the economy ... If workplace relations laws strengthen the economy, they generate more jobs.

The problem here is simple. The Prime Minister is claiming the national good on economic grounds—and that is debatable anyway, in this case—as against the pay and conditions of workers in this country. The Prime Minister believes that people should accept a job at any personal cost to themselves. Get a job regardless of the fairness of pay, regardless of access to safety, leave, penalty rates, public holidays and weekends. The list is long. How on earth can working families hope to achieve that important balance between work and family under these new rules? This is the mantra of this government. The Spotlight case is the direction many companies and businesses will take, some believing they have no choice but to follow to compete with other businesses. It is the famous race to the bottom.

Many people in my community have spoken to me about their concerns with the new IR laws. Some of them are retired, having done their bit in creating this country and our community. They are angry at what they see happening. They fear for the rights of their children and their grandchildren, and they fear for the future being created by this government’s ideological fanaticism.

The government reforms have made it easier for workers to be sacked. Labor believes that workers should have rights and that they should not be dismissed unfairly. I would like to quote, if I may, from the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech when he said:

When you do the right thing at work, you will not be unfairly dismissed. I will tear up this government’s extreme industrial relations laws and establish genuine protection for anyone who is unfairly dismissed. The Howard government’s law gives supervisors and bosses the green light to sack a worker for any reason or no reason at all. What we need are balanced laws to protect both employers and employees from rogue behaviour, not one-sided rules that give employers all power over their staff—a system that gets Australian values back into the way we work.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of the government’s industrial relations reforms on constituents in my electorate, particularly the young ones entering the workforce for the first time, who will not have the negotiating skills and experience to help them survive the new dog-eat-dog world that is being created.

In the time left to me, I would like to speak again—because I have done it before—of my concerns regarding the Welfare to Work regime coming into effect on 1 July. It was interesting to hear a fairly senior member on the opposite side earlier in this debate today say how much she is looking forward to 1 July. If only we could say that to the people who will be affected by the new rules. Members of the government constantly assert that they care about and want to assist the people in our community living with disability and chronic illness. It is well and truly time that they stopped playing around with this issue and actually did something. That something could in fact be the employment of people with a disability in the Commonwealth Public Service. I have raised this before and I will continue to do so until we see change.

The Public Service Commissioner’s State of the service report tells the story. The number of people with a disability working on an ongoing basis for the Commonwealth has fallen. In 1996 there were 7,008; in 2005 the number was 4,642. That is a percentage fall of 30 per cent. I do not have enough time today to give all the detail from that report; however, I recommend that government members, opposite and in other places, read it—just read it. The government should and must lead by example. While they are about to implement the most drastic fundamental changes to the way government works with and supports people with disabilities in this country, they are failing their own test. I believe it is a deplorable state of affairs.

I will continue to speak out on behalf of people with disability and chronic illness in this country. These reforms are just outrageous. In Senate estimates hearings we have heard some more very interesting information. A person with a disability who actually obtains work will probably end up being $122 a week worse off. If the government can prove that wrong, I welcome them to do so, because nothing would make me happier. How can you possibly applaud reforms when that is what it will do to an enormous sector within our community?

In conclusion, and on a more positive note, I would like to add that of course I welcome the elements of the budget that are positive for people living in my town. The increase in Public Service jobs will certainly create more opportunity here, with an estimated 3,000 new jobs to be based in Canberra, as I understand it. Whilst this is welcome, a cautionary note is that it is important to realise that we already have a very tight labour market here. It will be interesting to see just how we fill those positions. In reference to my earlier comments, I would ask: how many of those positions will go to people with a disability?

I am also very pleased with the additional funding to Old Parliament House, which will be used, I understand, partly to create a gallery of Australian democracy—something that I obviously welcome and will be very pleased to see. Old Parliament House is one of the most beautiful and interesting buildings in Canberra, and I am sure that this additional funding will increase the opportunities for all Australians to learn more about our political history. It was also very pleasing to see the additional funding for the Australian National University and the Australian War Memorial. They are good initiatives that we welcome warmly. In conclusion, this is a budget formulated, I am very certain, with politics in mind. There are some things in there that we obviously agree with and we are happy to see, but I believe that enormous opportunities have been missed.

See this speech in context