Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 moved by the shadow minister for finance. The nature of the second reading amendment catalogues the litany of fault lines this government has allowed to appear in Australia’s economy and, quite frankly, in Australian society. It allows us now the opportunity to stop and think about some of the difficulties that many of our constituents are struggling to manage on a day-to-day basis.

Many members in this place, particularly those on this side of the chamber, are all too well aware that the financial and time stresses placed on Australian families, the impact this is having on their economic decisions for their family units and the pressures this is placing on personal relationships are the normal sorts of things that we as members of parliament see on a day-to-day basis through the front doors of our electoral offices. For this government to arrogantly assert, as it continually does, that Australians have never had it so good because the economy is allegedly in such good shape is nothing more than a desperate bid to let national figures hide some of the local realities that we as members of this parliament deal with. The national aggregates, the broad generalisations and the average figures really do hide the reality faced by many of our constituents who continue to experience stubbornly high unemployment rates, negative housing equity, high credit card debt and other economic stresses. While states like Queensland and Western Australia benefit from the economic boom on the back of a strong minerals demand from emerging economies such as China and India, the reality in the more localised pockets throughout our country is considerably different from that.

While the government does not admit to it, it has benefited from the efforts of the tough decisions that were made during the Hawke and Keating governments. The Howard government has seen the benefits of microeconomic reforms, the deregulation of the Australian economy through the eighties and nineties and the benefits that have flowed into the Treasury coffers just simply blown away. This government has blown these benefits. It has blown them by failing to invest for the future and lock in the benefits over this period of prosperity. It is not difficult to find many commentators and experts who are more than willing to point out the fact that this government has failed to invest in the dividends of the current resources boom in securing Australia’s long-term productivity and long-term prosperity. I have to say that the government and the Prime Minister, who has been all too willing to pride himself on the stewardship of this economy, have been extremely short-sighted. This situation will permanently lower the ability of our future generations to achieve growth rates such as those experienced over the last decade.

While many have benefited from Australia’s current high economic growth and many have shared in the resources boom, there remain pockets of disadvantage and disconnection from the mainstream economy. The new realities for those communities are that, while vast sums of money have been slushing around in the resources sector and are flowing through to other sectors of the economy, these areas of disadvantage are not sharing in Australia’s good fortune. In my own community—the electorate of Werriwa in the south-west of Sydney—the aggregates, generalisations and averaging of figures simply mask the pockets of disadvantage that exist in suburbs, and it is a continual disappointment that the government are more than willing to sit back and gloss over the difficulties in many of these communities as they crow about the success of macroeconomic measures. Seeking out and implementing the real solutions to correct the imbalance within communities is something that we as policy makers should be giving priority to and pursuing as legislators.

One of the so-called solutions that this government has which does not assist the stubborn areas of high unemployment and financial stress throughout the community is Work Choices. There are not too many people in this place who would not know of my absolute objection to these extreme industrial relations laws. I objected to them when they were proposed, I spoke against them during the debate in the House, I voted against them and I will continue to oppose them until they are thrown out and replaced with something that is decent and fair for working Australians.

While the government tries to deny it and hide behind the aggregate figures, Work Choices is a real concern and it is having a real and negative impact on working Australians. I have heard the stories throughout the country first-hand as part of parliamentary Labor’s industrial relations task force. I have heard directly the experience of my constituents. I can assure you that these experiences certainly do not match the rhetoric and the spin that this government has tried to use to cover its position on Work Choices. In my electorate I have heard the experience of a gentleman who was sacked while he was on sick leave. When trying to seek a remedy for that, he discovered that the only recourse that he and his family had was to go to the Federal Court, something that a worker earning minimum wages and supporting a family could simply not afford. To do that, he would have had to commit resources in excess of $10,000 to prosecute his case.

I have also heard the experience of employees at Esselte, which is an establishment in Minto, whose conditions and take-home pay were being stripped. I have heard from the workers of Lipa Pharmaceuticals, who are having not only their hours of work extended but their overtime, and consequently their take-home pay, cut. I have raised that in this parliament. Those were cuts of up to $200 a week. These are workers who work on minimum rates as process operators. They are workers who do not have any real and substantial bargaining power. These are the people who are having their take-home conditions slashed. They did not have the real opportunity to negotiate. They were presented with contracts. And to use their words—what they put to me—they were told if they were not prepared to sign them there were plenty of people who would. Work Choices is the law that has brought this about. This law has encouraged good employers to act badly. While it is doing that, it gives a blanket protection for bad employers, but the real objection here is the level of encouragement that it gives to good employers to act badly. That encouragement is through Work Choices.

I find it interesting that the real-life experiences of working Australians stand in stark contrast to the rose-coloured views of the brave new world of industrial relations as outlined earlier in this debate by the member for Moreton. Earlier in this debate, when speaking about individual contracts, the member for Moreton said:

They are an opportunity for individual workers or their representatives to talk to their employers and an opportunity for those with abilities and skills who have something to trade with their employers and gain additional advancement.

Implicit in that statement is the effective condemnation of those with few skills and those seeking to work in unskilled jobs to a life of minimum wages and minimum conditions because in reality they have very little to trade with their employers. Spare a thought for women trying to return to the workforce who need to make arrangements in relation to child care and to have it recognised. These people could only be characterised in economic terms as price takers. In other words, either they accept the conditions that are offered or they do not take the job.

We are marginalising enormous sectors within our economy. Women in particular are being impacted by this change. That is borne out by the figures released yesterday in a study by Griffith University that indicated that women are not faring as well as male workers in being able to negotiate. This is because of their family commitments and because of the recognition that is required of those commitments. The absence of the ability to achieve some form of recognition of family-friendly conditions has impacted on this class of employee being able to have some equity in the workplace. The Howard government talks of aspiration and advancement, but the Howard government gives those with little to trade with their employer to gain additional advancement very little to aspire to. That is the kind of choice that the Howard government has implemented—no choice at all.

The member for Moreton went on to say that we on the other side of the chamber look to a return to everyone being paid the same in the same kind of environment, where no additional money is available to those with skills to trade with their employers. I know other politicians have a tendency to gild the lily, but I have to say nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does it completely and utterly misrepresent the position of Labor when it comes to its view on future industrial relations; it also shows a complete ignorance of the industrial relations laws of this country for decades.

The member for Moreton, and no doubt other members opposite, may not realise that it has never been the case that employers were not allowed to pay higher than award wages. The award system has always established minimums for either an industry or an enterprise and has always allowed overaward payments. An employer always had the ability to improve the level of remuneration or conditions set down in the relevant award by the process of overaward payments. ‘Overaward payments’ is a term that would have at one time just rolled off the tongue of many, because that is what people would have once negotiated to achieve. Payments made over and above an award formed what is referred to as a common law contract for the difference. That is simply the reality of industrial life. These people should revisit what has already been set down. These people now setting the terms and conditions of industrial relations for the future have really missed out on the benefits in the past.

The greatest act of economic vandalism that this government has perpetrated on the Australian economy is its contentment to simply ride on the wave of economic prosperity brought about through the reforms of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. This government has been more than willing to sit idly by and watch productivity growth falter. After a decade of average productivity growth of 2.7 per cent over the term of the last Labor government, productivity growth has been allowed to slump to a mere 1.6 per cent over the period of this government. The September quarter national account figures show that productivity has failed to grow since the June quarter in 2004. There have been more than two years of zero net productivity growth.

The September quarter national accounts also show that labour productivity growth actually declined by 1.6 per cent in the previous six months. This is not the worst of this government’s crimes against productivity. Economic commentators throughout the world were once impressed by Australia’s relative productivity growth during the nineties compared to the benchmark of the United States. The Australian economy was being studied to determine the factors and conditions that produced such impressive productivity gains and assisted in producing such buoyant economic conditions.

Following the rapid productivity growth of the nineties, Australia’s relative productivity was measured at that stage as 85 per cent of that of the United States. The decline that this government has presided over—the decline that this government has allowed to occur—means that Australia has dropped back to only 79 per cent of US levels. This government and its lack of action have presided over this. You have to ask yourself: is this government taking steps to address the problem? Is the government asking what is going on and why we cannot match the performance of the Hawke-Keating period? Is the government asking what we should be doing to regain average labour productivity growth of nearly three per cent? Of course not. It is simply trying to work out how it will spend the rivers of gold pouring into the Treasury coffers in a manner that will be of most advantage to its re-election.

For this government, pork barrelling, political pandering and buying off interest groups is the only benefit to be had from this minerals boom. Responsible governments would have invested in the future, increased spending on education and training and invested in infrastructure. A responsible government would use the good fortune provided to us to build the foundation for the next round of economic growth.

Working smarter and not necessarily harder, encouraging innovation and developing new technologies and new ideas is the means by which Australia will be able to compete with the low-wage emerging economies of China and India. This government does not seem to understand that, and it certainly does not have any aspiration to understand that. To build the platform for the next round of economic and productivity growth, and to lock in prosperity, we need to invest in the future, and we need to invest now. Around the world, our competitors are investing in their people. They are investing in education, skills and innovation. Instead of investing, we are in fact cutting expenditure in those areas.

If you do not believe me, just look at the statistics. Australia’s overall investment in education is 5.8 per cent of GDP, which is behind 17 other OECD countries. Other nations have, on average, increased their education spending by 48 per cent. Australia has actually had a reduction of seven per cent over that same period. We are ranked 29th in global competitiveness in science and education levels. No wonder we have a declining economy.

I am deeply troubled about the prospects of future generations in Australia should this government continue its neglectful management of the economy. To simply rely on funds that are flowing from the budget as a result of the minerals boom to curry electoral favour with various groups does not lock in prosperity and it does not bode well for Australia’s future generations. The government’s crimes against productivity will have long-lasting effects on the economy. To think that the government continues to ignore the need to invest in productivity infrastructure, to remove bottlenecks, to invest in education, skills development and training and to provide the means through which innovation and the commercialisation of innovation can occur so as to profit this country is, quite frankly, a disgrace. I look forward to trying to remedy these issues. I look forward to trying to correct the wrongs of this government. I look forward to the election of a Rudd Labor government— (Time expired)

See this speech in context