Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent reports which outline the importance of Australian workplace agreements to the resources sector? What is his response?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not surprising that a member from the great state of Western Australia, representing the electorate of Hasluck, should be concerned about Australian workplace agreements, because the resources sector, which is of course heavily located in Western Australia, delivers $110 billion a year in exports for Australia. That is 38 per cent of all Australia’s commodity export earnings. It employs 140,000 Australians directly and over half a million indirectly. AWAs are the most popular choice of federal agreement, with 62 per cent of all resource sector employees who are covered by a federal agreement being employed under AWAs.

As everyone knows, Labor has promised, if it is elected, to abolish Australian workplace agreements. There is no debate, there is no argument, and there is no qualification; if Labor wins, AWAs are dead—we all know that. It is interesting therefore, to read the views of the Australian Mines and Metals Association released today, titled Australian workplace agreements—a major matter for miners. It took apart the Labor myth that AWAs could be replaced by common-law contracts.

I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is paying attention, and that is good because she is responsible for this policy and she believes in it. Every time I see her on the television, she says how strongly they are in favour of getting rid of AWAs. The report mentions 15 reasons, including the inability to customise working arrangements in a legal manner and also that they cannot prevent the unwanted intervention of unions, particularly where there are no union members. That is a very significant element. Under a common-law agreement, even if the people were not members of the union and nobody in the workplace was a member of the union, there would still be no capacity to prevent the unwanted intervention of the union.

That is one of the differences between an AWA and a common-law agreement. According to the Australian Mines and Metals Association, abolishing AWAs would cost the economy $6 billion. There will be nearly a million AWAs in operation by the end of this year. I think it was most succinctly summed up in an article I read at the weekend, written by the commentator Paul Kelly, an article that was otherwise, I might say, very laudatory of the Leader of the Opposition and critical of me. I invite the House’s attention because it does sum up what is involved here. He said:

Rudd is embarked on one of the most audacious political scams in Australian history: seeking to resurrect trade union power and privileges by abolition of Australian Workplace Agreements, restoring union access to workplaces, saving the award system and entrenching collective union power in the name of work-life balance and family values.

I think that brought all of it together. Common-law contracts in place of AWAs involves the reassertion of union power and the realisation of the dream given voice to by Greg Combet when, a few months ago, he addressed a rally in Adelaide and said that there was a time when the unions ran Australia and it would be a good thing if we brought back those days.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why the mining sector in which AWAs are most prevalent, the iron ore sector, has averaged less than one per cent annual productivity growth since the introduction of AWAs in 1996, compared to average annual productivity growth of 6.6 per cent in the coal sector, in which collective agreements are prevalent?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, productivity is a measure of output per worker. The explanation for the figures that the deputy leader referred to is simply the lag between investment and employment.