Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Bill 2008. I speak as a representative of an electorate that has consistently recorded unemployment statistics below the national average. As such, I am very concerned at the practical implementation of this bill and the outcomes it will produce for the employment outlook in Australia and, more locally, in my electorate in north-east Victoria. No discussion of this magnitude should be undertaken without reference to what has come before. The former coalition government created a golden era of employment, an age of prosperity, that produced economic conditions that underpinned our socioeconomic growth and our foundation for thriving employment and economic prospects. More than 2.2 million jobs were created. The participation rate grew to levels unseen in Australia. Unemployment dropped to 4.3 per cent—a 33-year low. There was a 20.8 per cent increase in real wages under the period of the coalition government, as opposed to a 1.8 per cent decrease under Labor’s last period in government. Female participation in the workforce was up, as was that for youth, where Australia ranked second highest in the OECD in the 15- to 24-year ranks for employment. The number of working days lost to industrial disputation fell dramatically to the point where, in the March 2007 quarter, the lowest ever quarterly rate of days lost to strikes was recorded.

As we are all seeing, with the election of the Rudd government, prosperous Australia is unravelling. The impact of this bill on employment prospects and job creation is a matter of grave concern, particularly as we legislate at a time of serious economic decline. The sad thing is that in last year’s election campaign the coalition was portrayed as negative when it highlighted the union movement’s entrenched links with Labor and what this would mean for the future industrial relations system. The legislation we debate today is in fact the very payback for the union movement that they so dearly wished for. Joe MacDonald’s catchcry that the unions would be coming back has indeed become a reality. Unions have got what they wanted, including access to non-union-member records, right of entry to a significantly wider number of Australian workplaces and an all-important seat at the bargaining table. This bill heralds an anachronistic return to the past of union domination and appeasement. It redefines the industrial relations landscape in this country and proclaims a return to a pre-Keating era world of compulsory arbitration and the closed shop.

But in its haste to confect outrage against Work Choices, despite keeping many of its provisions, the government has not even done a rigorous analysis of what its legislation means for employment prospects or for businesses employing people. For instance, a closer look at the bill’s explanatory memorandum at regulation 232 shows:

If employers perceive that there is a risk of an unfair dismissal claim being made, then this could increase the cost of employing workers and may reduce the incentive of businesses to employ workers.

This is a very clear statement that at least one of the provisions in the legislation will lead to increased unemployment. That did not come from the Liberal Party, it did not come from anyone in the coalition and it did not come from any employer organisation. This was from the official explanatory memorandum to the bill, which was produced by very fine impartial employees who serve this parliament extremely well. This is a very clear statement that at least one of the provisions is going to be detrimental. The title of this bill is the ‘Fair Work Bill’, but the question needs to be asked: where is the fairness in an industrial relations system that forecasts higher unemployment queues? I present this challenge to every member of the other side: go to your electorates and tell them that this legislation that you herald as some mythical utopian answer to all their problems will actually increase unemployment.

See this speech in context