Page 3444 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That sounds a bit like Mr Quinlan, who likes to squeeze things dry too. In the industrial relations area he thinks we can go no further. Incidentally, that is not a view shared by the International Monetary Fund.
On 17 May he argued that, “Administrative arrangements in industrial relations can continue to be streamlined, but these changes simply are not going to provide a new wave of productivity growth. The major reforms in this field are now in place.” That is another of his predictions that will not be validated over time. Then on 15 June Mr Beazley went on to claim that:
We reformed the industrial relations system ... As far as we’re concerned, the reforms that needed to be there in industrial relations, the enterprise reforms and the flexibility that came with all of that, that’s been done.
He has this view that, once you are there, you do not reform any further. You do not advance things, you ignore the international competitive pressures this country is facing. Mr Gentleman made a sound point earlier about China and India. We need to look at the situation, the impact on our industries. We have a motor vehicle industry that has had $4 billion sunk into it in recent years and is now under pressure. These things do affect and impact even on the IT industries in Canberra. If we cannot create a greater flexibility in the work force we will lose in the economic race. We have been guided sensibly by the Australian government on a range of these economic matters, and the industrial reforms will continue to deliver those wins.
Unfortunately, the Labor Party is hopelessly beholden to the trade union movement. Trade unions have donated over $47 million to the ALP since 1995-96. At a time when union membership barely comprises 17 per cent of the private sector work force, unions now have more control over the Labor Party then ever before. It is sad that the arrangement with the trade unions is not, in fact, a matter of looking after those who they purport to take care of. We have seen that over the past nine years. We have seen the plight of ordinary Australians improve dramatically under a Liberal government, in contrast to the nominal growth that occurred in incomes during the unfortunate reign of the Labor Party, but we now see the unions preoccupied with their own survival. If I were an official, I would be worried too because an increasing number of young Australians are saying, “They’re not about looking after our interests; what is important to us is our standard of living.” That is certainly what has been delivered by the Howard government. I think the reforms we are seeing will be proven to be very beneficial to the Australian economy.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Minister for Health and Minister for Planning, and Acting Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Acting Minister for Women and Acting Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.37): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Mr Gentleman today. There is no doubt that the proposed changes by the federal government in the industrial relations area are likely to have a negative impact on the ACT community. It is difficult to see how in this time of low inflation, low unemployment, booming corporate profits and huge surpluses that John Howard has somehow found an excuse to change a well-functioning industrial relations system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .