Mr WAKELIN(9.33 p.m.) —The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 was presented in the parliament by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) on 26 June this year. It amends the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and makes a number of technical improvements to that bill relating to certified agreements, Australian workplace agreements and the Employment Advocate, the no-disadvantage test, termination of employment, freedom of association, preference clauses, union disamalgamation and matters referred to the Commonwealth by Victoria.

Both the shadow minister, the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), and the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) have attempted to justify the Labor record since 1983 and, what I think is even more revealing, have attempted to justify their `back to the future' policy. They seem to think that they can have one policy when they are in government and another when they are in opposition. I do not happen to think the Australian people will fall for that line.

My concern is along the same lines as that of the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles). If we believe in this country that the old industrial relations club of the ACTU, the Industrial Relations Court and the ALP can offer a better choice to the Australian workplace than the millions of Australians who are actually out there working in the workplace, with their employers, then we must think again. It is a proven and known fact that the Keating government moved down the path of a more deregulated labour market. In fact, going back as far as the Hawke prime ministership, this deregulatory approach was seen as our best hope in an emerging market economy in the international trading environment.

Politics is part of all of our lives as we come to this place, but ultimately the responsibility is to provide the best possible standard of living and the best opportunities for every Australian. We would expect to have genuine debate and genuine differences about how we might do that among the historic parties of this parliament, but there are some fundamentals which we cannot escape. For example, the member for Batman referred to the minimum wage of four categories of workers: $359 to $366, whether you are a hospitality worker, a child-care worker or a process worker. I would submit that, as someone who has worked for most of my working life for less than that, it is far better to offer people the opportunity to have a wage than to confine them to the welfare system.

I thought it was quite revealing when the member for Batman talked about the unemployment numbers, saying that those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more were, at 247,000, at their highest level since April 1995. As I recall it, the Hawke-Keating government started in 1983, so there is obviously some implication there that there was significantly higher unemployment back over that period. That is not something that I dwell on with pride or with any sense of gloating, but I think we have to be realistic enough in this place to acknowledge that the previous government in no way had the answers. We will never forget what Mr Keating said when he was at his peak as the Treasurer of the day: the `recession we had to have'. It just showed the difficulty that governments have, particularly the Labor government, in coming to terms with how we actually deal with the issue of unemployment.

The accusation is made of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that he is not coming to terms with changing realities. Let us look at what the Prime Minister's realities were when he came into office—a man who has given well over 20 years of political service to the parliament of this country; a man for whom I have enormous respect, especially his undiluted commitment to the issues of Australia over that period; and a man who, through a whole range of adversities, came to be Prime Minister in March 1996. Let us look at the changing realities that he and the cabinet have had to deal with. The deficit is well documented. There has been a long period of high interest rates. There is a long history of balance of payments problems and a history of a culture which had, for too long, relied on welfare. There is a long history of a Canberra centralism which did not show sufficient respect for the workplace and for the regions.

There has been criticism of the Prime Minister because he chooses to keep his family home in Sydney rather than in Canberra, but that is something that is welcomed by most Australians particularly when we realise that Sydney is one of the great hubs of Australia in terms of commercial activity and employment. With all due respect to Canberra, it is a place that we come to almost to be part of this federal parliament. In my opinion, it does not have the same focus in a practical way on the real solutions for Australia.

Passing comment has been made about the drought in jobs. The plain truth of it is that there has been a significant drought problem within this country over the last few months, which no doubt has contributed to the disappointing figures of last month. I believe there has been a much greater problem than the El Nino effect, and that is the drought of positive and constructive ideas over the last 15 years as to how we might come to terms with our unemployment problems. I believe the answers lie in the framework and in the foundation laid down by this government over the last 18 months.

I do not think the Australian people are going to be easily swayed from their understanding that the previous Labor government had at least 13 years to resolve many of these issues. As has been discussed in this debate over the last hour, very clearly the previous Labor government had set a course on a more deregulated labour market. So let us not have any more of this humbug of the belief that by regulating more somehow or other you are going to create more jobs and more secure jobs.

I note also the reference to independent contractors and the reference to casual employment. It gives me no pleasure to inform that House that I, as a self-employed person and a very small employer, really found the task of employing back as early as the mid-1970s far too difficult in my business, a fragile business at the best of times in dry, low rainfall country in terms of the agricultural and farming business. Very few people on the Labor side of the parliament have an understanding of what it is to be an employer and what it is to run a business. It is too easy to be critical of the employer and of the entrepreneur and of the businessman. I do not think the Labor Party are deliberately anti-business. I hope they are not and in fact I am sure most of them are not. But please remember that flowery rhetoric in this place does not create one more job.

I challenge the shadow minister and the member for Batman, the former ACTU president, to show me where at any point in their working lives they have created jobs or run a business. That is still the core of future employment in Australia. There has been some discussion about social allocation of resources. I keep repeating this theme: the greatest social allocation of resources that this parliament can give to the people of Australia is to allocate an economy which can provide jobs.

Let us not dwell too much on regulation. It is true to say that the issues around occupational health and safety and workers compensation are important to the welfare of the workplace, but let us never forget the basic: it is absolutely pointless having these regulations if you have not created a climate which maximises the opportunity for people to have a job. If people do not have a job, then all those other issues become absolutely irrelevant.

The shadow minister made reference to powerful unions. I have never been a member of a trade union, but I have been a member of a farmers union and I have always valued that association as a means of understanding my industry and understanding the pressures on my industry and in negotiating from time to time with government or other industry sectors.

I simply put to the parliament and to the Labor Party to please think again if we believe that we are going to overcome the unemployment issues of Australia just by having powerful unions. We have a powerful union in Australia called the Maritime Union of Australia. There is much evidence to suggest that that union over much of its life and activity in Australia has denied many thousands of Australians the opportunity to work. I did not realise until I came into this place that the monopoly was such that, if I wanted to be a waterside worker and earn the sort of salary which until recent years I could only dream about, the only way I could do it was by having some birthright.

In the industry that I come from, over the last decade up to 50 per cent of the neighbours in my own community have gone broke or have left the land. I find it quite incredible that we in this country can tolerate that sort of monopoly and that sort of arrogance and that we have an economy in this country across our wharves which denies thousands of other Australians the opportunity to be employed. I do not understand the union muscle, this powerful union approach. I do not understand why we should deny other Australians opportunities.

It is very interesting to note the shadow minister's comments about weakening people's capacity in the workplace and workplace stress. I come back to all the medical evidence across Australia—all the evidence that anybody would want to offer. The greatest stress on individuals in this country—it is well documented—is to be unemployed for a long period.

I refer to a time in Australia's history which I have done a little bit of reading on. It is the days of the Depression in the thirties. With the experience of a world war, who knows what went through the minds of the leaders of the time. Two men in South Australia, Tom Playford and Clyde Cameron, who were from either side of the political fence, were able to agree on a relationship which appeared to me and to many other South Australians to build a state based on commonsense and a fair go.

I do not know how many people realised that Clyde Cameron was a union representative who was able to get a very significant increase in union membership in the days when unionism was not compulsory. I am sure Tom Playford and Clyde Cameron did not agree on all things, but I think they both had enough decency and commonsense to understand the realities and to know what was in the best interests of their community.

I just hope that in time the Labor Party and its leadership will be able to bring to this place and to the Australian people a much more constructive approach to the issues of unemployment and to the issues of industrial relations and to bring them forward in a way which acknowledges their contribution to unemployment since 1983 when they came into power. I thought their contribution was in some ways positive, particularly in the latter years of that administration when they talked about enterprise bargaining. There was a clear recognition.

I will never forget Paul Keating's address to one of the employer groups in I think mid-1993. He said that we must move forward, we must move away from this centralised system and we must have a stronger enterprise bargaining base to give our economy a better chance. Over that period we have seen it shrinking and going back, to a point where we now have something which is barely recognisable from those policies of the Labor Party in the early 1990s.

I would just conclude by making the comment that I welcome the changes in the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 . I compliment the minister. I think we are fortunate to have someone so dedicated and capable. I believe that, given time and the support of the employers and the work force, we can see positive things come from this in the time ahead.