Dr EMERSON (1:18 PM) —I note that the minister repeatedly said in his summing up in the second reading debate that these matters are better dealt with by the states. He cannot have it both ways. The minister argues the merits of a unitary system of industrial relations in this country when it suits him, but he also says when it suits him that these matters should all be devolved to the states. Minister, you cannot have it both ways. You either want a unitary system or you want a devolved system. The truth of the matter is: you do not care whether it is unitary or devolved. What you do care about is that legislation is passed through this parliament that reduces the pay and working conditions of vulnerable Australians. That is the end that you have in mind. That is the objective that you are trying to achieve, and you will jump into any vehicle that is available to achieve that objective—whether the vehicle be a unitary system or a decentralised system, as the minister is advocating today. In arguing for the termination of employment bill, which would have effected a hostile takeover of state unfair dismissal systems, he said that the reason for that bill was the pursuit of a unitary system. There is no consistency here whatsoever—no consistency at all. The truth is the only reason that the minister is invoking these particular provisions in the legislation is to drive down the working conditions of vulnerable Australians. I refer to clause 1 and clause 14 in the bill. Clause 1 says:

from the list of allowable matters; and clause 14 specifies:

is not an allowable matter. We oppose both of these clauses in the legislation. Labor have consistently said that today's productivity growth is tomorrow's prosperity. The tragedy is that the Howard government has failed to invest properly in skills formation in this country, jeopardising future productivity growth and the prosperity that flows from it. This was summarised by the Labor senators in their report to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee's inquiry on similar provisions in the infamous 1999 second wave legislation. The Labor senators said:

They also said:

The Productivity Commission has found that skills formation decelerated during the 1990s and made no significant contribution to productivity growth in this country; in fact, it probably detracted from productivity growth. Yet we are confronted with clauses 1 and 14 that would strip out of the award system any reference to skill based career paths and to training or education. The minister says that this provides flexibility. It certainly does not provide training, which is so essential to future productivity growth. The government says productivity growth is good. We agree with the government on that. Why would you take training and education out of the award system if you were fair dinkum about achieving productivity growth?

We know in the 21st century that one of the absolute key contributors to productivity growth must be investment in skills formation. But this government is effectively saying that it does not support investment in skills formation through the award system. The government wants vulnerable workers to have to go back to the employer and try to persuade the employer to invest in skills formation and training in this country. Why would they do that? There is only one possible explanation: the government wants to deskill the Australian work force at the lower level of skills, in a race to the bottom, competing on wage costs against the countries of East Asia. This is a race we should never have entered, it is a race we should never want to win, but the government wants vulnerable Australians to run faster in that race to the bottom by, in a most scandalous fashion, removing skills formation from the award system.

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation that this government has introduced in the industrial relations arena. That is a very big statement, because it has introduced plenty of bad legislation. I ask the minister to respond as to what merit there could possibly be in deskilling the work force and how he can reconcile his desire for a unitary system one week and for a devolved system the next week. Minister, is it not the case that there is no such desire; you just want to drive down working conditions? (Time expired)