Senator BARNETT (4:22 PM) —I am proud to be a member of the Howard government responsible for instigating and passing through this parliament Work Choices one year ago. I say: congratulations and well done to the Howard government and thank you for what has been done and for what you have delivered to Australian men and women and their families throughout this country. As a member of the Senate committee that recommended and supported the legislation over a year ago, it is a very proud honour to be standing here in this Senate chamber to reflect on the last 12 months and, in particular, to respond to some of the accusations and allegations that have been made from the other side.

This morning Unions Tasmania’s Simon Cocker was interviewed on radio by Tim Cox. He was asked, ‘Well, what has the last 12 months brought workers in Tasmania?’ Simon Cocker said, ‘I guess it’s brought proof of everything that we said 12 months ago when this legislation came into effect.’ They were the first words that he shared publicly with the Tasmanian constituents on ABC radio this morning. What exactly were the two main allegations of the Labor Party and the union movement 12 months ago? They said that Work Choices would deliver fewer jobs and lower wages. The Labor Party said there would be fewer jobs and lower wages in addition to a range of other allegations, like the sky would fall in. Well, has it?

Senator Abetz —Like Chicken Little.

Senator BARNETT —That is right, Chicken Little, Senator Abetz. Let us look at exactly what they said more than 12 months ago. What did Bill Shorten from the AWU, now the Labor candidate for the Victorian seat of Maribyrnong, say about Work Choices?

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator BARNETT —Isn’t that interesting, Senator Nash—the link between the union movement and the Labor Party. What did Bill Shorten say? He said it would be ‘a green light for mass sackings’. What did they say about the effect on wages? Kevin Rudd, the Labor leader, said, ‘It could produce downward pressure on wages.’ Julia Gillard said, ‘Work Choices will drive down wages and productivity.’ They made a whole range of outrageous allegations, and I will mention a couple of them. Kim Beazley said, ‘Mums and dads know that Howard’s industrial relations laws are throwing their kids to the wolves.’ Sharan Burrow said: ‘This is an attack on the lives of working people. It will undermine families.’ She said also that ‘working families’ lives are at risk here.’ Greg Combet said: ‘Work Choices is very nasty legislation. It encourages exploitation, not enterprise.’ He also said, ‘This will put lives at risk.’ Give me a break!

The Australian people know what has occurred in the last 12 months. They can see the facts. I want to share this Latin maxim with the Senate and the Australian public: res ipsa loquitur—that is, let the facts speak for themselves. In the last 12 months the facts have demonstrated that we now have an extra 263,700 new jobs. Senator Marshall says that is really not all due to Work Choices. Of course it is not all due to Work Choices—but surely it is substantially due to Work Choices. He says that those figures do not add up. Let us look at the annual growth in jobs under the coalition compared to the last seven years under Labor. That figure is 185,800 jobs compared to 101,200 jobs. Senator Marshall, please, have a listen and look at the facts. What are the facts?

Senator Abetz —Where is Senator Marshall?

Senator BARNETT —Where is Senator Marshall? He has left the chamber; he does not want to listen to the facts. You can see that unemployment has gone down to 4.6 per cent, a 30-year record low. What has happened with wages? In the last 12 months we have seen a 1.5 per cent increase in real wages. Under the Howard government there has been a 19 per cent increase in real terms. That is not a cut in wages. That is not downward pressure on wages. That is the exact opposite.

Let us remember what happened in 13 years of Labor. You had a 1.8 per cent decrease in wages. You see, Labor has a plan, and the election will see this out. The Australian people will have a choice between the Labor Party and the coalition. Labor has a plan to rip up AWAs, which have in fact been a part of the Australian landscape since they started in 1997. We have had over a million signed since 1997. The penetration in industry is some eight per cent nationally. In my home state of Tasmania it is 13 per cent. AWAs play a very important part in the Australian economy in terms of providing jobs and higher wages. In fact, in Tasmania, on average people on an AWA are paid 48 per cent more than those on an award. That is a lot of money. You only have one party that is going to the election with a plan to cut wages for those people on an AWA.

We have had a lot of support from industry and community groups with respect to Work Choices. But, before I get onto that, I just want to say that the Labor Party’s second major policy proposal going into the next election is to go back to the old unfair dismissal laws. We tried over 44 times to pass legislation through the parliament to remove those laws, and we were finally successful. We removed them because they were unfair, specifically unfair on Australia’s small businesses. We have not heard very much from the other side with respect to the benefits of Work Choices for small business. There are 1.9 million of them in Australia, and they benefit as a result of the choice available to them and as a result of the flexibility. Those in small business and their employees—full time, casual and part time—benefit.

Small business is going to cop it in the neck under Labor because Labor want to bring back the unfair unfair dismissal laws. These were the laws that scared small business away from employing. In my view, this particular initiative under the Work Choices legislation has resulted in a stimulus for small business to employ more people. That is my strong view. On the unfair dismissal laws, the New South Wales Business Chamber says:

Here you have it: the Labor Party are going to bring back the unfair unfair dismissal laws, and that is scary. There was a rally in Bass, in Launceston, instigated by the union movement. There was a rally in Braddon where the hardworking members Michael Ferguson and Mark Baker are standing up for this government and saying, ‘Thank you for the jobs that have been created in these electorates.’ I stand with them and say this: the union movement are putting $30 million into this campaign; the Labor Party, $20 million. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the Labor Party is doing the bidding for the union movement, and that is a scary prospect indeed. (Time expired)