Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the office of Speaker.

This evening I rise to speak about the recommendations made in the recent report of the Productivity Commission, particularly concerning penalty rates. As much as the Prime Minister is trying to distance himself from the report, let us remember that it was he and his government that directed the areas of workplace relations that would be reviewed, including minimum rates, unfair dismissal and penalty rates. One of the recommendations that clearly stands out is the two-tiered approach, where Australians who are employed in retail and hospitality industries have been singled out and are likely to miss out on penalty rates for Sunday employment.

The government is wrong in its assessment that workers in retail and hospitality are less valuable to the economy and not deserving of fair rates and conditions. Penalty rates are there for a specific purpose. Penalty rates are there to safeguard people who are, in many respects, some of the most vulnerable people in these industries and to protect them against exploitation. We do not want the conditions to deteriorate to the level of the United States, where workers in these industries survive on the generosity of others through tips.

Consistent with these empty promises from those opposite, there is no guarantee that these cuts will not just be the first of many in respect of penalty rates. To extrapolate: is this now likely to include nurses, firefighters and police? They could be very much next on the list. After all, that is what has been suggested to those opposite in terms of where they need to go in workplace reform. If you need any proof of where those opposite stand on workers' rights, you only have to see their recent comments—that is, the endorsement of the sacking by text message of 100 waterside workers recently. Anyone who believes in justice and anyone who believes in fairness would think that that is just an abhorrence.

If we have learnt anything in the past two years, it is that the government cannot be trusted on its promises not to harm Australians. They have gone back, basically, on every promise they made prior to the last election, and their record of protecting workers' rights is absolutely abysmal. We have heard the promises before—promises not to touch penalty rates and not to cut conditions for workers. But these promises came from the same people who, not so long ago, brought us Work Choices! As someone who was in this parliament in 2005 during the original Work Choices debate, I cannot help but get a sense of deja vu.

Work Choices turned Australian workplaces on their heads. The coalition attacked people on minimum rates of pay. They made it legal for the very first time in our history to pay people below the award rate of pay. They opened the doors to attacks on penalty rates and overtime. They forced people to sign contracts where they were paid lower than award rates of pay—all under the guise of improving the economy and making us more productive. That is the way they tried to sell that—and there was no mandate when they brought in Work Choices!

The true agenda was to create a system governing employment relationships that would place the majority of power overwhelmingly in the hands of employers, while seeking to undercut the functioning system for setting and maintaining fair wages and conditions in this country. The rhetoric is all very familiar. To some extent, this is a clear attempt at a second re-run or the start of Work Choices once again.

Once again there is also this sense of the government aiming to destroy the trade union movement, making sure that the profit share of the national income continues to rise while reductions in the minimum wage would mean that the unit cost of labour will continue to fall. There is no evidence that cutting penalty rates will increase jobs or productivity. At a time when wages growth is at its lowest in 20 years, our most vulnerable workers deserve better.

I come to this debate with a little experience in industrial relations, having a reasonable understanding of both sides of the employment relationship. Labor understands that business needs to operate efficiently and effectively, because job creation occurs through greater productivity. However, we will rail against legislative provisions that allow and, indeed, encourage exploitation of workers.

See this speech in context