Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

Before I address the detail of this bill, I should just make some observations as someone who has been in this place for a long period of time. We had a very unusual set of circumstances here this morning when we had the government move, effectively, a budget measure and no-one speak to it. It was slightly odd. It makes one wonder about the sincerity of the government around any budget measure or any bill in this place, if they are not prepared to get up and support the bills they present to the parliament.

You would have to ask the Prime Minister why he spoke so effusively in 2014 and 2015 about the measures which were dumped today. This is important in the context of this bill, because if they can do it around these other issues they can do it about this piece of legislation. In relation to the budget measures of 2014, the Prime Minister said:

I support introducing co-payments for general practitioner pathology and diagnostic imaging services in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. I support the reforms to higher education. I support the changes to family payment reform—

all of which were dumped today. So how sincere are the government, when they get up to promote legislation in this place, if they feel—as apparently they do—that it is okay in a couple of years time to get up and abandon what they put before the parliament, in this case in a budget? Why should we have any confidence that they will not repeal elements of this piece of legislation which we have got before us today?

That is a very important question, because it is an important piece of legislation which we in the Labor Party will be supporting, although with some caveats. The bill will increase penalties for serious contraventions—defined as conduct which is 'deliberate and part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons'—of prescribed workplace laws; increase penalties for employer record-keeping failures; and make franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they know or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks, and the franchisor or holding company may raise a defence of taking reasonable steps to prevent a contravention.

The bill's provisions will expressly prohibit employers from unreasonably requiring employees to make payments—and the previous speaker outlined the hideous nature of some of these payments and the absolute skulduggery going on in the workplace, where people are exploiting 457 workers for their own benefit and making them pay back money which they earnt from them. You would have to wonder what sort of morals these people have. This bill seeks to address that particular issue. In addition, it will give the Fair Work Ombudsman and employees at the SES level the power to compulsorily question persons as part of an investigation into breaches of the Fair Work Act where failure to answer questions gives rise to civil liability.

We in the Labor Party will support the legislation, but I want to make sure that I am supporting also the amendment which has been put by the shadow minister, Mr O'Connor, the member for Gorton, because this amendment is quite important and, in the context of last night's budget, has more importance today. This amendment says:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)notes that although the Government pretends through the bill to care about vulnerable workers, those workers who earn penalty rates are also vulnerable as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, a decision which the Government supports; and

(2)calls on the Government to:

(a)abandon its support of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and

(b)legislate to prevent the Fair Work Commission decision from taking effect, in order to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut."

That is what the government should be doing, and it is very important in the context of last night's budget. We have moved in just one year. A year ago it was 'jobs and growth'. Well, there are very few jobs and not a lot of growth. The 2017 budget has weaker and fewer jobs, and it is no wonder the government have dropped the slogan. It is very important that you appreciate that, in the projections for this year's budget, there are nearly 100,000 fewer jobs forecast compared to the budget last year—100,000 fewer jobs. You have to ask the question: if 'jobs and growth' was such a successful proposition, how is that forecasts in this year's budget are saying there will be 100,000 fewer jobs? That must be ticked as a failure on the part of the government.

The Prime Minister gets up and talks in this place, as he does, remonstrating about how evil the opposition are for not supporting the government budget measures or having a comment about those budget measures—God forbid that we should be critical! Thank God we were critical about those zombie measures, because if we had not been critical we would have had them imposed upon the Australian people. We can thank the Labor Party for holding the government to account, and we will continue to hold them to account around this year's budget, and we will want to know why it is that they are prepared to throw their hands up and say it is okay to accept 100,000 fewer jobs this year in their budget.

The bill that we are talking about today does nothing in relation to a range of policies which Labor took to the last election, directed towards combating sham contracting, licensing labour hire companies, shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities, reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers, criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers, and making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. Mr Deputy Speaker, why wouldn't we be doing that? Why wouldn't we be protecting the interests of Australian workers?

The facts are that this government has a history of attacking and undermining the rights of Australian workers over a generation now. It makes no apologies for it in this place. What we have seen in terms of the penalty rates is actually attacking the most vulnerable workers in the country. I live in Alice Springs. People who want an education post school out of Alice Springs invariably have to travel and go somewhere else. They have to sustain themselves. If they go to Sydney or Melbourne, they might take up a job over a weekend doing shifts in a restaurant or some other venue, making money, trying to sustain themselves through university or another educational opportunity. What the government has done by not attacking the penalty rate decision of the Fair Work Commission is that it has effectively said, 'We don't care about those people.'

This year's budget is going to penalise them further because, if they are students, they are going to be paying more for their own education. So not only will they be paying more for their own education and be required to pay the money back earlier, but they will at the same time find it more difficult because their incomes are going to come down quite dramatically as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision and the failure of this government—the absolute failure of this government—to look after their interests and try to seek remedies to change the nature of that Fair Work Commission decision. It is really easy to do, but the government will not do it.

We have to understand that there are workers in this country who are vulnerable. They are vulnerable, and their vulnerability is exposed in part by this piece of legislation. This year, for example, we have heard allegations about Caltex, where staff are working night shifts for $13 an hour, half the legal rate, and not receiving tax returns. And there was widespread underpayment of staff across outlets of Domino's—you know, the pizza joint—where claims have been made of franchisees selling visas to prospective overseas workers and systematic underpayment of workers. How can any person with any moral view of the world or any care for themselves and their families actually think it is okay to do that? It is not okay, and we in the Labor Party will do whatever we can to make sure we expose those poor and vulnerable people and seek to remedy their situation, as we have sought to do.

We note that, in relation to the penalty rates issue, of course, there is an easy way for the government to effect change. That would be to allow debate on the Leader of the Opposition's bill addressing that issue. They will not. They will not, just as they were absolutely stunned silent—they were sitting there like stunned mullets this morning—when the legislation about the zombie cuts was being debated. There was no debate. They did not even have the temerity to be able to read the legislation. They could not read the legislation, let alone make a comment about it so that the Australian community could understand why the government are proposing to get rid of these zombie measures. Similarly, in relation to this issue about penalty rates, they are not prepared to debate the opposition leader's legislation which would seek to remedy the situation of those people on penalty rates. The government will not do it. They simply close their ears to the idea that it may be okay to actually tell the Australian community why they will not support the legislation which the opposition leader was proposing.

The opposition leader is doing what he ought to do, putting up proposals which will have the support of the Australian community but which are not being supported by the government for God knows what reason—because it came from the opposition. Let me say this to the government: the only reason we saw the legislation around the zombie cuts here this morning was the opposition. Do yourselves a favour: if you want to win support in the broader community then support the opposition's proposals on penalty rates and you will get support from us on that issue. But you are simply blind to doing things which might reasonably effect a change in the circumstances of Australian workers, because they come from either trade unions or the Labor Party. Let's not talk about trade unions. They are the most evil institutions in the country, protecting the rights of Australian workers! I have been a proud union member since I was 15, and I continue to be a proud union member. I say to members opposite: understand the importance—

See this speech in context