Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Probably not; they just said it: probably not. That is right. They are their own words. I will take that interjection. They do not go into the same shopping aisles and cafes and newsagents that we all go into. I did a listening post in the suburb of Gailes on Saturday.

A government member: Do you live in Gailes?

Well, I will not take that interjection. And isn't it funny: they laugh about a suburb in Australia. Somehow a suburb that is doing it a bit tough should be ridiculed and laughed at. That is absolutely pathetic. Actually, I will take the interjection. There is a reason the member for Bowman has had a long and distinguished career on the backbench: 14 years going strong. We never have to worry about the transfer from the member for Bowman moving forward to the frontbench. We can put that one in the bank; that is for sure.

I do live in the electorate of Oxley, and, for the member's benefit, I live in a suburb called Durack—probably a suburb the member for Bowman has never been to. I talked to workers in Gailes on the weekend, a hospitality worker and a retail worker who were fearful that their pay was going to be cut. One worker told me that they have to get up at a quarter to three on a Sunday and go to work at a hotel, and they are looking at a $64 pay cut for that one day's work. It is not a lot of money for those opposite; I concede that. But taking $240 out of someone's pay packet in a month is a huge difference. You may want to have a laugh at people who live at Gailes. I take their concerns very seriously.

So, on behalf of the 10,500 retail, food and accommodation workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of cuts to their take-home pay, I am supporting this amendment today—because those people, right across Australia, not just in my community but in every electorate in Australia, deserve to have this parliament fighting for their salaries and fighting for their pay and conditions. Extraordinarily, this bill was introduced and brought on for debate one week after the decision to slash penalty rates—which we know that the government clearly supports If we ever needed any more confirmation that this government is more concerned with saving its own political skin than standing up for vulnerable and low-paid workers, we have it here in lights. Be under no illusion that the timing of the introduction of this bill is all about a sad attempt to distract and divert away from this side of the chamber's proud defence for the protection of penalty rates and that it has absolutely nothing to do with any urgent need to address corruption. As I said, there are over 10,500 workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of a pay cut. But does the government stand by these workers? Will it stand shoulder to shoulder and lift a finger to help them? No. This government again shifts the blame for this disastrous decision. We know there has been a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister, the LNP and big business for that side of the chamber to cut the take-home pay of some of Australia's most vulnerable and insecure low-paid workers.

Taking a closer look at the terms of the new offences, they differ from the model legislation recommended by Heydon and they differ from the existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code. We cannot have any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers. The so-called 'corrupting benefits' offences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official—although there are key differences that raise many questions. The bill prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person nominated by a union, and it prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash in-kind payments. The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions; benefit provided for employees—but possibly covers the provision of union training services; tax deductible donations; payments for services or in accordance with the law or a judgement. But the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the bill. It is facts like these which show this government's lack of consultation and that it is rushing this bill through parliament in the face of this side of the chamber and the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill to preserve take-home pay and protect penalty rates.

We know that penalty rates put food on the table and books on school desks and go some way to compensating hardworking Australians who forgo family and leisure time to work on Sundays. We only need to look at what happened last week when we saw wages continuing to flatline in this country. We are not seeing the uptick in wage growth that we need to see in this nation. The latest figures show that wages are now falling in real terms and that the decline in real wages is coming at a time when cost-of-living pressures are rising. We know, and certainly when I speak to residents in my electorate, that they are finding it tougher and tougher to make ends meet. So the government's plans in response to this at a time of record low wages is to increase taxes on 10 million working Australians, while giving a tax cut to millionaires.

I am really pleased that the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated to Australia in his reply speech that this side of the chamber is in touch with working Australians, that we know people on, say, $60,000 or $65,000 a year and living in the wonderful suburb of Gailes—which the member for Bowman wanted to have a laugh at—should not have to pay for extra health services. They should not have to pay for increased taxes to simply pay for those tax cuts at the other end of the scale. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair that a millionaire gets a $16,400 tax cut but someone who is living in the suburbs that I represent and who is on a low income has to pay $352 a year more. How on earth is that possibly fair?

This is the party that spent $200,000 on research to ask, 'How should the budget be framed?' Crosby Textor, for its $200,000 bill, came up with: 'Australians don't think that this government is fair.' This is a government that had to pay for research to find out what to say in a budget. Doesn't that say it all—that you have to write a cheque to a polling company because you do not know how to frame a budget. So they turn around and go: 'You know what the government needs to do? People said: "We don't think it's on our side." So, guys, make sure you use the word "fairness".' I can tell you what—

An honourable member interjecting—

That is right, whoever the interjector was: they do not walk in the same shopping centres as we do and they do not go to the same shops and worksites as we do, because, if they did, they would not have to ask: 'How should we frame the budget? What are the key buzzwords we should use?' They should come out to the suburbs in the south-west of Brisbane and talk to people about their pay and conditions and about how important penalty rates are for their wages and their families, and then they would not need to waste $200,000 on paying Crosby Textor to ask what they should frame their budget around.

We on this side of the chamber know, and that is why the amendment has been moved by the member for Gorton: to ensure that we can protect penalty rates, and that we legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect, to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut. Every single member on this side of the chamber supports this, and I would go so far as to say that a majority of Australians support this as well, because we know, from listening to the community, that we need to ensure that we do everything we can, with the privilege we have of serving in this place, to protect their pay and conditions, and that is what we on this side will continue to do. But, sadly, this government refuses to heed that as well.

See this speech in context