Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

If he wants to second it, I am happy to give way. Has there ever been such confusion from a government as what we just witnessed while the member for Gorton was making that speech? Over there we saw the panic on the face of the member for Lyne—'Do I move that he stop talking or do I let him keep going?'—with advisers showing him mobile phones and telling him what to do, and a little huddle happening over there next to the Speaker's chair, while they work out that, if they bring it on now, move that members be no longer heard and then move that the question be put, there will be a vote before question time. Would they rather do that, or would they rather give themselves a chance to have a few hours to heavy some of the members of their own backbench to try to bring them into line before this comes to a vote?

This vote would give the parliament a chance to stop the pay cut. That is what they are terrified about. That is what they are worried about. The simplicity of this vote is that if the parliament votes in favour of the bill that the member for Gorton is saying should be brought forward then 700,000 Australians will not get a pay cut. There are a couple of members opposite who, if the vote had been brought on quickly, you might have thought, given their public statements, would be willing to join Labor in stopping the pay cut. We have always seen the ritual, when suspensions are moved: they move that the member be no longer heard, the seconder stands, they move that the member be no longer heard, they move that the question be put and we then have a vote.

But no: for the first time those opposite are afraid of the vote and are doing everything they can to prevent the vote from happening, so that they have the chance to heavy members of their backbench. I am sorry to the member opposite. All he needs to read are the two words 'pay cut' and he will know what it is about. And if he is going to speak against the resolution, if he is going to vote against the resolution, he can do so with his eyes wide open, knowing that he is voting in favour of a pay cut.

On this one they cannot hide behind the process. They cannot say, 'Oh, no; it's an independent tribunal.' What was their argument when we were dealing with safe rates of pay for truckies? When an independent tribunal came down with a decision they did not like, not only did they set aside the decision; they abolished the tribunal. It is gone completely! They completely obliterated it. But on this one there is one reason why they want to stand behind the independence of the tribunal. It is because they like the decision. It is because they want the pay cut to go ahead. They understand that a pay cut here will have a knock-on effect for penalty rates for workers in industry after industry after industry. They know that, and that is why they support it.

This is a bill that has already passed the Senate. This is a bill where the Senate has already agreed for this to go forward. We simply need the members of this House to have the courage to care about what a pay cut means for 700,000 workers. The day after a tax cut comes through for millionaires in this country, you will not find them jumping to attention saying, 'We need to do something to prevent there being a tax cut for millionaires.' But you will find them jumping to attention to do everything they can to deliver a pay cut for ordinary workers.

If you have a situation where people rely on these penalty rates to be able to make ends meet, where people are in jobs where they have become completely dependent on these penalty rates for their household budgets, and where award decisions have been made based on the fact that these penalty rates will be paid, you have a situation where, for ordinary workers in retail and hospitality, this is a direct hit on their household budgets. This is a direct hit on their capacity to make ends meet.

It does not matter how many times the minister opposite keeps peering at that piece of paper; it will still say 'pay cut' for 700,000 people. Those opposite cannot hide behind process. They cannot hide behind, 'Oh, well, would it get through the Senate?' It already has. But for 700,000 Australian workers this vote has one meaning: either those opposite are on the side of their take-home pay or those opposite are not. Labor will vote to defend their wages.

See this speech in context