Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I continue my remarks that I started before the debate ceased before question time. I was talking about the fact that these four-yearly reviews and removing this requirement within the Fair Work Act is something that has broad support. It is something that was suggested not just by those in industry—by the employers and industry groups—but also by our union movement. These four-yearly reviews that are part of our modern awards under the Fair Work Act are costly. They take up the resources not just of the parties but of the Fair Work Commission.

What has been proposed instead is sensible. Parties can make an application to the Fair Work Commission to amend the modern awards. This is an approach that used to happen back before the Work Choices era and before the Fair Work Act. We are not saying that these awards are frozen in time. What we are saying is that when a party wishes to make a variation to their award they can do so by making an application.

As I said, we had all this fanfare from the government when in opposition and in their first days in 2013 and 2014. They talked a lot about the about the need for workplace relations reform. They beat their chest a lot about having to make our workplaces more productive, and they ranted and raved about the need to stop the 'great wages explosion'. That was their justification for doing the Productivity Commission review into the Fair Work Act. It was only just recently that the Treasurer actually backed away from that rhetoric, saying that without significant reform in the Fair Work Act there would be a great wages explosion. In fact, the opposite has happened.

As recently as yesterday the Governor of the Reserve Bank came out and said that we are in crisis when it comes to wages growth in this country, that wages growth is flat-lining and that, in real wages terms, we are going backwards. They are not the words of a radical unionist or the words of the Labor opposition; they are the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Actually, yesterday, in quite a remarkable turn of events, he called upon workers to essentially demand more of their share of profits. He said that workers should demand their fair share and cut of profits. Like the Reserve Bank governor, many in the union movement and many in business are advocating for the same.

This is an example of how wrong the government got this one, by saying that without reform of the Fair Work Act there would be a wages explosion. Well, that did not happen. What also has not happened is great reform of the Fair Work Act. Since they came to office, we have seen tinkering like this. Whilst this measure is welcomed, it took a long time to get to this point. Whilst this measure will help with prioritising the resources and the focus of the Fair Work Act, it has taken a long time for us to get to this point.

What is not in this bill, and why Labor has moved an amendment—something that this government should consider and bring on for a vote tonight—is the opportunity to protect penalty rates. We still have a chance. There are 11 days until the cut to penalty rates kicks in. What Labor has said, what workers have said and what a number of businesses and industry have said is that, when Fair Work makes a decision that is wrong and not in the interests of workers, of businesses or of the economy, we should change the rules. That is the role of this place. We are changing the rules today about how often we review modern awards. We are saying to the government, 'Let's also change the rules about take-home pay and call on the Fair Work Commission when considering variations to the modern award to not cut take-home pay.'

On 1 July, 700,000 of our lowest paid workers in this country will have their penalty rates cut. We are talking about predominantly women who work in the pharmacy sector, predominantly women who work in the retail sector and predominantly women who work in hospitality. In these three industries, which are made up of predominantly women—women of different ages—workers are about to have their Sunday and public holiday penalty rates cut. For those on the government benches who do not know what that means, let me share a few examples. A retail worker who always works a Sunday will lose up to $6,000 a year in their take-home pay—$6,000 a year, or $77 a week. For people working in hospitality—the people who have come to see me in my electorate and who have seen other Labor MPs—it could be anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 if they regularly work the Sunday shift depending upon the hours that they work. These are not millionaires. They are not the millionaires this government will give a tax cut to—many of whom, like the Prime Minister, will get a tax cut of over $6,000—and the Prime Minister is doing nothing to stop the very low paid in our community receiving a pay cut of $6,000 the very next day. This is the crisis that we are in. These are the priorities of this government—ensuring that those at the very top end of the pay scale get tax cuts whilst those earning the smallest of wages are copping pay cuts. That is straight out what it is; it is a straight-out pay cut. That is where Labor is saying it is in the power of this place to make a decision today, tonight to stop that from happening. Stop forcing these families further into poverty. This is a straight pay cut with no compensation.

Some in the government have argued that this has happened in other sectors. That is not true. When there have been trade-offs in relation to penalty rates, it is for a higher base rate. There is something called enterprise bargaining. All agreements under the enterprise bargaining scheme must reach the better-off-overall test. The commissioner must be satisfied that the better-off-overall test is reached. Yet, in this decision made by the Fair Work Commission there has been no effort for these workers to be better off overall. That particular part of enterprise bargaining does not actually apply to the modern award. So these workers are, purely and simply, going backwards. They will have a pay cut. So I call upon government members—those in the National Party and those in the Liberal Party—to do the right thing: cross the floor and vote with Labor on this. Support the wages and protect the wages and take-home pay of those earning the least in your electorate. It is the least you can do when you are giving yourself and all of the people on higher incomes in your electorate a tax cut. At least protect the pay of some of the lowest paid in your electorate by supporting Labor's amendments to this particular bill.

In my role before I entered parliament, I worked a lot with people on the modern award. We have to be frank about the modern award. It is supposed to be a minimum safety net. But, as the cost of living continues to go up, in some sectors the modern award has fallen below the poverty line. This is why, I believe, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has spoken out and taken the extraordinary step of sounding more like a radical union official than Governor of the Reserve Bank. We do need to do more in this country to lift wages.

The government needs to stop its attack on unions and its ideological pursuit of unions and workers. It is spending more time pursuing union organisers who have not filed the right paperwork, who have not shown a right of entry and who have sat and had a cup of tea with a mate on a workplace than what it is doing to address the real issues and the real crisis going on in Australian workplaces. It does not care—and it is doing very little—about the fact that real wages growth is going backward. It does not care—and it is doing very little—about the fact that people are not getting full-time jobs and that we are replacing well-paying, full-time jobs with insecure casual jobs. The explosion of labour hire is out of control. No longer is it about filling a temporary labour shortage. Today, it is replacing good, secure, full-time jobs, particularly in manufacturing, the clerical industry and traditional industries where we thought you were secure if you had a full-time job.

I should note that, when it comes to the modern award, a lot of these matters are not in our modern awards any more. In our modern awards, they have been limited. It was quite a complex process to go through to get to the modern awards that we have. The whole system of Fair Work is supposed to be based upon the encouragement of enterprise bargaining. Yet, there are some weaknesses in our bargaining laws at the moment. We have not seen any reform around that. We have not seen the government come forward and say, 'Let's work on how we can improve bargaining.' Instead, we have seen a constant ideological attack on those who say exactly what the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said—that workers should demand more of a share of the profits in this country. The contribution by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer today in question time was just extraordinary. It demonstrated how out of touch they are with what is happening in our economy and what is happening in Australian workplaces.

Labor supports the bill that is before us, but, more importantly, we call on all of the backbenchers, all of the government ministers and all of the government members, as well as the crossbenchers, to support the amendments that are before us. There is an opportunity to ensure that the workers in retail, hospitality and pharmacy will not have their pay cut—a minimum safety net pay cut. Some workers are relieved that their bosses have said, 'We're not going to cut your penalty rates,' but they are relying on goodwill and a handshake, not on a safety net and not an agreement, and that is not good enough. That is not income security; that is not job security. There is an opportunity, 11 days out from pay being cut, for this government to do the right thing and support Labor's amendments before the House. There is an opportunity to start to talk about how we will address the crisis in our economy when it comes to secure work and wages growth. I urge all of those opposite to support Labor's amendments.

See this speech in context