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

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment that's been moved by the member for Gorton. It focuses on and calls on this government to protect the penalty rates—the penalty rates that have been cut for over 700,000 workers—workers in retail, workers in hospitality, workers in pharmacy. The previous speaker didn't even make reference to the amendment, which would see those pay cuts restored for all of the workers who've had their pay cut, meaning that they would not cop this pay cut. The previous speaker and the government aren't even interested in protecting the pay of low-paid workers, some of the lowest-paid workers in our community.

I urge all of those on the government side to finally stand with Labor to protect the penalty rates for 700,000 low-paid workers. Since that penalty rate cut, we've seen other industries—hair and beauty, clubs and hotels—now also ask the Fair Work Commission to cut the penalty rates for their workers. These workers don't receive compensation for this pay cut. This is a minimum entitlement, a minimum wage, and there's been a straight wage cut.

I'd also like to set the record straight on a few things that the government is saying in relation to this bill. You'd think that they were living in some kind of alternative universe, that they were completely ignoring what is actually happening in the space of your rights at work and in the space of the ABCC. They're completely rewriting and changing history. Let's start with the royal commission. The Heydon royal commission was supposed to be independent and impartial, yet during the process of the royal commission, the commissioner himself, Dyson Heydon, agreed to be the keynote speaker at a Liberal fundraiser. Hardly impartial. Hardly independent. When you as the commissioner agree to go to a Liberal Party fundraiser, before the report is even handed down, I'd call that a little bit biased. It wouldn't even pass the pub test. Because of the findings of this particular commission, we now see legislation after legislation attacking unions—anti-worker, anti-union legislation. They took us to an election on the ABCC but hardly ever raised it during the election, then got the ABCC through, and now what's happened?

It's going so well for the government that the commissioner himself has had to resign because he knowingly broke the law; he knowingly broke the Fair Work Act. And yet they stand up here and talk about how great it is. You'd think there'd be some humility within the government—that they'd realise they've made a mistake. But, no, talking point after talking point still talks up how they needed to reintroduce the tough cop in the construction industry, who's had to resign because he broke the law. He knowingly broke the law. In fact, the minister recommended that he be reappointed to the role, knowing that he had broken the law.

Then we get to what has happened this week. The ABCC legal counsel quit, citing that Hadgkiss's actions made the role untenable. The whole reason the government forced this country to an early election was on the back of the ABCC. The commissioner has quit, the legal counsel has had to quit because of the consequences of the commissioner, and yet they still stand up here and lecture us—lecture people in the Labor Party, lecture construction workers, lecture the union movement.

Whilst the ABCC has been in place under this government, the hardest thing to stand here and say is that the union, unfortunately, was right: the number of construction deaths has gone up. There were 27 yesterday and 28 today and counting. That is because of this government's actions, deliberately weakening workplace health and safety on worksites. The ABCC, under their watch, is more interested in prosecuting union officials who fail to give 24 hours notification that they're walking onto a site, when that union official, in most instances, is walking onto that site because a construction worker has incurred a workplace injury. Some of the most grievous of those cases have been in Victoria. A union official walked onto a site because they received a call from a union member that a good friend and a delegate had fallen in the workplace. He died in the union official's arms. The company did the right thing and shut the job down. They called in counselling and the site went into grieving. Do you know what this government did, what the ABCC did? Issued a notice to the CFMEU: 'Why didn't you give 24 hours notification before entering that workplace?' The man was dying in the union official's arms, and the government doesn't talk about the workplace health and safety breaches—they ask why they didn't file the paperwork. Well, 24 hours after that man died, is there really a point to issuing a notification that you're going to walk on site? That is the audacity of the government, and that is where they're going.

Then we get to the bill that we have before us. I need to set the record straight on a couple of things that were raised by the previous speaker and that also came up in question time. As I've said previously, the Queensland Police have said that they are not investigating any member of the Oaky North picket line for accusations suggesting that they would rape a child. That is wrong, and every single person in this place stands united in condemning any threats of child rape, any threats of child abuse and any actions of it. The Queensland Police have said, in The Australianwhich is not a workers' paper, which is not a union paper—that they are not investigating that incident. Yet this government—the ministers and the speakers on this bill—used that for political purposes when there is no evidence that it was ever said. The miners at Oaky North have been locked out by their employer, Glencore, for over 117 days—miners, working people, who just want to go back to work.

Today the Fair Work Commission basically issued a stunning rebuke against Glencore for their behaviour and conduct. They have ordered Glencore to order their security company to stop surveilling workers when they're at home. The commission declared that Glencore withdraw its direction in which it tried to discipline workers for being involved in the dispute. It has also said that it must stop the private security company applying military tactics to its anti-worker operations, likening union members to the Vietcong, and following union members and their families into schools and around their homes.

This is the behaviour of the mining company in this dispute: they are following families, they have private security behaving like a military organisation and they are referring to these workers as the Vietcong. They've said openly to the commission, 'We know where every CFMEU member lives.' The company has handed over their personal addresses. This has come out in the commission. The Fair Work Commission has turned around and said to Glencore, 'Stop what you are doing to your own workers.' But not one member of the government has stood up and condemned Glencore. Not one member of the ministry has stood up and condemned this multinational. Instead, they seek to condemn the workers who have been locked out, are frustrated and just want to go back to work. This is the nature of this government.

You can understand why Labor is saying that this bill needs to go to a Senate committee to make sure what is trying to be done is fully understood. The member for Fisher, the previous speaker, said to MATES in Construction, a great organisation: 'Don't worry. We've amended the bill so that your organisation will not be affected.' I don't take the government and the minister at their word, which is why this bill's content should be fully examined.

Worker entitlements funds are a way unions and employers pool resources to support workers, to protect their entitlements and, importantly, to provide services workers may need, such as training, counselling, suicide prevention and OH&S officers, just to name a few. We've already heard about the great work that MATES in Construction do. They're necessary. Every year about 190 construction workers take their own lives. That's a high statistic. Very few other professions would have a suicide statistic that high. A construction worker is six times more likely to die of suicide than from an accident at work. About 5,500 construction workers attempt suicide each year and just under 1,000 of them are permanently disabled because of their attempt. In acknowledging this and knowing this, unions and employers helped establish and fund MATES in Construction.

MATES in Construction was established in Queensland in March 2008 by the building employer redundancy trust—one of the trusts and organisations that this government seeks to target in this bill. MATES in Construction believe that, as a result of this bill, they will lose about 18 per cent of their funding. They estimate that would see a cut to frontline services: a 40 per cent cut in staffing and services in Queensland, a 15 per cent to 20 per cent cut in staffing and services in Western Australia and the organisation having to close in South Australia. That is the impact that MATES in Construction believe this government's bill will have.

This 80-page bill is being rushed through this parliament. We don't really get the chance to explore the true impact. These are significant issues. If the government's intention is to stop unions from being able to provide these types of services to workers, then we on the Labor side cannot support it. There are far too many questions that are yet to be answered about the details of this bill and the impact that this bill will have. This is why it needs to be properly explored.

How does what the bill imposes on registered organisations compare to regulations in place for corporations? Is the bill yet another layer of regulation over and above that that applies under other legislation, such as the fringe benefits tax act and the Corporations Act? How does the proposed deregistering scheme compare with what is in place for managed investment schemes? Again these are more questions that the government needs to answer. We are particularly concerned that the minister will have the power to flesh out details of this new regulatory scheme via regulations—so let's just leave it up to the minister, who knowingly appointed a commissioner who had broken the law. You can understand why we're a little bit sceptical on this side about giving that kind of power to the minister, who knowingly appointed someone who has had to resign because they had broken the law.

Further, why would we not want to encourage more organisations like MATES in Construction? Perhaps the government fails to understand that in a number of workplaces, in a number of industries, employers and employees, through their union, do work collectively and collaboratively together to make sure people are safe at work. I've mentioned MATES in Construction, but there are other organisations that are, for example, tackling drugs, making sure that workers are fit and ready to work. There are lots of schemes being operated to ensure that workers have support. On Friday I will be on site in Victoria attending some toolbox meetings which the CFMEU run around DV prevention, to make sure that their members understand what their role is not just in terms of White Ribbon but in making sure that women are always safe. Will this organisation be at risk because of these changes?

I urge the government to stop its attacks on unions and to start focusing on the real issues in Australian workplaces, like wage theft. Where is the legislation to tackle the chronic issue of wage theft in our country? Where is the government supporting Labor's amendment here today to reverse the cuts to penalty rates? These are the issues that we need to tackle in our workplaces. We do not need more rhetoric from the government or more attacks on unions that are getting on with the job to make sure not only that workers are safe but also that their work rights, their wages and their conditions are protected.

See this speech in context