Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017 is another coalition attack on workers and unions. Coalition governments have never been friends of unions—or workers, for that matter—but their attempt, since 1996, to destroy unions has been unprecedented. It began with the waterfront episode in the late nineties involving the Patrick Corporation and Howard government minister Peter Reith. Then there was a royal commission into the building and construction industry, otherwise known as the Cole royal commission. That was followed by an interim building industry task force, which, by 2005, had become the Australian Building and Construction Commission. But that was not sufficient for the coalition. So Work Choices was created, with its real objective being to weaken workers' rights, drive down wages and, most importantly, cripple unions.

The Howard government underestimated the Australian people, and John Howard not only lost government; he also lost his own seat in parliament. I think he was the second Prime Minister that that ever happened to. Again, that is a good example, just like the Patrick Corporation fiasco, of how Australian people will not be fooled. They can see politics when it's being played by whichever side of politics is playing it. They can also see unfairness when it's being perpetrated on the wider community, again regardless of who is perpetrating it. Most people understand common sense, decency and fairness. If that wasn't enough, in the aftermath of the 2007 federal election, as opposition leader, the member for Warringah said Work Choices was 'dead, buried and cremated'. The member for Warringah may well have been right in his reference to the term 'Work Choices', but the coalition ideology of being anti-union is as strong as it ever was.

When Labor was elected in 2007 it put an end to Work Choices and it abolished the ABCC. By contrast, after being elected in 2013 the coalition government's agenda of priorities was to set up another anti-union royal commission—they had had one only a decade earlier, but they needed another one—and to reinstate the ABCC. But that was not all. Every opportunity the Abbott-Turnbull government has had since to weaken unions, it has run with. We saw examples of that with respect to the use of 457 visa holders working in Australia without labour market testing. That was nothing less than an attempt to undermine Australian workers. We saw foreign-flagged ships being allowed to work in Australian waters—we have legislation before the parliament right now to do just that. The real purpose of that is again to weaken Australian workers in the industry and, by weakening them, to weaken the unions. We've seen the use of backdoor methods, such as the registered organisations legislation, to control unions as well. There are examples of that happening right now, as I speak.

Still not satisfied, the coalition now has this legislation before the House. It is simply another attempt to strangle unions. The government claims it is implementing recommendations of the Heydon royal commission—a royal commission that was set up by this government for a very specific purpose, and we know what that purpose was. The real objective of this legislation and of every other anti-union move of the Turnbull government is to weaken the Labor Party by weakening the unions. That is their real objective. Their philosophy is: if we can weaken the unions, we will in turn weaken the Labor Party, who are our strongest opposition on the political landscape.

Indeed, I suspect the car-making industry was killed off by this coalition government because it was a major source of union membership. Killing off the car-making industry, with 200,000 workers across Australia—mainly union members—is a severe blow to the unions in this country. I don't for one moment discount the real motive behind that, because no logical scenario would have you believe that this coalition government couldn't see the economic stupidity of bringing down the car-making industry. In fact, a former minister in their own government, Nick Minchin, strongly advocated for the car industry and believed that the decision of this government to turn its back on the industry was a foolish one. I agree with him. That was a person who was putting the national interest first and not ideology. I have no doubt that the previous minister for industry in this place, Ian Macfarlane, also understood the value of that industry. That's why I believe—I have no evidence—from my analysis of comments he made and my discussions with him, that he was, indeed, supportive of the industry. But it is not to be.

This legislation, as I said, is another attempt to control unions. The minister, in his second reading speech, said, 'The bill implements 10 recommendations of the royal commission aimed at stopping corruption, coercion and financial mismanagement,' and, 'There is no place for this sort of bullying and coercion in the workplace.' Labor do not condone bullying, coercion, corruption and financial mismanagement. We never have, and we never will. But we believe there are already mechanisms available to authorities to ensure that, where bullying, coercion, corruption and financial mismanagement occur, actions can be taken against those who deserve to be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted.

In fact, only yesterday in question time the Prime Minister, in response to a question, boasted about the number of cases currently before the courts in which union members are being prosecuted for breaches. The list is quite long. There are quite a number of cases, and they were reported widely in the media as well. All of those prosecutions, charges or alleged misconduct matters were brought to the court under existing laws, and there is ample scope, whether through our police forces, through the ABCC or through the Registered Organisations Commission, to take action if they believe action is warranted. So we do have the ability to deal with the matters that the minister, in his second reading speech, says this legislation is seeking to address.

My view is that this is simply another way of saying: 'Well, we have all these other mechanisms available to us, but they are not sufficient'—because, quite frankly, in most cases the charges and accusations are frivolous—'so we need to find other ways of stopping this. If we can control the way they manage their funds, that will also serve our purpose, because then obviously we will control their activities. And if we control their activities, they will not continue to be a thorn in our side,' which is what this is all about. It's not about justice or a need to do anything.

This legislation was referred to a committee for inquiry. I understand that the inquiry is meant to report on 10 November. Given that we are now almost at the end of October, that doesn't give the committee a great deal of time to seek submissions and listen to representations and then report back to parliament. But, with the support of the Nick Xenophon Team, the inquiry is now scheduled to report on 10 November. Again, one would have to question why the government wants to rush this. Why is there a need to rush it? What would another couple of weeks have mattered, other than to have given people who want to make a submission more time to do so? I suspect it would have made very little difference. But one difference is that it enables the government to keep talking about unions and accusing unions of wrongdoing without evidence to back up their claims.

As the member for Gorton has quite rightly pointed out, there are other matters that need to be addressed and that the government could be focusing on that are much more important. The member for Gorton has moved an amendment that goes to the heart of the abolition of penalty rates or the winding down of penalty rates in this country. When penalty rates were wound down, several independent, objective commentators made it clear that it would hurt a lot of vulnerable Australians—and hurt them hard. Indeed, the people who are likely to be receiving penalty rates are those who do the out-of-hours work, and the only reason they do the out-of-hours work is that they are in a desperate situation in which they need to do whatever work is on offer. So they not only work out of hours but they generally work for a lower hourly rate, and I will come to that in just a moment. As soon as the penalty rates decision was handed down, the St Vincent de Paul Society said, in a public statement they put out:

Cutting penalty rates will not create jobs but it will build inequality.

…   …   …

This cut will disproportionately affect women, young people and people who already carry the burden of inequality. The rights of workers should take priority over the maximisation of profits.

They couldn't have said it better. That sums up exactly what the cut to penalty rates is all about. It is about profits over giving workers a fair income.

I just want to talk about the hourly rates of some of these people because this is a point that is often missed. Quite often the talk simply centres around saying that penalty rates are 175 per cent, 150 per cent, 125 per cent or whatever they may be, but the real dollar figures are rarely mentioned. Let me give you a case study. For a fast-food worker, the current 150 per cent loading means they get $29.16 an hour working out of hours. With the cut, it will be down to $24.30. The minimum wage hourly rate is $18.29. That is the minimum. The average weekly wage hourly rate is around $35. So what we're saying to these people is, 'You can work Saturday or Sunday nights or throughout the night,' as many fast-food workers do, 'and you'll get paid $24.30 for your work,' when someone on the average weekly wage—and this is not a high wage but the average weekly wage—is on $35 an hour. So you're paying those people considerably less than the average weekly wage for doing out-of-hours work. It is simply not right and simply not fair.

Not surprisingly, the unions are standing up for those low-paid workers and trying to have that decision reversed. That is what the government should be trying to do if it genuinely cares about people who are struggling in this country, people who are now being made even more worse off than they already were. Again, this is making the gap between rich and poor in Australia even wider. Those are the issues that the government could be addressing and should be addressing rather than attacking the unions, who are the very organisations that are standing up for those low-paid workers who are struggling to make ends meet. When people can't make ends meet, there are two things that happen: they turn to the government for help, which means the government now has to pay out more money, or they turn to organisations like St Vincent de Paul. So it's not like the community doesn't pick up the cost. It does.

Worst of all for the government itself, which is trying to balance its budget, the foolishness of cutting penalty rates undoubtedly will create another hit to the tax income stream of the government. So what does the government then do? It turns on lower paid workers even more, as we have seen with the legislation we were debating in the House only yesterday, to do with NDIS, where the government wants to tax people on lower incomes even more in order to make up for the lost revenue that it has incurred as a result of making decisions which are not in the national interest. (Time expired)

See this speech in context