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

The announcement today from the government that they're appointing former member for Indi Sophie Mirabella to the Fair Work Commission did not come out of a vacuum. This is not just one bad appointment—one crazy ideological appointment; it's actually part of a very deliberate strategy of hard-line ideology from this government. For the commission to function as it's meant to function, there needs to be a balance between the employer and the employee representatives, but, for eight long years now, this government has been stacking the commission with employer reps only and conservative ideologues to make sure that workers have less of a voice. And now they have gone to make the blatant political appointment of a former Liberal MP, the least conciliatory member of this House in living memory, to be in charge of conciliation for every workplace in Australia.

Are they just trying to stack the Fair Work Commission? Are they trying to undermine its credibility? Because this can do both. This is a government hell-bent not just on attacking the Labor Party but on attacking the rights of workers themselves. Ideologically, Australia was meant to be in a different position to countries like the United States. More than a hundred years ago, we had a world-leading decision with the Harvester judgement, and, in doing that, we decided as a nation that there would be a social contract, that there would effectively be a settlement, that the livelihoods and wages of workers would not only be based on the profits of the companies but actually be based on the needs of the individuals. That settlement for a long time was respected by each side of politics. We had some outbreaks with the Bruce government. We had outbreaks with work choices from the Howard government. But that principle has basically been at the core of the Australian concept of a fair go—that settlement: that workers, their rights and their needs are how you work out what their minimum wage needs to be.

But today's appointment is not the beginning of the government trying to undermine that settlement. They did it with the trade union royal commission by appointing somebody who was also appearing as the featured guest for Liberal Party fundraisers as the alleged impartial judge. They did it with the politicised ABCC; the politicised Registered Organisations Commission; the failed anti-union ensuring integrity laws; the failed anti-worker IR reforms last week, which, when they were presented to this parliament, were, in black and white, a how-to guide for cutting wages. And they did it with the endless stacking of the Fair Work Commission in favour of employers and hardline ideologists. The attacks on workers never end.

When you get a new player going in there like the gig economy which is entirely working on a race to the bottom on wages, where people are being paid less than the legal minimum, what's the response from the government? It's: 'Fixing that is complicated. It's complicated.' No, sorry, it's the exact same principle that the Harvester judgement was fixing more than a century ago—that, if all you look at is a race to the bottom on wages, then you don't give people dignity. Australia was meant to be above that, but this government is clearly not above a race to the bottom when it comes to wages for the Australian workforce.

Then we end up with the Sophie Mirabella appointment. What chance do you think you'll have if you've got an anti-bullying claim and you take it to the commission and you discover Commissioner Mirabella—or deputy president; we don't know which title she'll be given yet—is actually in charge of judging whether or not you've been bullied or treated unfairly based on your gender? This is the same person who, just outside the chamber, when the 'ditch the witch' signs were there, was there with other members of the parliament who still occupy the front bench on that side of politics. This is the same person who turned up outside a Labor electorate office with a coffin as a prop, and the government thinks that's the sort of person who should be in charge of deciding whether or not vulnerable workers have been bullied. That's the sort of person who's now going to be in charge of deciding whether or not you're being treated fairly at work. That's the sort of person who's going to be put in charge of conciliation. The least conciliatory human you could get in this place is now in charge of making the peace. A person who described John Howard's work choices as 'big but fair' and 'significant but necessary' will earn around $400,000 a year for the next 13 years to oversee Australia's workplaces. That ought to send a chill down the spine of every Australian worker.

This is not just a one-off appointment; this is part of a stacking operation by this government. Let's not pretend this is just, 'Oh, yes, the government appoints their people, but we'd appoint ours if we were in government.' No. Labor made sure we were appointing people from both sides of the bargaining table, because that's how the commission had worked for more than a century. But this government has decided, in terms of appointments, it's winner takes all. What that means in terms of disputes is that workers lose all. That's where that gets you.

But, as I say, this is not the only appointment that creates a problem and it's not just the general trend. Also in the papers today we have one of their other appointments, Deputy President Gerard Boyce. This is someone who is meant to work out whether or not you could go with a dispute saying: 'There are sexualised images in my workplace. I don't feel comfortable at work. I want the commission to be able to properly hear the matter.' What chance do you have when the commissioner himself brought to his workplace, the commission, scantily clad, erotic anime figures? He decorated his own office in the exact way that workers are meant to be protected from in their workplace. And he's put in charge to be the umpire? Then, when people complained about it, he decided he would show how impartial he was. How did he do that? He brought in a life-size cardboard cut-out of Donald Trump. Then, when he was worried about people looking at what in his office, he put up fake surveillance equipment to scare people off. Then, at the Christmas party last year in New South Wales, where fireworks are unlawful, he started throwing explosive devices down from a balcony.

Do I need to go through the list of what he's meant to be defending? It's workplace health and safety, the rule of law, people having safe workplaces and people being able to work in an environment that's free from offensive images. This is not talking about some random person who turned up at a Liberal Party fundraiser and someone got a photograph with him and we're saying, 'It's outrageous this is who you associate with.' This is who the government appointed. He gets paid $470,000 a year as a deputy president. And, because it's a quasi-judicial appointment, he is there until the year 2038. Will anyone from the other side defend this as a good appointment? It didn't go through the parliament. I'll tell you where it went through. It went through the cabinet of Australia. I say to those backbenchers opposite, those people who are not members of cabinet: the people who your side has decided have the best judgement available on your side of the chamber decided he should be put in charge of every Australian workplace. They decided Sophie Mirabella should be put in charge of every Australian workplace. They decided to put protagonists in as umpires. If they were doing it on both sides even-handedly you could say, 'It'll work out in the wash through a series of appeals to the commission.' But, no. Every single decision goes the same way. Every single appointment goes the same way. It's a stacking of the industrial commission and a deliberate strategy to undermine the workforce of Australia.

Those opposite might not care, because for those opposite it would be years since any of them were reliant on an award wage. But I'll tell you what; the people on this side of the House will defend people who rely on award wages. The people on this side of the House will defend people who are reliant on a wage in an enterprise agreement. The people on this side of the House know that, if the umpires are no good, the outcomes are going to be no good. I say to those opposite: think of how many times you have watched a sporting match. Maybe that's something you'll understand if you don't understand workplace law. How many times have you thought, 'That umpire made a weighted decision.' Then think that you are responsible for putting umpires who are not up to the job in charge of every workplace in Australia. When people aren't getting a pay rise, don't think, 'I wonder how that happened?' You will have done that. When agreements get past that leave workers worse off, don't think, 'That's just the system.' No. You own those outcomes. If you make these appointments, you own those outcomes. If you abandon or up-end the concept of a settlement between the labour workforce and getting a fair share of profit then when people are worse off it is not an accident; it's because you did it.

Only two weeks ago I was with workers who are living some of these outcomes right now, and they need better industrial relations laws. I was with the leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, and the member for Hotham, Clare O'Neil, at the McCormick dispute. These are workers who for five years have not had a pay rise—five years. Go back and check your tax records and see what you were earning five years ago and think, would you even like to go back to that? I tell you what, you were always earning a hell of a lot more than these workers are. And for these workers, after not getting a pay rise for five years, what do you think the offer from the company was, if they didn't want to lose their penalty rates, which would see them go backwards? The offer from the company, for the next enterprise agreement, if they were not willing to give up penalty rates and other entitlements, was zero—a zero percentage increase. If they agreed to that, it would leave them for eight years without a pay rise.

This is real. This is what's happening in the Australian workforce out there. And those opposite—worse than turning a blind eye to it—are contributing to low wages outcomes in this country by the appointments they're making and by the refusal to provide changes to industrial laws that would actually deliver improvements rather than further cuts. McCormick—you might not know their name, but I tell you what, you know their products. They make the sauces for McDonald's, for KFC, for Nando's, for Subway and for other famous herb-and-spice brands, such as Keen's mustard and curry. They are a substantial multinational business, and they can afford to pay. There's one thing that lets them think they can get away without giving a pay rise, and it is the Morrison government. That gives them heart, because they know that if they don't agree to another enterprise agreement there are not going to be industrial laws forcing their hand. They know that, if they continue to provide zero percentage increases to people's wages, no-one's going to improve things for those people.

I met Mary, age 55. She's worked there for 33 years. We went through worker after worker on the picket line. These are loyal, hardworking workers who are being treated appallingly by this company. In return for their loyalty they get a zero per cent pay rise. They deserve better. And every time the government wants to run some scare campaign about unions, I would share this simple fact; those opposite are doing nothing to get them the pay rise. But the UWU is trying to get them a pay rise. I met union officials who were standing with those workers on the picket line, trying to make sure they get a pay rise.

And when I came back here, what did I find that the government was doing? The government was getting rid of its laws on wage theft. The government was wanting to make it easier to casualise people. The government was making appointments to make sure it's easier to keep wages low and it's easier to make sure people have their entitlements removed. Those opposite often see workplace relations, industrial relations, as some sort of complex, clubby policy area. It's not. It's about the take-home pay of the majority of Australians, and those opposite are making sure that it is less secure and that it stays low.

See this speech in context