Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I concur that the member for Macnamara absolutely should be heard in silence! He's a very sharp member, if I may say so! In the chamber we have some very well behaved schoolkids who have been listening to this debate, and I have to say they have done extremely well. They obviously have better things to do than to listen to this particular contribution. But what's in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is very important for the young people of Australia because the sorts of workplaces that these young Australians are going to be entering are ones where there has never been more insecure work. The workplaces that these young Australians are going to be entering are going to have the highest rate of casualisation of any time in Australia's history. Wages have been flatlining for the best part of a decade, and the sort of gender pay gap that confronts especially the female students that have been watching this debate is too high at 14.1 per cent. What we have in this country is an economic system that is really creating so many hurdles for young Australians to get by, and so these young Australians are watching this debate and thinking. They're asking themselves: what am I going to have to show for the 40 years of working in this country? What am I going to have to show for contributing and doing my bit for this country? Well, the majority of young people who are entering the workplace are going to be priced out of the housing market. For especially females working in the lower-paid industries, superannuation will determine their ability to retire with some form of reasonable financial security, and for some that is going to be completely unobtainable. So what is this place doing to try to create the systems and empowerment for those Australians who are going through our workforce to try to have a bit more of an even ledger?

What we've heard from those opposite throughout this entire day has been the same old tired argument. They claim that they want to see higher wages in this country. I've heard a number of speakers on that side of the House—they've all walked out—claiming that they want to see higher wages in this country, which would be believable except for one fact: over the last 10 years, when they were in government, I cannot name, and I challenge the House to name, one initiative that they brought in while they were in government that was designed to lift the wages of Australian workers. There was not one thing, one policy, one piece of legislation that those opposite, when in government, brought into this place that was designed to lift the wages of Australian workers. Instead, we saw attacks on the things like the better-off-overall test. Thankfully, the Senate rejected their continuous attacks on working Australians. But they come into this place, where there is a fair and good piece of legislation that for once is designed to lift the wages of Australian workers, and yet again they are opposing it.

The former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, famously said:

When you change the government, you change the country.

Look at all the differences in wages already in the six months since we took government. Despite the hysteria that those opposite were ranting and raving about—saying a five per cent lift in the minimum wage was going to cause all sorts of chaos and the sky would fall in—all it did was provide a long-overdue pay rise for our lowest-paid workers. That's it. And then we see a refusal by those opposite to back in the wage request of our aged-care workers, people who literally turned up during the height of the pandemic, who put themselves at risk to work in some of the most vulnerable environments, who were understaffed, who were facing the unimaginable circumstances and unimaginable suffering of our old Australians. These people turned up to work to do their best for our older Australians, and those characters on that side of the House didn't even have the heart to back in their wage request at the Fair Work Commission. Think about what it takes to actually deny our aged-care workers the support of their government when they're requesting a rise in wages.

Those opposite oppose the minimum-wage rise. They oppose the wage rise for our aged-care workers. I know that the Minister for Early Childhood Education has been absolutely on the side of our early educators in working to try to get them the support that they need, because they do such important work supporting our youngest Australians, but of course those opposite don't support that. And yet they come into this place with the union-bashing lines that, frankly, haven't won them an election for a long time. What does a typical unionist look like in Australia? It is a 40-year-old woman who's a nurse, a teacher, and aged-care worker or an early childhood worker. These are the people, these are the workers, that those opposite are disparaging. They are the 'thugs'—our teachers, our nurses, our aged-workers, our early childhood education workers, our cleaners. They're the people about whom those opposite come in here with their tired old lines that, frankly, belong in the political conversation of yesteryear.

Instead of denying the minimum-wage increases, instead of denying aged-care workers a pay increase, instead of attacking the better-off-overall test, what does a Labor government do? A Labor government comes into this place and says, 'We want to empower workers and give them more ability to bargain at the enterprise bargaining table.' What do we want to do? We want to make sure that, when companies are advertising their jobs, they don't advertise jobs that are paid below the minimum wage. What do we want to do? We want to make sure that for all of the young Australians who are entering into the workplace and who are facing the highest level of casualisation in the history of our country, the highest level of insecure work in the history of Australia—what we want to do? We want to try and put an end date on that to say that if you are working in a company for two years we think it's fair that you have an opportunity for either part-time or full-time employment and all of the benefits that come with that. What do we want to see? We want to see women who are facing gender pay gaps in this country have a sporting chance to close that gap.

Of course, instead of bringing themselves to support people who are in the workplace doing their bit for Australia they come into this place with the tired, old lines that have nothing to do with this piece of legislation. They are stuck in this age-old conflict with working Australians, but we are not there, and nor do I believe Australians are there. Australians know how important our supermarket workers were during the pandemic. Australians know how important our delivery drivers were during the pandemic. Australians know how important our aged-care workers were during the pandemic—and still are, obviously. Australians know how important our teachers are. Australians know how important our nurses are. Australians know how important the people who serve us at cafes are—who brew coffee, who work in the hospitality industry, who make our cities vibrant and rich. Australians know how important every single worker who is turning up to work with honesty, dignity and pride in this country is. Australians know that they deserve an industrial relations framework that gives them a sporting chance to get by in this country. And Australians know that if you are working in this country for 40 years at the end of all of that you should have something to show for it. If you're giving 40 to 50 years of your life for this country, then this country should set up the framework to ensure that when you retire you have some level of financial security to enjoy your post working life.

Yet those opposite don't come in with any sympathy towards hard-working Australians. They come in with their tired, old union bashing lines, but we don't. We're here. We're proud to set up a strong industrial relations framework. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context