David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s attack on the living standards of Australian families and the Australian way of life by legislating away people’s hard won conditions of employment and as a consequence reducing their take home pay.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government’s attack on the living standards of Australian families by legislating away hard won conditions of employment and, as a consequence, reducing their take-home pay is conclusively proved by the Spotlight AWA.

John Howard’s 2c an hour race to the bottom has begun. The government, in this matter, are guilty as charged. The Spotlight AWA has sprung them, and what is now in the spotlight is the government’s race to the bottom. For the princely sum of 2c an hour, we now know that all those conditions and entitlements that Australian working families have come to rely upon to make up an important part of their take-home pay and to enable them to pay their mortgages are now gone for the princely sum of 2c an hour. Knowing John Howard as I do, if he had the chance he would try to round the 2c an hour down.

We have had two days in question time on the Spotlight AWA, and what do we know? Firstly we know that Spotlight is Australia’s largest fabric, craft and home decorating superstore. This is no fly-by-night, walk-in, walk-out employer in a corner store. This is a major employer, with revenue exceeding $600 million, nearly 90 stores operating in Australia and nearly 100 across the region, three million square feet of floor space and 5,000 to 6,000 employees.

If you look at the conduct of Spotlight, although we might be very, very angry about the outcome, it is true to say that they have conducted themselves appropriately and in accordance with the law that the government has set for the nation. I made the point yesterday that if you go to Spotlight’s web site you will find that there is a capacity for people to apply for a job with Spotlight online. Also on that website you will find that attached to the application for employment is advice from the Australian government’s Office of Employment Advocate, which details the government’s so-called minimum conditions and standards. So Spotlight have made it crystal clear that, if you apply for an AWA and a job with Spotlight, there are five minimum standards: a minimum wage, four weeks paid annual leave, 10 days paid personal carer’s leave, 52 weeks unpaid parental leave and maximum ordinary hours of work of 38 hours per week.

So Spotlight have made it crystal clear that their AWA is consistent with those minimum standards. They then proceed to do what the government’s legislation points them in the direction of—to knock off all the other conditions and entitlements for the princely sum of 2c an hour, which is precisely what John Howard wants them to do. It is not as though John Howard has wanted them to do this only since 27 March this year. John Howard has wanted employers to do that since the 1990s. This is precisely the policy approach that he, as the Liberal Party’s shadow minister for industrial relations, took to the 1993 federal election under the guise of Jobsback. Just as the Australian community threw out Fightback on that occasion, it also threw out Jobsback. Chastened by that experience, it is little wonder that, on this occasion, we heard nothing about this in the run-up to the last election.

That, I think, is a very appropriate starting point, because it has been interesting to see the responses in the media today to the Spotlight AWA, to which we drew attention in the parliament yesterday. Annette Harris, the 57-year-old Coffs Harbour employee who was presented with the AWA, said:

I thought it was an insult; absolutely disgusting. I voted Liberal all my life, but there’s no way I’d sign up to this.

She voted Liberal all her life. Did John Howard tell her anything about these matters in the run-up to the last election? No, on the contrary: at the Liberal Party’s policy launch of its industrial relations policy in Brisbane in the course of the 2004 campaign, John Howard was expressly asked whether he was proposing to reduce the number of allowable matters, and he said no. The Prime Minister was asked in that election campaign, ‘Are you proposing to reduce the number of allowable matters?’ and he said no. That was a disingenuous misleading of the Australian people—then and now.

We find the General Manager Marketing of Spotlight making it clear that Spotlight are conducting themselves in the way in which the government’s legislation points them. The General Manager Marketing is reported today as saying:

We are doing what we were told to do by the legislators.

…         …         …

We are just doing whatever we are required to do to meet the minimum conditions set out by the Australian Fair Pay Commission.

They got that wrong, but they know that they are required to meet minimum conditions. He was further reported as saying:

Our AWA obviously meets all of the Work Choices requirements ... which includes all those five minimum conditions ...

…     …         …

We’ve been very careful to make sure it complies with everything. We are not the ones writing the laws. Like any other legislation we fall under, we follow it.

So we are just doing what the legislation of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations tells us to do. When I put to the Prime Minister today, ‘Isn’t this just the start of your 2c an hour race to the bottom?’ he said, ‘No, none of that.’ Why, then, do we find Mr McKendry, Chief Executive of the National Retail Association, the formal industry organisation for retailers, say this in respect of the Spotlight AWA:

Far from being defensive about it, the National Retail Association applauds it because we think a lot of other retailers will follow Spotlight’s lead.

…            …            …

We think it’s pretty ... smart ...

…            …            …

We think a lot of other retailers will follow Spotlight’s lead.

That is the Prime Minister’s, the Liberal Party’s and the National Party’s 2c an hour race to the bottom—the shifting of part of the economy from the wages section of the economy to the profit section of the economy, encouraged by the government’s legislation. That is the Liberal Party’s and the National Party’s individual, joint and several, collective 2c an hour race to the bottom.

Let us very clearly understand what the Spotlight AWA is all about. Today the Prime Minister was asked by both me and the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Isn’t it the case that, consistent with the legislation, the AWA offered by Spotlight gives 2c an hour for losing penalty rates, overtime payments, rest breaks, incentive based payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings and public holidays?’ The Prime Minister said, ‘I made that clear when the legislation was going through the House.’ What the Prime Minister always made clear when the legislation was going through the House was that his defence mechanism was always that, in the absence of explicit provisions to the contrary, there is a default provision in the new policy which will guarantee the penalty rates and loadings in the award. Time after time I would say publicly, ‘All that can go with a one-line stroke of a pen,’ but on more than one occasion the Prime Minister and the minister said, ‘No, that’s not the case.’ So what do we find now in clause 20 of Spotlight’s AWA? A one-line throwaway stroke of the pen which sells down the river rest breaks, incentive based payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings, public holidays, loadings for overtime or shiftwork and penalty rates, including for work on public holidays. They are all sold down the river for the princely sum of 2c an hour at the stroke of a pen.

When he knows he is in trouble the Prime Minister likes to say, ‘Oh, I wouldn’t take that quotation at its face value.’ But in August last year, when public concern about the government’s proposals was at the height of interest and concern, the Prime Minister went on one of his favourite radio stations and said to Alan Jones:

... it would be absurd and unfair and unreasonable if somebody has to work on a public holiday that that person isn’t compensated by being paid whatever it is, the double time or the time and a half ...

Not even the Prime Minister would be able to find wriggle room to get out of that one. Do you know what the compensation is now? It is 2c an hour. That is what you would get under the Spotlight AWA—and the Prime Minister says it would be absurd, unfair and unreasonable if someone had to work on a public holiday if they were not compensated properly.

Currently, under the New South Wales award, if you work on a public holiday you get double time and a half, or $35.70 per hour. Under the Spotlight AWA you get $14.30 an hour. So much for John Howard’s hand-on-heart commitment to Alan Jones and the Australian people that it would be ‘absurd, unfair and unreasonable to not compensate someone properly for working on a public holiday’. That is just one example. Let us look at what the Spotlight AWA means. To Annette Harris it meant that, for the princely sum of 2c an hour, she lost $90 a week. That is what it meant to her. The Prime Minister’s defence of that at question time was to say that the ultimate test of a change in industrial relations legislation is its effect on the economy. Are we now suggesting that to knock off Annette Harris’s wage by $90 a week is somehow essential for the good of the economy?

When this legislation was adopted, the Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box and said, ‘The mere passage of this legislation will automatically see an increase in employment.’ Therefore, it is interesting to observe in the budget papers that the budget figures of the Treasurer, who has been Acting Prime Minister this week, show a decline in employment growth over the outlay years. The Prime Minister’s ultimate defence of these measures is to say that the ultimate test is whether it is good for the economy. Thank you very much. He can now go and tell Mrs Harris and the other 10 million Australian employees that, for the benefit of the ultimate good of the Australian economy, they will have $90 a week knocked off their wages.

What happens under the Spotlight AWA? The base rate of pay under the award is $14.28 per hour; under the Spotlight AWA it is $14.30 per hour. The Saturday penalty rate is $17.85 per hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Under the award the Sunday penalty rate is $21.42 per hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Under the award the public holiday penalty rate is $35.70 an hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Then there is overtime. Under the award it is time and a half for the first two hours, $21.42, and double time for all other hours, $28.56. Under the AWA there is no overtime, just $14.30 per hour. As for rest breaks—a toilet break question was asked at question time today—under the award there is a paid 10-minute break; under the AWA there is no paid rest break. Ordinary hours are set out as being 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Wednesday, 7 am to 9 pm Thursday to Friday, 7 am to 6 pm Saturday and 8 am to 5 pm Sunday. Under the AWA all hours worked are ordinary hours at $14.30 per hour. Under the award there is annual leave loading of 17.5 per cent; under the AWA there is no leave loading. It goes on and on.

I will give a couple of scenarios and not just Mrs Harris’s, who drew this matter to attention. A full-time adult employee working shifts of Thursday night, Saturday night and Sunday—and I do not know a Spotlight store that is not open on Thursday night or Saturday—under the award gets $634.75; under the AWA they get $543.40. That represents $91.35 a week down the gurgler. For full-time employees who are rostered on a public holiday, under the AWA the value of the public holiday loss is $53.96. In New South Wales, there are 10 or 11 public holidays per year, which equates to $500 down the gurgler.

Why are we doing this? Because the only way the government can see to improve our economy is by cutting the wages of Australian employees and workers. That is its ultimate justification. We are going to cut wages because it will improve our economy—as though somehow cutting wages to New Zealand levels, which a couple of months ago is what the industry minister said we should do, would enable people in Sydney to pay their mortgages. However, if this means New Zealand wages tomorrow, the cutting of wages to benefit our economy approach can only mean Indian, Indonesian and Chinese wages next week. That is not the way to improve our economy. That is not the way to ensure that Australia is a productive economy. That is not the way to ensure that we continue to be a prosperous nation.

The way to ensure that we continue to be a prosperous nation is to ensure that we make an investment in the productive activity of our society and our economy. That means an investment in education and training, an investment in skills, an investment in research and development, an investment in infrastructure—all of which this government has complacently ignored and neglected in the course of its 10 years in office. In addition to the creation of wealth by being a prosperous and productive economy, we need to ensure that all Australians have the chance to share fairly in the proceeds of that productive economy and productive society. That is at the heart of the public policy evil of the government’s legislation—not allowing Australian working families and middle Australia to share fairly in a prosperous economy and a prosperous society. The Spotlight AWA has sprung the government. The government is intent only on reducing the living standards, wages and take-home pay of Australian employees. When we come to office, things like the Spotlight AWA will be torn up and thrown away.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For most Australians, sharing in the prosperity of the economy starts with the chance of a job. Something that a successful Labour leader—not of this country, but the Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain—told his comrades in the Trades Union Congress when he first spoke to them was that fairness starts with the chance of a job.

What we have not heard, either in the remarks this afternoon from the member for Perth or in the questions in question time today or yesterday, is that, as Spotlight have advised, they have created over the last few weeks something like 90 to 95 new jobs for their stores in Australia. Indeed, some 40 or so new jobs, I understand from information provided by or through the company, have been created with the opening of a new store in the western suburbs of Sydney—some 40 new jobs. Beyond that, I am told that the overwhelming majority of people who have been provided a job by Spotlight with the opening of this new store in the western suburbs of Sydney were previously unemployed. Let us put this in the context of what that means for somebody who is unemployed in Australia today. If you are unemployed, your gross weekly income—your benefit from Newstart—is $205.30. An unemployed person offered a job under the Spotlight AWA, which is being referred to by the member for Perth, would receive $543.40 per week—$205.30 on Newstart or $543.40 on the AWA referred to by the member for Perth.

Yesterday the member for Perth held up 2c. Let me demonstrate graphically, using real money, what that means to a person who goes from Newstart to a wage under this AWA. It is not $50, it is not $100, it is not $150, it is not $200, it is not $220, it is not $240, it is not $260, it is not $280, it is not $300, it is not $320, it is not $330, it is not $335, it is not $338; it is $338.10 extra. By comparison that is the extra amount that an unemployed person currently receiving $205.30 on Newstart would have at the end of the week. Those real people who are unemployed in the western suburbs of Sydney and will now get a job from Spotlight as a result of the opening of the new store and the provision of jobs will be a total of $338.10 a week better off. We see the member for Perth floating around and holding up 2c in this place, but $338.10 of real money will be in their pockets to provide for themselves and their families if they have them.

Not only do they have $338.10 extra as a result of having a job; they have the chance to get another job and get on in life. What the data, the statistics, the research and the records overwhelmingly show is that, when somebody gets a job, it is a stepping stone to another job. It used to be called, as I recall the former Leader of the Opposition saying, the ‘first rung on the ladder of opportunity’. In the Labor Party it seems that that ladder of opportunity has gone the way that the former leader went. That is the reality and that is the comparison.

These people in Western Sydney who did not have a job, were surviving on $205.30 per week and are now taking home a gross income of $543.40 per week, are getting more than double the amount they would have received on Newstart. In fact, it will be more than double even when you take the tax out. That is the comparison which the Labor Party does not want to address in this debate at all.

Implicit in the argument by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth is that a person is better off remaining on Newstart and taking home $205 of government benefits than having a job at $543 a week and being able to do more for themselves and their families with that additional money. That is the implicit argument which is being run by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth. I say to members of this House and to anybody listening to this broadcast that that is not the position of this government. This government believes that in giving more people jobs in this country, and in particular a number of people who did not have jobs, Spotlight is doing a much better thing—and that is sharing in the prosperity of this country.

We hear rhetoric from the other side about sharing in the prosperity of this country when they are not concerned enough to actually do something to create jobs, particularly for young Australians who are still unemployed. That is not sharing in the prosperity of this country at all. As Tony Blair said to the Trades Union Congress when he became the Prime Minister of Great Britain: ‘Fairness starts with the chance of a job.’ That is something which we fundamentally believe on this side of the House. The opposition do not believe that—they do not believe that fairness starts with the chance of a job. Well, we do and we will continue to propound that to the people of Australia.

In addition to the fact that these people now have a job, there are protections in the legislation for these jobs. There are protections in the Australian fair pay and conditions standard, which says that the safety net wage, which was established by the Industrial Relations Commission last year, is a starting point below which somebody cannot go. Also, you have to be accorded four weeks of annual leave in the written agreement, whether it is an individual Australian workplace agreement or a collective agreement. That has to be in the agreement. There also have to be provisions relating to personal leave, carers leave and sick leave. All of these things are protections in the agreement. Further, the ordinary 38-hour week prevails under the protections in the Australian fair pay and conditions standard. On top of that, the Australian Fair Pay Commission has the ability—and we will address this issue in spring this year—to actually increase minimum wages in Australia.

I remind members on the other side that the current economic climate which we enjoy in Australia came about because of the reforms that were undertaken in the past. They objected to these reforms in language and rhetoric very similar to that which they use in objecting to Work Choices now. Because of those reforms we are enjoying a prosperous economy, and, in those circumstances, one could expect that the Fair Pay Commission would increase the minimum wage so that workers can continue to share in Australia’s prosperity.

But what has sharing in the prosperity meant for Australians over the last decade? First of all, it has meant that something like 1.7 million extra jobs have been created in Australia—1.7 million of our fellow Australians have jobs today that they did not have when we came to government in 1996. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training in the Hawke-Keating government. To paraphrase him, he said that this was the job that least interested him and that he had less passion for than anything else. It is no wonder when, under his regime, unemployment generally was at over eight per cent. It reached double figures in the ‘recession we had to have’ as a result of prescriptive labour market regulation in Australia, amongst other things. We are a far cry from that. We have 1.7 million extra jobs in this country, partly as a consequence of good economic management and partly as a consequence of the preparedness of this government to make significant ongoing reform to the economy to address the challenges of the future.

Had we stood where we were in 1996 and accepted the rhetoric and the argument of the opposition against the Workplace Relations Act, would we be where we are today? No. A study by Access Economics indicated that, if we had not made those reforms, the unemployment rate in Australia today would be closer to eight per cent rather than five per cent. Something like 300,000 of our fellow Australians would not have the job they have today had we listened to the rhetoric which was coming from the opposition back in 1996—the same rhetoric that we are getting today against Work Choices.

Sharing in prosperity has meant a chance of a job for 1.7 million Australians that they did not have back in 1996. Not only do they have a job but they are being paid more for those jobs. Let us again put this in historical context. Throughout the 13 years of  Labor government, the Hawke-Keating governments, real wages in this country increased by about 1.2 to 1.3 per cent. Through the 1980s, as a result of the accord between the ACTU and the then Labor government in Australia, real wages went backwards. In fact the only time since I think the end of the Second World War—I might stand corrected—that real wages have gone backwards in Australia was when we had a Labor government deal with the unions to drive those wages down. That 1.2 or 1.3 per cent increase in real wages through the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments is contrasted to a 16.8 per cent increase in real wages in the last 10 years. There is hardly a comparison between a one per cent and a 16 per cent increase in real wages. If we are talking about sharing in prosperity, which was the rhetoric of the member for Perth, not only have we got 1.7 million extra jobs in Australia but we have also seen an almost 17 per cent increase in real wages for Australians.

Thirdly, in terms of sharing in prosperity, many more Australians are in work rather than being on the unemployment queues. What was the unemployment rate when we came to government? Something like eight per cent. In some electorates my colleagues here could point to there were much higher rates of unemployment than that eight per cent. What is it nationally today? About five per cent. If you go to the member for Perth’s state of Western Australia, the unemployment rate is 3.8 per cent. By any modern definition, that is close to if not full employment. I was in Western Australia last week and at every meeting and function where I spoke to business owners and operators they were saying, ‘Where can we find the workers to do the jobs to continue the prosperity of this economy?’

Part of the prosperity which has been enjoyed by workers in Western Australia includes the fact that many of them have taken up the advantages of Australian workplace agreements and have got the extra pay which comes with those agreements. Australian workplace agreements on average pay people something like 13 per cent more than people on collective agreements. They pay people something like 100 per cent more on average than people who are employed under awards. In the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate there have been 18,471 Australia workplace agreements entered into since 1996—almost 20,000 Australian workplace agreements just in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition. In the electorate of the previous speaker, the member for Perth, there has been 10,391 Australian workplace agreements since 1996. In those two electorates alone, out of the 150 electorates in Australia, we have seen almost 30,000 Australian workplace agreements entered into. Why, on 30,000 occasions, have people entered into Australian workplace agreements? They have entered into them because of the advantage to them and their families of entering into those agreements.

It is just like the unemployed person in Western Sydney who has been given the chance of a job, who says, ‘Yes, I am prepared to take the job because I am better off earning $540 rather than $205 a week.’ Yes, this is about money. It is about real money. It is about that $338 which someone who is unemployed can be better off by each week because they have taken an Australian workplace agreement. But we have sneering about that from the opposition, just like when the member for Lilley told us last year that $600 was not real money. I can assure the opposition that $338 extra in your pocket is real money to many Australians.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations might think that sounded really good in here, but I challenge him to walk into Annette Harris’s lounge room and explain to her family, who are going to have to deal with $90 a week less in her pay packet, how wonderful that deal is for her and indeed for the many other women who work in the retail industry. I do not think they would be receiving it with any sort of standing ovation at all and I do not think the minister’s justification for an overall general increase in employment and in the average wage is going to give an awful lot of satisfaction or comfort to that particular family and the many others like them who will also be employed under these conditions at Spotlight and, as the contagion spreads, at other retailers in this country.

Let me just take you into a Spotlight store. I do not know if the minister has actually been in one. He might not do as much craft or sewing as some of us do on this side of the House. I can assure him that I am regularly there and if I have not got time my mother regularly drags me down there. Spotlight is a big retailer. You walk in and they have a lot of craft and hobby sections, a big material section and a home furnishing section. It is a nice place to spend an hour or two. It is a nice place to spend the $90 that you have probably just lost out of your wage and will not be able to spend in the future. What you will notice is that it is by and large staffed by women. They are, generally speaking, women in the 30 to 60 age range. Why? Because they are the ones who tend to have the practical knowledge and skills about the sorts of services and products sold by Spotlight and they can then impart that to people who come into the store. We would all recognise those who go into these stores—people who like craft, hobbies, sewing and beautifying the home, which is a tremendously well followed hobby in Australia, as people value their homes and seek to make them look better.

What we are talking about is a female intensive industry—not only Spotlight but also across the retail industry. These women generally work casual or part-time hours, and they take a great deal of pride in their work. By and large they also love going to work. They enjoy social relationships with their fellow workers and the clients, and they take a great deal of pride in what they do. What you would have heard—and what I hope the minister would have heard, but I doubt it—in Annette Harris’s comments was that a woman who works in retail and who takes pride in what she does would see herself as an exemplary employee who has pride in her work and for the business she works for, and she simply asks for a little respect in return for the labour she provides. I suspect she would think that the award that she was paid under—which was hardly an award that you might find for workers on a big mineral deposit in Western Australia such that the minister wanted to talk about—was not a bad award, and she probably felt that that the remuneration and conditions under which she worked gave her some dignity.

The new agreement does completely the opposite. It basically says: ‘We want you to continue to provide that service at the standard that you do, taking pride in the job that you do, but we take less than that pride in you and we are going to cut $90 a week out of your pay.’ That is the reality. For all the minister’s rhetoric, and for all his generalisations, that is the reality for those women in that industry who will have those sorts of agreements put before them. It is a kick for them after what is in Annette’s case, and I am sure in many others, many years of service to that particular industry. I say to the minister that it is a bad job to have to sell. He probably gave it a fairly good effort in this House, but that line will not run in the homes where they are facing these realities. It will not run, Minister. If you want to go out there and put the argument, I invite you to do so.

The company says that these women will continue under the current award and new employees will be signed up to this new agreement. Someone who works on a Saturday—and Spotlight, which services many working women, is regularly open on Thursday nights, Saturdays and Sundays—would have earned $142.80 a day under the award but now they will earn $111.40 for a typical eight-hour day. On Sundays, they would have earned $171.36, but now they will earn $111.40. So on a Sunday alone, they will earn $57 less for that days work.

The ‘good news’ for current workers is that potentially, in the future, they will get $57 a day less, but the reality is that they will not get the work. That is what will happen. These new employees that the minister boasted about—these 90 to 95 jobs that have been created—will replace those employees who work any sort of shift that provides any sort of penalty rate. So not only will they potentially lose $57 a day in the future, but right now, as soon as those new jobs are online, they will lose those shifts. They will be allowed to work only a standard nine to five job at normal rates, and the new staff will work at those lower rates on those shifts to get rid of the penalty imposts on the employer altogether.

I say to existing employees, who are obviously worried and upset that this proposal has been brought in, that they will also feel the direct and immediate impacts of this in the loss of the shifts that they rely on to get that bit of extra money, particularly in areas like Western Sydney, where the minister has indicated a new store will open—in the member for Werriwa’s area, in my area and in many areas around Sydney and the outer suburbs, where the mortgage rates are breaking the backs of many families who rely on that money to meet those commitments. This is not a bit of extra spending money; this is basic family budget money. If you go out and talk to those families, that is the reality for them.

I would suspect they were pretty sceptical to start with about the $10 they would have got in the budget cuts, but they will be far less than impressed when they see this sort of thing—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And then there’s their petrol costs.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and their petrol costs and their private health insurance costs and the increase in interest rates. In respect of the new jobs that will be created, the minister and the Prime Minister have argued consistently in this place that any job, even a slave-wage job, is better than no job. That is simply not true. The minister would not put himself through the indignity of saying: ‘I’m in a well-paid job. How about I split my pay in half and give somebody else a job?’ Would the minister do that? Would the minister say, ‘I’ll halve my pay, no problems’? Half his pay would probably pay for six of these women in full-time jobs. The minister would not do it because he would expect people to have some respect and dignity and he would expect fair compensation for the sort of work that he puts in on behalf of this nation. These people deserve no less. These people are doing jobs with pride and dignity and they do not deserve a minister who says, ‘Don’t feel bad about having your value undercut; you’ll provide jobs for somebody else so you can all be paid less than enough to make a living on.’ That is a disgraceful argument, Minister. You would not take that attitude yourself. How dare you expect other people in the workforce to take that attitude.

The minister got up and talked to us about the importance of superannuation and the co-payments. He boasted about how that was so great for women workers. I will tell you why the co-payments are so common for women workers. It is because by and large they earn so much less and they work such unreliable hours that they do not have an entitlement to the normal super that we all expect to need for our retirement. If the minister thinks the super program will continue to flourish under pay rates like this, he is kidding himself. The reality is that you have to get a bit of extra money to put aside for savings in the first place. If you are going to have your pay rate cut by $90 a week, there is no way in the world a female worker in John Howard’s workforce would have the capacity to put away for super. So, Minister, start putting away for the pensions for all these women when they hit retirement, because they certainly will not have savings. This Spotlight award has exposed exactly what the Work Choices legislation is about. It is driving wages down. Who are the first, most soft and vulnerable people to be hit? Young people and women. And that is exactly what Spotlight shone the light on.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third time this sitting that we find ourselves debating an MPI of this nature. It was not enough to raise this MPI yesterday or even to have the arguments being run yesterday during the disallowance motion; we also had it two weeks ago. The arguments that the ALP are running, their contributions on this debate, are frankly becoming repetitive. They have not just been repetitive in the last two or three weeks; they have been repetitive in the last 10 years. We have been hearing these same arguments over and over again—today, yesterday, two weeks ago, 10 years ago.

If we go back to 10 years ago, we know that those lines they were running back then about the conditions of the workers—they were going to be disastrously abolished because of our intended workplace relations changes—did not come about. In fact, we had the very reverse. We all remember that famous statement of the member for Perth back in 1995, which now comes back to haunt him. I know that he probably now regrets ever having said those words. He said:

The Howard model is quite simple. It is ... about lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it is about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it is about the abolition of safety nets; and it is about pushing down or abolishing minimum standards.

He said this back in 1995; he is saying it again now. We had the absurdity of the Leader of the Opposition, only a matter of a few weeks ago, claiming that divorce—(Quorum formed) Yes, the ALP should be embarrassed about the doomsaying statements that they keep making on industrial relations, whether it be back in 1995, last week or even in today’s MPI. These scare campaigns are continuing today. Even off the back of the disaster down at Beaconsfield, we had the ALP continuing with their scare campaigns and tactics when they were saying that occupational health and safety training was at risk because of the Work Choices legislation.

We know that the line they presented out there in the community was not supported by their actual belief. We know that because of the email from the member for Lilley, Mr Wayne Swan, that went out in response to a constituent. The constituent asked: ‘So the impression being given that employers are subject to $30,000 fines if they send employees to union run safety training courses is misleading?’ And the office of the member for Lilley said:

Yes, that is correct. Employees attending union-run training cannot be included in an agreement as a condition of employment but an employer can send employees to union training.

So they come in here, they run scare campaigns and scare tactics around Work Choices and the legislation and regulations that this government has introduced, but out there, privately, they know that Work Choices is in fact far from the disaster that they claim.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations quite eloquently mentioned the advantages to the unemployed people who are taking up the AWAs with Spotlight: the 95 new jobs that have been created, 40 in Western Sydney alone. The member for Cunningham got up here and was basically saying that having a job is not a good start to getting on in life.

Government Member:

Government member interjecting—

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And unemployment. Yet we know that in Wollongong at the moment we have unemployment of somewhere around eight per cent. In parts of Blacktown, we have unemployment of somewhere around 10 per cent. In Campbelltown, we have unemployment of somewhere around 7.6 per cent. As the minister said, unemployment benefit is $205.30 per week. Contrast that to the offer that has been made through the Spotlight AWA—which, by the way, is an offer that can be rejected by someone who is taking on a job. It is a decision they are making. But, of course, if you are a young person who is unemployed and you are trying to get on in life, as the member for Burke would know—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Burke?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Watson, I think!

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are trying to get on in life, you would know that a job is a great start. It is that first step on a career path. They will get a job, and they will be on $543.40—$338.10 better off. That is the reality of what is facing an unemployed person in Blacktown, in Wollongong, in Western Sydney. When they are going out there looking for a job they say, ‘Okay, I’ve got $205.30 per week on the one hand but I have an opportunity to get a start in life on $543.’ Any sensible young person wanting a starting job, any person who is unemployed, would say, ‘I will take that job and use it as an opportunity to move on in life.’ In itself, that $543 per week is above the current safety net wage, which was handed down by the Industrial Relations Commission late last year and sets a benchmark for our Fair Pay and Conditions Standard of $484. The member for Cunningham states that it is slave labour employment—$484 is the current safety net agreement. These people at Spotlight will be on an AWA of $543.40. The opposition ignore one simple fact: Work Choices is all about agreements—employers and employees agreeing to the new system they will work with. They make a decision about whether they accept it or not.

The ALP talk about the driving down of living standards of Australian families and their way of life. Since 1996 the contrast between what we have been able to achieve in this country and what the Australian Labor Party, through its 13 years in office, was able to achieve is quite stark. We have increases in real wages of 16.7 per cent compared with around 1.2 per cent under the Australian Labor Party. We have average mortgage rates of 7.15 per cent under the coalition versus 12.75 per cent under the Labor Party. Those reductions in interest payments would be put to good use by those families that the Australian Labor Party is talking about. We have 10.1 million people in employment versus 8.3 million who were employed in Australia during the Australian Labor Party’s term in office. The unemployment rate is now around five per cent. In Western Australia it is actually hard to find labour. In the member for Brand’s own state, where unemployment is coming down to around 3.8 per cent, it is tough to find labour. There are jobs there and not enough people to fill them. This MPI has been rerun. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually welcomed the contribution from my colleague the member for Deakin.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The normal process for an MPI is—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are arrangements made, but I cannot deny anyone the call. The honourable member for Werriwa.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, I welcomed the contribution from my friend the member for Deakin, a fellow ordinarily I have a— (Quorum formed)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.