Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today to support the motion moved by the member for Wakefield regarding penalty rates and to stress the importance of penalty rates to families in my electorate of Lalor to make ends meet, week to week. Jobs, of course, are critical. Employment is obviously one of the most important issues as we prepare ourselves to go to a possible rush election. Thousands of people within the community of Lalor rely on penalty rates to put food on their table and petrol in their cars and pay for those excursions for their children. Penalty rates are not a luxury. In a discussion on penalty rates, lessening the importance of penalty rates to the hospitality sector is disingenuous. It is as plain as the nose on the Prime Minister's face that this would be the thin edge of the wedge and, before we knew it, 25 per cent of lots of workers' income would be gone. Once we accept that penalty rates are not important for one sector of our workforce, that will roll through to all other sectors of our workforce.

In the hospitality sector, it is extraordinary to think that we would say to these people, who work unsociable hours and give up time with their families to earn those extra dollars to see them through the week, that they should be targeted in this debate at all.

It is stunning, absolutely stunning, that members of the National Party are silent on this, because McKell Institute research shows clearly the impact it will have in regional Australia. It is extraordinary. Retail and hospitality workers in rural Australia would lose between $370 million and $1.55 billion each year, depending on the extent of the cut to penalty rates and the level of local ownership of retail stores. This means that the disposable income for spending in regional areas would be reduced by $174.6 million or $748.3 million a year. It defies logic that anyone would purport that taking money out of workers' pockets will not have an impact on the economy and will not have an impact on our micro-economies, like in my electorate of Lalor and in regional Australia.

It is astounding that today we have this private members' business here and the speakers from those opposite are so limited. On our side of the chamber, we are prepared to get up and speak on this every week because we are passionate about people's ability to earn a living. People should be fairly compensated for giving up time with their families, for working the hours that other people do not want to work. We note our Prime Minister's obsession with the notion that it is a 24/7 world these days. Well, lots of people are not showing up here today to talk about penalty rates, so it is clearly not a 24/7 world at all.

I want to mention too the increase in casualisation and insecure work, particularly in the electorate of Lalor, particularly in my community, where more and more young people are only finding casual work. They are sitting up until 12 and one in the morning to see if they are going to get the text to say they have work tomorrow. Removing penalty rates at this point in time, with increased casualisation, with insecure work, seems just to be an attack on low-income workers and an attack on young people that is completely and utterly unfair.

I know that I have spent a lot of time across the last 12 months with people in the electorate, particularly people in their 50s, who are finding themselves unemployed, and they are shocked to find that the only work that they seem to be able to find is casual work. I think it is fair to say there is a new empathy in the electorate of Lalor for young people. There are people aged 50-plus who are now in queues at Centrelink, who are going to MatchWorks or other JSAs, who are coming to tell me about the length of time and number of jobs they are applying for, and they have a new understanding of what is confronting our young people. I would suggest that those people will come out to defend penalty rates, and they will stand with the Labor Party to defend penalty rates because this is an attack on workers' rights and conditions and families' incomes.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the mover of the motion was not able to be in the chamber for this very, very important motion indeed. There are a couple of points that I think we need to clarify here because quite often, in these instances, those on the other side overegg the omelette, and they just reach a little bit too far.

I had the pleasure, a couple of weekends ago, of having graffiti left outside my office by members who obviously had a certain view about how important penalty rates are, and indeed I acknowledge that penalty rates are important. They left a little message on the footpath outside my office reminding me exactly of the fact that penalty rates are indeed important. Apparently, some of the people who they had coerced into this came across from your state, Deputy Speaker Sukkar. They were paid employees who came across to join those local people who thought this was an important issue.

There are a couple of things that we need to look at here. I think the facts need to be put on the table. As strange as it might seem to those opposite, government does not set penalty rates. Penalty rates are set by an organisation called the Fair Work Commission. They are not set by government.

If we look back through the history of the Fair Work Commission, it makes for interesting reading. The member for Lalor mentioned in her contribution the importance of penalty rates to the hospitality, retail and entertainment sector. She referred to the Productivity Commission's recommendations that, instead of a separate rate for Sunday and a separate rate for Saturday, there be a weekend rate. It is what the Productivity Commission has put forward. That is then a question for the Fair Work Commission to decide whether that is appropriate or whether that is going to allow more young people, particularly—and my concern is for—young people in regional areas of Australia to have an opportunity, for many, to have their first job. That is something that is important for the Fair Work Commission to consider.

Again, however, those on the other side often reach a little bit too far. They seem to be misrepresenting the recommendations that have been made by the Productivity Commission to the Fair Work Commission—not government—about the impact this will have on nurses and other things. And it is disingenuous. It is very interesting to look at some of the comments that have been made in recent times by those on the other side. And I will quote the shadow minister for employment, Mr Brendan O'Connor, who sits jointly on the Standing Committee on Education and Employment of which I am on. He makes many good contributions. He makes the point:

There are particular provisions in each award or agreement that I think should be reviewed and I'm not suggesting for a moment that there aren't provisions including penalty rates that shouldn't be looked at.

That was on 23 January 2015 in an interview he did with the ABC. Also, I will quote the shadow Assistant Treasurer. I know that we often get many opportunities to quote the shadow Assistant Treasurer. Being a doctor of economics, he often make some very good points. He also made a good point on 23 January 2015. When asked if there was any room for restructuring penalty rates, the shadow Assistant Treasurer's response was: 'I'm always up for an evidence-based discussion.' And so it should be.

We understand that during the Leader of the Opposition's time as head of the Australian Workers' Union, he sold away the penalty rates of those poorest employers—the cleaners, in this case, at a business called Cleanevent—and pocketed $2 million in lieu of wages for the union that he was representing. Mr Deputy Speaker, judge them by what they do not by what they say in relation to penalty rates.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to join with my Labor colleagues today in highlighting the importance of penalty rates to the lives of 4.5 million workers who rely on them to pay the bills and raise their children. Penalty rates have been an important feature of the Australian industrial relations system for more than 100 years. In 1909, penalty rates were first awarded to workers as compensation for being made to work at inconvenient times and to act as a deterrent against long or abnormal hours being used by employers. These reasons for the original awarding still stand true today. It is fair that workers who give up their Saturday, Sunday or public holidays to work, usually to deliver services others can enjoy, are awarded compensation. It is also fair that workers who work through the night are adequately compensated for the sacrifice that they and their families make.

The flawed argument that penalty rates are redundant because Australia now operates in a 24/7 cycle is not backed up by the facts. Look at the big banks, the stock market, financial institutions, schools, courts and, indeed, parliaments. They are not open on weekends. About 70 per cent of the workforce does not work on the weekends or evenings. That number has been steady since the 1990s.

Penalty rates form a critical part of the income of many workers, including nurses and emergency services personnel; retail and hospitality workers; manufacturing industry employees; and service sector, tourism and transport industry employees. Many mums and dads give up weekends, Christmas and every other major public holiday with their families to work night shifts or long and unsociable hours just so they can support their families, pay for their kids' sport or save for a brief holiday. For some, it is how they pay the mortgage and put dinner on the table. Students often rely on penalty rates to help them get through university—to pay for textbooks, fees, petrol for their cars or weekly transport tickets. When it comes to low-paid jobs in retail, hospitality and the service sector, which often require work at odd hours, penalty rates can increase incomes to levels that allow single parents or parents working second jobs to pay the bills and raise their kids.

Beyond the potential income loss to individual workers, we know there would be major secondary impacts for local economies if workers' disposable incomes were reduced. This is particularly relevant for rural and regional areas, like my electorate of Newcastle. Research by the McKell Institute has estimated that regional New South Wales would take an economic hit of up to $315 million every year if penalty rates were scrapped. More worrying for small businesses in regional Australia would be the loss of $11 million in disposable income that would normally be spent in their local shops and on services.

While some members opposite insist that the government does not really have a plan to cut penalty rates, every time the issue is raised we have government MPs lining up to bag penalty rates with false arguments about the need to abolish them—like the member for Mayo, who said:

We cannot go on in a society where we are charging people on a day which is a normal operating day, double what you would on any other.

and the member for Mitchell, who said:

I mean, the Sunday rate comes from an era when Sunday trading was unusual. Today it's the busiest time of the week and it does affect many small enterprises.

Of course, Sundays are not like Mondays; they are not an ordinary operating day. If they were, the electorate offices of the members for Mayo and Mitchell would be open for business on Sundays too. The interesting thing is that voters in key coalition seats actually agree with Labor that penalty rates should stay the same or, in fact, increase. A ReachTEL poll found that in Dickson, the seat held by Minister Dutton, 78 per cent thought penalty rates should stay the same or increase. In the Deputy Prime Minister's seat of New England, 70 per cent do not want change.

Weekend work is taxing on relationships and health. Weekend pay should reflect that. Australia is facing the lowest wage growth in 25 years, yet Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers are talking about cutting the income of low-paid workers. Labor will fight the Turnbull government every step of the way to protect decent working conditions that 4.5 million Australians rely on to pay their bills and raise their children. Rather than a race to the bottom on wages, Labor believes the government should invest in the high-skilled, high-wage, decent jobs of the future. (Time expired)

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While our Prime Minister speaks ebulliently about the excitement of the seven-day-a-week economy, he is much quieter when it comes to the sort of society it implies and its consequences for the 4½ million Australians who rely on penalty rates, and, indeed, for all of us—how we relate to one another and the sort of society we wish to live in. This is a telling omission that goes to the very heart of this debate—or, having heard what we have heard from government members, what passes for debate in this place and around it.

In the Scullin electorate many people rely on penalty rates to pay their bills, their mortgage or their the rent and to feed their families. Younger constituents, who are studying at university or TAFE, often tell me that because of the scheduling of their classes the only time they can work is weekends. While that means they have to sacrifice significant time with their families and friends, the little bit extra from penalty rates ensures that they can buy their textbooks, pay their rent and keep their mobile phone service running. The same goes for mothers and fathers forced to sacrifice weekend activities with kids because they are paid that little bit extra on a Sunday, which pays for schooling, food and birthday presents. Nurses, doctors, the police, the fire service and paramedics simply cannot take days off. They are needed 24 hours, seven days a week. The idea that we would rip money from their pockets because the government does not think Sundays are important anymore is unfathomable to Labor members. It is often only a small amount of extra income for their time, but for the many people in the communities I represent it is often the difference between getting a bill paid on time or receiving an overdue notice and a penalty.

So it should be surprising that this government is reviewing the very thing that is supporting struggling everyday Australians at a time of record low wages growth, so far from the wages explosion used to justify the productivity inquiry that brought this issue before the parliament—an inquiry that the Prime Minister does not seem keen to talk about, despite saying that lowering penalty rates was somehow inevitable, and when the Prime Minister agreed that, because of the seven-day economy, penalty rates were now an anachronism. Again, this is not in the context of runaway wages growth—quite the contrary. The minimum wage is falling today as a proportion of the average wage income. Inequality is growing, as is insecurity in the workplace.

In this context, penalty rates really matter. The Prime Minister's assertions are simply not backed by the evidence. The overwhelming majority of Australians still work regular Monday to Friday work weeks, as the member for Newcastle pointed out. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, nearly 40 per cent of workers receiving weekend penalty rates rely on them to meet ordinary household expenses, and more than half of those work for penalty rates on Sundays. Mortgage debt is at an all-time high in Australia today, so many people are forced through circumstance to work unsocial hours, at the expense of the rest of their lives, to simply keep their homes.

The harmful effects on people are clear, but this also leads to broader negative economic impacts. In very simple terms, if we pay people less to do their jobs, people have less disposable income and less money to spend. It also means that less money is being raised in both direct and indirect tax, leaving the government with less income in their coffers. Let's also be clear about this: there is no empirical evidence that lower wage rates equal more employment. This shibboleth has to be put to bed. Even the Productivity Commission, in the report used by government members to justify their ideological attack on working people, notes this fact—an inconvenient truth, but a truth nonetheless.

This is one of the reasons why the Australian people and the Australian Labor Party emphatically reject our new Prime Minister's vision for Australian workplaces as places where people work harder and longer for less. The Labor Party is standing up with working people and for them to protect weekends and public holidays because we want to protect living standards, broadly defined. It is about supporting decent wages, for sure, but also a social compact around how we live. We believe that, if you work on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday while everyone else is enjoying their weekends, their time off, you deserve appropriate remuneration.

What we have seen elsewhere in workplaces like 7-Eleven in recent times is another example of the exploitation of workers in Australia. These are not isolated incidents; they are instructive of what can happen where there are imbalances of power between workers and employers. The abolition or the paring back of penalty rates will not provide higher employment, greater productivity and more services or help people make ends meet. When the facts are presented away from the Prime Minister's cheap sophistry, the case for changing our penalty rates regime is exposed as just another coalition attack on rights at work and, indeed, on the Australian social compact. It must be rejected emphatically in this place, as it has been in the community.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for bringing this to the parliament. It is a very important issue and one that impacts on the lives of the people I represent in this parliament. It is no surprise that 97 per cent of Australians think that the weekend is an important part of family time. Most of us have that weekend. In 2012, the ABS found that 68.9 per cent of Australians in work worked Monday to Friday, and that is not falling over time. In 1997, 69.7 per cent worked Monday to Friday and in 2006 it was 69.8 per cent—higher than in 1997. So around 70 per cent of Australians work Monday to Friday, and that is a pretty stable number, so it is no surprise that the majority of Australians want Sunday penalty rates to stay the same or increase.

A ReachTEL poll last December found that in Warringa, the seat of the former Prime Minister, 51 per cent wanted Sunday rates to stay the same and 13.7 per cent wanted them increased. In New England, the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister, 55 per cent of them wanted them to stay the same and 15.4 per cent wanted them increased. I would like to see them represent their constituents in this parliament. In the seat of Dickson, 60 per cent wanted Sunday penalty rates to stay the same and 18.7 per cent wanted them to be increased. I hope the members of the government are listening to the people who elect them. I hope they are going to do their jobs of representing their communities and put an end to any proposal to reduce penalty rates.

Australians support penalty rates because we understand the sacrifices people make to work on weekends, late hours and on public holidays. If you work Monday to Friday, you do not have to explain to your kids that, yet again, you cannot come to their weekend cricket match. If you work Monday to Friday, you do not need to watch your kids open their Christmas presents on the screen of your iPhone. If you work Monday to Friday, you can catch up with friends and family for Sunday brunch at a local cafe. You can catch up with friends over a meal cooked and served by people who do not get the chance to catch up with their friends on the weekend, because they are working. When we need to take a child to hospital at 10 pm, we can, because of the nurses and other staff of that hospital who are not at home to read to their own children at bedtime—something that my daughter-in-law has experienced, on many occasions, as a nurse.

Penalty rates compensate people for time lost with family and friends; for the lost chance to take part in community activities. The time lost working unsociable hours is a real and ongoing issue. But penalty rates also compensate people for the financial costs of working outside the usual hours that 70 per cent of people work. Try getting child care on a Sunday for the same price as on a Monday. Try getting to work on public transport as quickly on a Sunday as on a Tuesday. Try getting home from work without a car an hour after the last bus. Cuts to penalty rates will shift the financial cost of unsociable hours onto workers. Cuts to penalty rates will rip money out of the pockets of family budgets.

Last week, debating this motion, the member for Fowler referred to a study by the McKell Institute on the effects of cuts to penalty rates to retail workers in New South Wales. Retail workers in rural areas would see their penalty rates cut by 4.6 per cent to 16.5 per cent. Cuts to penalty rates will hurt businesses as well, because the McKell Institute found that pay cuts equal up to $111 million not being spent in those rural and regional towns. Penalty rates make it possible for many Australians to make ends meet. Penalty rates mean that they do not carry the costs of working unsociable hours themselves and are fairly compensated for the sacrifice of time with friends and family. Labor understands this and—with our friends and colleagues in the union movement—will always defend penalty rates for Australian workers. I call on those on the other side of the House to support their constituents and support the workers of Australia.

Debate adjourned.