Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's multiple attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers, including but not limited to:

(a) advocating for a reduction in penalty rates;

(b) issuing temporary licences, which resulted in Australian seafarers being sacked;

(c) abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal;

(d) pursuing legislation that would ensure workers on construction sites have less rights than 'ice' dealers;

(e) the attempted reintroduction of unfair individual contracts;

(f) the failure to address widespread and system exploitation of workers; and

(g) the unfair, ideological bargaining policy which forces agencies to strip rights and conditions from enterprise agreements and offer cuts to pay in real terms;

(2) condemns the Government for its employment and workplace relations agenda; and

(3) calls on the Government to abandon its attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers in Australia.

This government's attack on workers is unprecedented. Around the country today and over the weekend tens of thousands of workers stopped to acknowledge May Day. I say 'acknowledge' and not 'celebrate', because Australian workers have very little to celebrate at the moment, and that is largely the result of this government and the attacks that it has made on the pay and conditions of Australian workers. This includes its advocacy for cutting penalty rates and, in particular, Sunday penalty rates.

Numerous members and ministers on the government side have stood up and said that penalty rates should be cut for people working in the hospitality and retail sectors. This would devastate some of our lowest paid workers, who quite often speak up about how penalty rates, particularly the Sunday penalty rates, are paying their bills. Somebody who I was chatting to on the weekend at one of my listening posts said that her Sunday penalty rate is how she pays not just for her internet bill and her children's swimming lessons but for those things that others would not consider a luxury: the household items. Most of her weekly wage goes on paying rent and paying electricity bills, but her Sunday penalties pay for the extras.

This government has introduced legislation attacking working conditions that continues to get rejected by the Senate, and for good reason. Its bills and its agendas seek to weaken Australian workplace relations. One particular bill—which was the reason why this parliament was reopened—that related to registered organisations sought to impose more red tape on our industrial relations sector, not less. This government has tried to introduce individual flexibility agreements—which would see basic wages and conditions being negotiated away—that are enforced by an employer, that are not checked by the Fair Work Commission and that would be put into the bottom drawer and forgotten about, leaving the worker with few grounds on which to appeal them.

This government has issued temporary licences which have resulted in thousands of seafarers—many of whom are on the lawn again today—being sacked for being Australian. Their wages and conditions have been undermined. This is an island nation, yet we have seen thousands of Australian seafarers lose their jobs as a result of this government's inaction.

We have also seen this government try again and again to pursue legislation that would see our workers on construction sites have less rights than many others in our community. What we are saying is quite simple: the rule of law already exists in every Australian workplace in every facet of Australian life; it should be the same rule for all; there should be one rule for all. Yet this government, because of its vendetta and hatred of a particular union, is now taking us to an election based upon a small part of industrial relations law which would see construction workers discriminated against and treated differently.

There is also the treatment of this government's own workforce. Not only has this government sacked over 16,000 public servants—and they are foreshadowing to sack more in tomorrow's budget—they have failed to genuinely bargain with their workforce. They have set an appalling example for corporate Australian by not bargaining in good faith. Their bargaining framework effectively said to their workforce, 'You find your own pay rise. Cut your conditions to fund your pay rise.' Today we have seen a leak from inside Centrelink that shows that, because of staffing cuts, thousands upon thousands of students applying for Newstart have had their claims automatically rejected. This is a fault of this government's making. It is because of their failure to listen to their own workforce, their failure to bargain in good faith and their failure to resource properly.

In this motion, we condemn the government for its lack of a workplace relations agenda that is fair. We call on the government to abandon its attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of all Australian workers. It is time for this government to listen to Australian workers instead of attack them.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bendigo. Is there a seconder for this motion?

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

There is nothing surprising in the member for Bendigo moving this motion. She talks about the workers, but I wonder who in the member's electorate of Bendigo speaks and has a voice for the small business employers in the electorate? I do not understand. She is always talking about standing up for the workers' rights. But without somebody who can open a business and can actually pay those employees they do not have a job. She seems to miss that and takes great pleasure in characterising and demonising the employers in her electorate.

We will just see what the member for Bendigo supports—or should be supporting. The things that she talks about in respect of pay rates are, of course, not determined by government. She seems to miss this point that they are determined by an independent organisation known as the Fair Work Commission that was set up by whom? It was set up by those opposite. We play by the rules which they determine. She also mentions the registered organisations. How can it be wrong that unions, for example, have the same requirements that a publicly listed company has in terms of governance? How can that be a bad thing? I really struggle to understand it. She can only be advocating for—one would think—dodgy union officials. I have no problems with unions, because I work with many unions in my electorate all time. Unions do good things for workers all over the world. I support that, but I think most Australians condemn dodgy union officials taking advantage of those members that are paying their union dues—many of whom are obliged to because they do not get a choice. Of course we know that every member of those opposite has to be a member of a union. How is it so? You cannot be a member of the Labor Party unless you are a member of a union. What sort of party advocates for that? How is that so?

I was very pleased to see that the member for Bendigo, that landlocked seat in central Victoria, raised coastal shipping. I am a member for a seat in Tasmania—the island state in the island nation. In 2012, the changes that were made by those opposite absolutely devastated coastal shipping in my state of Tasmania. We lost our only international shipping service, by virtue of exactly the changes that were made by those opposite. It was a disgrace. What happened then was that the volumes there that had previously gone, I think, via Brisbane on the AAA service that used to go to Port Adelaide, Bell Bay, Brisbane and then off to Singapore and then to different parts of the world fell off the perch. When that happened, thanks to the decisions made by those opposite, all of that volume then went onto Bass Strait—and guess what? The prices went up. We should be bringing competition back into the vital lifeline. She talks about jobs for seafarers in our country. I note also that the other day the last fuel tanker—the coastal Australian flagged vessel—left our country, so you have driven it into the ground. The volume has fallen off the perch. You have killed an industry and we are trying to revitalise that. This is something that desperately hurt my state.

She brings up the ABCC. There was an ABC fact check done on that one—I will leave my words there. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention—and I do not think she actually got to it, although it is on the motion that she has put forward—the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. What an absolute shocker! I had people contacting my office. There were independent contractors, people that are employing independent contractors, and mums and dads that own one or two trucks. There was one chap there from Sorell, Michael Emerton. He runs a truck service and he travels up to Sydney. He rang me in absolute desperation. Under the ruse of this being a road safety measure, this was a union membership drive for the Transport Workers Union—no more, no less—and we have knocked it on the head, but they will bring it back—make no mistake.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Bendigo for bringing this very important motion to the chamber for discussion. I do so because I have an electorate that is very much a place where the people who live there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds and would probably be classified as some of the more disempowered people. Nevertheless, they are people who work for a living and rely very much on a work market or a workplace that is protected—that is, their pay and conditions and their work environment are protected. For that reason I am very pleased to stand here and support the member for Bendigo's motion and also to speak about some of the difficulties that my own constituents have faced, especially those in the liquor and hospitality industry and people who have been grievously exploited by small business operators. Small business operators carry on about the need to be allowed to create more jobs and they complain about penalty rates being a burden to them and that they cannot open on Sundays. But the reality is that small business has been a great beneficiary of an enormous exploitation of people as a result of paying cash and of using international students to undercut the minimum wage, creating a situation where people in my electorate cannot get a job because they are competing with what is obviously known to all of us—the black market. I appreciate that small business needs all the incentives it can get to create jobs, but the reality is it is not remiss of small business to exploit working people. That is something that it does. It needs to be reined in. That is why this motion is very important.

When I first became the member for Calwell, one of the groups that I worked with and met with was an organisation that provided support for families not in my electorate but in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. They provided support for those families who had lost loved ones in the building industry. I had the opportunity to meet a lot of families who had lost their sons, their fathers, their husbands in the building industry. The building industry is a place that can be terribly unsafe, especially for young tradespeople. The union movement, particularly the CFMEU and the building unions, rates and puts the protection of the workers and their pay conditions as the No. 1 priority. Often, that rubs up the nose of employers—of course it does. But the reality is that we need to protect those rights and those conditions. You do not demonise a union whose No. 1 job is, always, the protection of its workforce. The registered organisations bill seeks to isolate a particular organisation and to possibly try to weaken its existence. Therefore, I think that would lead to the lessening of the protections of the people in my electorate who work on building sites.

I also recall the great Work Choices election of a couple of elections ago. The people in my lecture came together, with members of the union, in order to campaign against the then Howard government's attempt to introduce Work Choices. Work Choices was about disempowering workers. It was about taking away protections for pay and conditions. That era, that we thought might have been behind us, is well and truly alive at this election. This election will be about not only jobs growth but the protection of pay and conditions for people such as those in my electorate. Penalty rates, in particular, are important to the people I represent. As the member for Bendigo has said, and as many others have said, it is the only opportunity that my constituents have to continue to meet the payments of their daily life and their commitments.

We have seen a massive deregularisation of the job market. Casualisation has brought about a huge underemployment. My constituents have been affected incredibly by this. Therefore, any attempt to do away with penalty rates will be defended proudly by us and by me as the member for Calwell because it goes to the core variability to meet their daily life— (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to make an additional contribution.

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

As the government can only find one person that has any concern about this motion, I will grant him leave. He can speak for the 90 members of the government who cannot get themselves up here to oppose this motion. We can only assume that they are giving tacit support—

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted. I call the member for Lyons.

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

I thank the member for Shortland for her generosity. It just gives me an opportunity—

Opposition members interjecting—

because the member for Bendigo did not actually outline the motion. I will go through the motion that is before the House today. It notes that the government is attacking on the pay, rights and conditions of workers. These things, as I mentioned in my first contribution, are not matters for the government. These are matters for the independent Fair Work Commission, set up by those opposite. It was very interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition on, I think, 3AW—I do not listen to 3AW very often. There he was, proudly saying: 'What if the Fair Work Commission says there is a case to make to see that penalty rates are changed? Oh yes, we'll abide by those decisions.' They will abide by those decisions! Those opposite say one thing but they do another thing.

What is this attack on employers? I pose the question: who is standing for the employers in the electorate of Bendigo? Thanks to the foreign minister, who brought 80 heads of mission to Tasmania for three days last week to have a look at our educational institutions, our businesses, the tourism sector and our shipbuilding capacity, we had great pleasure on Saturday to have lunch at Josef Chromy's winery, which is right on the boundary between the electorates of Bass and Lyons. You can see the vineyards, quite appropriately, located in the electorate of Lyons, but we were in the venue itself, which happens to be located in the member for Bass's electorate.

Ms Hall interjecting—

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Shortland will resume her seat. The member for Lyons, please resume your seat. I call the member for Shortland.

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

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being so exuberant in my need to raise a point of order. The point of order is that this is not about vineyards. This is about workplace relations and the government's attack on workers.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is a very broad-ranging motion. There is no point of order. I call the member for Lyons.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was just going to reference Mr Josef Chromy. Mr Josef Chromy was born in the former Czechoslovakia, which at the time was occupied by Nazi Germany and then he had Soviet Russia—celebrated, no doubt, by the member for Bendigo—coming in to occupy his country after the Second World War. Josef Chromy managed to escape what was Czechoslovakia and made his way to the UK. He came to Tasmania and he has been an absolute success story. At one stage, when he owned Blue Ribbon Meat Products in Tasmania, he was the largest private employer in Tasmania. He was a migrant from troubled central Europe, and he is somebody who I look up to. Why would I not? This is the Australian story and we should celebrate these people, these entrepreneurs who have taken risks. He came to Australia with not a cent in his pocket and he is a very wealthy man now. He has employed thousands and thousands of Tasmanians. We enjoyed the wonderful food and hospitality and the great service that was provided at Josef Chromy's restaurant.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have looked at the motion very carefully. None of the information that the member is putting before the House can be remotely related to this. Broad-ranging? No, it is not. This is about workers and industrial relations.

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

Who employs the workers?

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

No, it is not about condemning employers. It is not about anything like that. It is about workplace relations.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Shortland has made her point. The member for Shortland will resume her seat. Member for Lyons, I would ask you to return to the substance of the motion.

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

I return to point (1) on the motion before us today and say that we should celebrate people like Josef Chromy, who, through endeavour and initiative, has been able to employ hundreds and thousands of Tasmanians. He started with nothing. Work rates are set by an independent authority, the Fair Work Commission, which was set up by those opposite. This is a ruse. They have no case. I have no case to answer. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am disappointed but not surprised that there is only one member of the coalition backbench who is willing to come here today and defend the government's record on industrial relations. I am disappointed but not surprised because, if Malcolm Turnbull is the Prime Minister of Australia on 3 July, there are four things that we can be very certain about. Firstly, weekend workers will earn less money. Secondly, our roads will be less safe. There will be more tragedies that could have been avoided. Thirdly, Australian seafarers will no longer work on Australian ships; they will be replaced by foreign crews.

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

And the member for Lyons thinks that this is a good thing. He is cheering it on. Fourthly, ordinary Australians will have less superannuation.

Can I talk about penalty rates, because Labor supports penalty rates. We understand that for millions of Australians penalty rates mean take-home pay. Millions of Australians rely on penalty rates and, if we rip them away, low-income earners will have less money to make ends meet. We have made our position clear when it comes to the Fair Work Commission, and when it comes to penalty rates Australian workers know who they can trust.

Can I talk about seafarers. It surprises many Australians to know that right now the Australian government—the government of this party over here—is encouraging Australian shipowners to pull down the Australian flag off their vessels and replace it with the flag of a foreign country so they can replace their Australian crew with a foreign crew and pay them a pittance. I do not blame the shipowners; I blame your government, which has made it possible. I spoke to Zac from Shellharbour in my electorate. He was dragged off the back of the MV Portland in the middle of the night. He was sacked—his entire crew was sacked—to be replaced by a foreign crew. He is not alone. Joanne from Kanahooka is in a similar position; all of her 36 workmates were replaced by a foreign crew. They cannot understand why they do not have the right to work on an Australian ship in an Australian country, and neither do I. There is more of this under your government.

In relation to superannuation, the coalition have been very generous in giving superannuation tax breaks to the wealthy, but they are not willing to help out low- and middle-income earners. It has been low- and middle-income earners who have been hit hardest when it comes to superannuation by the coalition. The freezing of the superannuation contributions until 2021 is going to hurt millions of Australians in their retirement. As a result of the government's changes, a person who works from the age of 22 to 69 on $35,000 a year will retire with 16.7 per cent less than they otherwise would have. That makes a real difference to ordinary Australians.

I want to talk about truck drivers, because on the weekend I spoke to Pat Armstrong from Wollongong. He has been driving trucks for 42 years. Every year, around 80 drivers are killed working on trucks. When the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished, he said, 'If you're not getting the right money, then you're gonna cut corners.' He knows—42 years experience. Professor Michael Quinlan, the Director of the University of New South Wales Industrial Relations Research Centre, agrees. But, if you are Malcolm Turnbull, you are always the smartest guy in the room. You do not have to listen to experts and you do not have to listen to employees—you are always the smartest guy in the room. You listen to your own advice and nobody else's. You abolish the tribunal and, as a result of this, there will be needless deaths on our roads.

There is a stark choice at the next election. You can vote for a government that is going to cut penalty rates, and millions of Australians will have less take-home pay. You can vote for a government that backs the wealthy when it comes to superannuation but freezes the superannuation contributions of ordinary Australians. That will be the government of Malcolm Turnbull. You can vote for a government that thinks it is a great idea that we pull down the Australian flag, the red ensign, from the back of Australian ships so that we can replace Australian workers with foreign workers. That will be Malcolm Turnbull's government. You can vote for a government that is led by a guy who is always the smartest guy in the room and has no need for experts or advice. That is the government that has abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and, needlessly, there will be more deaths on the road as a result of it. That is the choice that Australians face at the next election, and I think Australian workers know who they can trust.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Lyons wish to seek leave?

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

I think I have every right to seek leave. They have granted it to me once; they should grant it to me again.

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

You have nothing to say.

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

I would say that I have won this debate, then, Jill.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't give him leave.

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

Will we give it to him?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I do not think we will.

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

We will grant him leave, because he is just putting more nails in the coffin and showing that those on the other side are just not up to the job of governing.

Leave granted.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons, resume your seat. I wish to address the chamber for a moment. This is a debate that is of great rigour and substance. I understand that, but I do ask that members be a little bit less rowdy and allow the member for Lyons to make his additional contribution.

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

I am eternally grateful to the member for Shortland. If we cannot stand up in this place and have a debate, this is the sort of world that we want to see. This is about control. This is the way that those opposite like to approach these matters. They like to have control, they know what is best, they hate free enterprise and they hate independent contractors. I get to the point under item (1) (c) on the motion before the house: the abolishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal.

I put it to you this way, Deputy Speaker. When the department came down to Tasmania—I do not meant to pat myself on the back, but they were not coming. They were not coming to Tasmania, because their assessment was that there was no impact on owner-drivers and subcontractors in Tasmania. Unfortunately, they were dead wrong, because a 500 km round trip—it may surprise some of those on the other side that come from some of the bigger states, but anybody carting goods, for example, from Hobart up to a port in Burnie—certainly, taking milk, for example, up to the member for Braddon's electorate in Smithton or places like that—would have been subject to these intimidations and extraordinary measures that were being proposed under the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Fortunately, we were able to hold a hearing in Campbell Town, and I suspect you will not be surprised to know, Deputy Speaker, that we had a very good turn-up of owner-drivers, small businesses and mums and dads that often have mortgaged their homes to purchase a heavy loader—what are they called?

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

A prime mover—thank you, member for Herbert—so that they can run their businesses. We also had larger companies coming along, many of whom employ these subcontractors, mums and dads and people that have mortgaged their homes. But guess who did not turn up? We did not have anybody there that said the tribunal was a good thing. Not one person turned up. This was the opportunity; the officials from the Department of Employment were there, and not one person—not one union representative—turned up to put a counterargument to that that we were putting on behalf of these owner operators: that this was a bad thing for their businesses, their communities and their families. Not one turned up.

I do not know what that says, Deputy Speaker; you might have a view. Those opposite might have a view about what it says. I say that I think they know they were on the wrong side of this argument. The ruse that was put forward—that this was about road safety—is an absolute slur on these people that take road safety very seriously. If those opposite were fair dinkum about this and it was something other than a union membership drive, they would know very well that a very small proportion of accidents that occur on our roads are put down as a responsibility of the truck drivers. This is a slur. We know; it has been called out. We have seen it. This was a union membership drive. This was about driving private enterprise out of the trucking industry. It very much affected Tasmanian drivers—owners-operators, mums and dads—as it did drivers all around Australia, and didn't they turn up in force and put their case very, very clearly?

Honourable members interjecting—

Were you there, member for Herbert? Of course you were, because it impacts on people and businesses in your electorate, like it does in mine—and like it does in the electorate of the member for Bendigo, who moved this motion. What does she have against employers—people who are trying to make a dollar, people who are enterprising, taking a risk, risking their home? What is it that she has against those people? Fair Work Commission, not government, is the one who sets the rates—Fair Work Commission. Who set it up? They set it up. Not us.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could not wait to get out of the starting blocks on this one. This is complete and arrant nonsense. The people campaigning for the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal were, in fact, the owner-drivers—they were private enterprise. I know this extremely well because when I had responsibility for transport in Western Australia this was a major issue. I had meetings where 100 owner-drivers would turn up and express their support and their demand for a remuneration tribunal at a state level, and we gave it to them. We gave it to them for this reason: because we absolutely understood that every report that has been issued over the last 20 years has come to exactly the same conclusion—that the inequality in bargaining power in this industry is forcing these owner-drivers to do things that are unsafe, including pushing fatigue boundaries in order to do exactly as the member for Lyons said. There are situations where people have mortgaged their home to buy their rig, but they are at the mercy of Coles and Woolworths driving prices down, down, down. As they drive prices down, down, down, the prices being offered to these contractors are being driven down, down, down. They have to make a living and they accept those jobs. They know it is wrong. They know they are putting their lives at risk. They know they have to take the mixed grill to keep them going, comprising their long-term health. They are all aware for this. Their wives, their partners, who are often in the business, understand this and they want to be protected. These are people in private enterprise. A very significant proportion of the Transport Workers Union's membership has been owner-drivers.

You guys hate these discussions about safety because you know you are fundamentally weak on this point. I want to point out the whole zeitgeist of what is going on under the Abbott/Turnbull government and its attitude towards trade unions. Its vilification of trade unions, its incredible obsession with trade unions, is having a big impact. It is creating a culture where employers feel that they can make these cutbacks and that they can prevent unions from attending worksites.

In my electorate, a couple of months ago, two young men, both backpackers, died on a building site. They had been on this building site for a week. One in particular, Gerry, had been a barista or a barman up until six days before. He got his little white card, we think he probably got it online after a couple of hours, then went to this workplace. This workplace was one that the union movement—the CFMEU—had attempted to enter on many occasions because of their concerns about safely, and they were denied. The Fair Work Commission—under this government, with direction from the government—were focusing on this union. Was this union breaching its rights of entry? They were not concerned, apparently, by what many people argue were manifestly unsafe working conditions and a lack of compliance with a whole set of regulations that are designed to protect workers.

This is not about being anti-employer. In fact, decent employers get angry when we do not do things about those employers who cut corners and are prepared to put people's lives at risk. It makes it harder for those people who want to do the right thing: people who enjoy their enterprise and believe that they are creating good within the community. They are the ones who are being punished by your absolute obsession and your refusal to acknowledge that we need the trade union movement to ensure that there is proper balance within our society and that there is equality of bargaining. (Time expired)

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

This is how interested your side is, isn't it? You are the only one that could pop up on this issue.

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

I was going to take the opportunity to compliment the member for Perth, but on that note I will sit down.

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

As a member who has not spoken in this debate, I want to express my support for the motion that has been raised by the member for Bendigo and highlight the actual issues that are involved in this motion. The member talks about the attacks on the pay, the rights and conditions of workers. This Turnbull government, and the Abbott government as well—all of whom these members are part of—have waged an ideological war on the workers and union members of Australia simply because they do not believe in fairness or in any sort of justice but in a one-sided system where the winner takes all. They do not care in the least about those workers who put their lives on the line each day when they turn up at work. They do not care about those truck drivers—the owner-drivers—that were covered on by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The biggest issue about that legislation was that it was a safety issue. It was about safety not only for the drivers but for all Australians. But those on the other side of this House were driven by their ideology and they introduced legislation that will have long-term ramifications, not only for those owner-drivers but for all Australians, that will lead to an increase in the loss of lives.

I want to touch very quickly on part (d), where it talks about ensuring 'workers on construction sites have less rights than "ice" dealers'. Construction workers suffer some of the largest numbers of fatalities and losses of life of any industry. I think it goes construction, farming and mining. It is vitally important that there are occupational health and safety regulations on worksites and that unions are able to represent those workers that are exploited. I have visited many worksites. I have seen the situations and the conditions that workers are working in. I have seen the unsafe work practices that take place. All the union royal commission did was look at the unions. It did not look at those unsafe practices that were constantly employed on worksites.

Those on the other side of this House are taking away the rights of construction workers. They are taking away their rights to be adequately represented by their unions. Those on our side of this House are about exploitation of workers. They do not care about work safety. They want to make sure that workers receive less money. They want to see the penalty rates go. I have never heard a member of the other side stand up in this parliament for the rights of workers. Has anyone here heard them stand up for workers rights?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

No, they do not. Do you know what? They do not care about workers. What they forget is that the majority of Australians are workers. Be they working on a construction site, be they working in a mine, be they working in industry, be they working in shops, be they working in hospitality, they are all workers, and they all need to earn a decent living so that they can keep our economy rolling along. We need to make sure that they earn that living in a safe environment.

Those on the other side of this House do not care about safety. Every occupational health and safety piece of legislation that has been introduced into this parliament in the entire time I have been here has been about eroding occupational health and safety. Every piece of legislation that those on the other side of this House has introduced in relation to industrial relations has been about eroding the rights of workers.

So I think that this parliament should unite in its condemnation of the Abbott-Turnbull government and its attack on workers.

Debate adjourned.