Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1)      notes:

(a)   unless this Parliament acts, the decision to cut the Sunday penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australian workers will come into force as early as 1 July this year;

(b)   on Monday, the Labor Party sought to introduce legislation to stop this pay cut;

(c)   on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said he supported the decision to cut penalty rates;

(d)   the Prime Minister has been willing to legislate when he has objected to past decisions of Australian courts, tribunals and commissions including;

  (i)   legislating to overturn a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal decision;

  (ii)   legislating to pre-empt a Fair Work Commission decision about the Country Fire Authority; and

  (iii)   introducing legislation to overturn a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court about Native Title;

(e)   the Prime Minister has the power to stop these pay cuts for nearly 700,000 Australians; and

(f)   under the Turnbull Government, when companies receive record profits, they get a tax cut, and when wages flatline, workers get a pay cut;

(2)      calls on the Government to legislate to prevent the pay cut from going ahead; and

(3)      agrees therefore, to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition immediately introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, the bill being given priority over all business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 3.30 pm today, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House:

(1)      notes:

(a)   unless this Parliament acts, the decision to cut the Sunday penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australian workers will come into force as early as 1 July this year;

(b)   on Monday, the Labor Party sought to introduce legislation to stop this pay cut;

(c)   on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said he supported the decision to cut penalty rates;

(d)   the Prime Minister has been willing to legislate when he has objected to past decisions of Australian courts, tribunals and commissions including;

  (i)   legislating to overturn a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal decision;

  (ii)   legislating to pre-empt a Fair Work Commission decision about the Country Fire Authority; and

  (iii)   introducing legislation to overturn a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court about Native Title;

(e)   the Prime Minister has the power to stop these pay cuts for nearly 700,000 Australians; and

(f)   under the Turnbull Government, when companies receive record profits, they get a tax cut, and when wages flatline, workers get a pay cut;

(2)      calls on the Government to legislate to prevent the pay cut from going ahead; and

(3)      agrees therefore, to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition immediately introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, the bill being given priority over all business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 3.30 pm today, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.

This is the most out-of-touch government in Australian history. You could not write the plot—a conservative government offering on one hand tax cuts for multinationals but on the other hand pay cuts for low-paid workers; a government which will fight tooth and nail to give big banks a tax cut but do absolutely nothing to stop a pay cut for hundreds of thousands of workers. The motto of the Turnbull government is: tough on those who are doing it tough and soft on the big end of town.

This pay cut is not about a spreadsheet, it is not about a set of figures on a desk or a table and it is not about simple economics; it is about the lives that people live. Today in question time several individual stories of people who will be affected by this pay cut from 1 July were put to the Prime Minister. What response did we get from this out-of-touch Prime Minister? 'It's not my business. It's not my decision. It's not my problem.' What they do instead is just attack the Labor Party. The problem they have got here is that this pay cut could not have come at a worse time for Australians.

I acknowledge that the big end of town is doing well under the Turnbull government, but what I do not accept is that, when wages growth flatlines, somehow cutting wages is an economic recipe for including all Australians in our prosperity. It is incredibly interesting that yesterday in the national accounts, which the Treasurer is so proud of, corporate profits were shown to be the highest in 40 years, but what we see is that wages in this country have risen at the lowest level in 20 years—and, yes, I do think that last fact is a shame.

We see young people getting it in the neck again. This is a government at war with young people. It wants to increase their HECS, it wants to make it more expensive to go to TAFE with the loan system it has, and what it also wants to do is make it impossible for them to buy their first home with its trenchant defence of negative gearing in the future, and now we have a pay cut which will disproportionally fall on the young. No wonder young people are bemused at it being called the 'Gilmore gift', because young people do not deserve the sorts of attacks they are getting from this government.

Then, of course, there are women. If we hear one more time—

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is warned!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

from the Prime Minister that women hold up half the sky and then he is not prepared to see them get half the pay, it shows what a rank hypocrite this man is. Then look at the regions. My goodness me! What did the regions ever do to deserve Barnaby Joyce? And now they have this pay cut too.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have made myself very clear on numerous occasions that members will be referred to by their correct titles. I have sat the Deputy Prime Minister down and refused to allow him to complete his answer. The Leader of the Opposition has latitude, but it only goes so far. He will refer to members by their correct titles. The Leader of the Opposition.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the National Party—the hostages to One Nation; they could not learn to fight with them. What we have seen is some of these coalition members of parliament saying: 'It's a minor matter. It is a marginal matter.' No, it is not a minor or marginal matter for most Australians. What has been the defence that we have seen from the government? I have never seen so many startled wallabies in the headlights as this government when this decision came down. What its first defence has been is that, through enterprise bargaining, unions have negotiated on behalf of members flexibilities in return for increases in pay. What this government wilfully chooses to do is confuse a pure pay cut with the process of enterprise bargaining in this country.

Then we had the ghost of previous banquets, Senator Abetz, making his contribution: the proposal of grandfathering. I noticed that the Prime Minister was saying today, almost in a parallel universe, 'But the commission says that there will be a transition, so no-one will be worse off.' No, Prime Minister, that is not correct. The decision means that on 1 July there will be a reduction in penalty rates.

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen can leave under 94(a).

The member for McEwen then left the chamber.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is trying to pretend and say that there is nothing to see here, and then he gets onto his great friend, the independent umpire. This is a fellow who, when it suits him, not only trashed the decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal but sacked the whole umpire. Last year we saw the farcical images of the Prime Minister donning some CFA gear and saying, 'I'm with you all the way,' and then he came in and pre-empted a decision of the Fair Work Commission. So they are happy to do it when it suits their political cause. I ask the Prime Minister, though: what political cause could you possibly be championing when you choose not to do it on behalf of 700,000 Australians? There will be a reduction.

As for Senator Abetz's proposition, where you could just grandfather everything and anyone currently getting the penalty rates will be all right and any new workers in the future will have to take their chances, what a wilfully mischievous idea. In industries like retail and hospitality, with a 50 per cent turnover in a year, what chance do people on the old rates stand for employment when an employer can pay someone to do the same job as they are doing on the new rates? And what chance do the companies that choose to stick with the old rates have in competition when the system will allow new companies to compete with them and pay their people less? Grandfathering is not the solution. Labor's solution is the only solution to protect the take-home pay of Australian workers.

What amazes me most about this whole debate is when the government say, 'It's not our decision.' What they have been trying to say that, because it is the umpire, they do not have to cast an opinion on the merit or the morality of the decision. When you become Prime Minister, your job is not to find somewhere to hide to avoid making a decision. People expect governments to intervene in the community when there are decisions made which are harming a lot of people. There is no government worth its salt in this country that could sit on its hands and do nothing to protect the conditions of 700,000 Australians.

Then he says that this is not his government's decision; it is someone else's decision. If it is not his government's decision, why was his government making submissions to these hearings? If it is not his government's decision, what will it do when the next hearing comes along? The government cannot hide in the middle of the traffic; it cannot sit on the fence.

The Prime Minister said he supports the decision. What he needs to do is reverse his position and no longer support this position. It is an out-of-touch government backing in an out-of-touch proposition. The future of this country is not going to be found in a race to the bottom by cutting workers' conditions. The future of this country and productivity will not be found by reducing the pay of the lowest paid in this country. The future of this country will not be found in standing by and cutting the penalty rates of hardworking workers. There is no compensation for them. Labor will fight this issue in the House, we will fight it when we go out of this place, and we will fight it all the way to the next election. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The counsel assisting the royal commission into trade union corruption summed up the Cleanevent enterprise agreement, which the Leader of the Opposition and the AWU conducted, very well when he said:

… the benefits to Cleanevent and the AWU are obvious.

The persons who miss out are the workers.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston is warned!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The persons who missed out there were the workers.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston will leave under 94(a).

The member for Kingston then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again and again, the Leader of the Opposition traded away the penalty rates of the members of the AWU in return for deals with employers. Whether it was the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Trust, whether it was Chiquita Mushrooms—more low-paid workers—or whether it was Cleanevent, Cirque du Soleil or Cut & Fill Pty Ltd, right across the board, one agreement after another, penalty rates were negotiated away by the Leader of the Opposition. He is as experienced in trading away penalty rates as he is in giving away 457 visas—an Olympic champion; a double gold medallist.

The Fair Work Commission he is almost at the point of declaring enemies of the people—we can see it is getting pretty close to that. But let us just go through them: President Ross, hand-picked by the Leader of the Opposition when he was workplace relations minister, formerly an assistant secretary of the ACTU; Vice President Catanzariti, also hand-picked by the Leader of the Opposition when he was workplace relations minister; Deputy President Asbury, promoted by the Leader of the Opposition when he was workplace relations minister; Commissioner Hampton, appointed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she was workplace relations minister; and Commissioner Lee, hand-picked by Chris Evans when he was workplace relations minister, and a former Australian Services Union official. So this is a panel every member of which was there because of a decision by a Labor government. They considered this matter about penalty rates on a reference by the Labor Party. I quote the Leader of the Opposition when he said, as minister:

Under the fair go workplace system Labor put in place, penalty rates in modern awards are set by the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, after extensive consultations with employer representatives and unions. The tribunal is currently holding a major check-up of the operation of penalty rates and public holidays in modern award rates.

Employers, employees and their representatives are able to appear before the independent umpire and put their views forward. That's a fair system, one that balances the rights of employers to make a profit with the rights of employees to fair treatment.

And, as to the suggestion from the Greens that parliament should intervene, he dismissed that. He said that would be 'playing with fire'. He described the Greens as occupying a 'sideshow position'. And he said, remember:

… what the government has the power to put in, a future government has the power to dismantle. The independent umpire, the system of conciliation and arbitration, has served this nation well for 120 years.

Bill Shorten, doorstop interview, Geelong, 16 May 2016. And 120 years of Labor Party history would have supported him. But now it is abandoned—thrown away, in a desperate political populist move, and of course promoting a monstrous falsehood of the kind for which he is famous: the suggestion that a decision of the Fair Work Commission is a decision of the government. So was it the government's decision to strike the minimum wage at $17.70? Will it be the government's decision to increase it this year? This is absurd. He knows, and Australians know: this is a decision of an independent expert tribunal.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the case presented by unions and employers and their representatives, and it concluded, as I said earlier, that they found the evidence from the hospitality sector—that a decrease in penalty rates would result in more jobs, more employment and more opportunities for young people to get some work on the weekend—cogent and convincing and persuasive. And they made exactly the same finding in respect of the evidence of the retail sector. These are the words of the Fair Work Commissioner; these are the words of the man shortly to become the enemy of the people, according to the Labor Party, President Ross; this is what he said about the retail penalty rate awards: 'While these provisions no doubt have some history, they are plainly inconsistent and appear to lack logic and merit.' That was his judgement. That was the Fair Work Commission's judgement. They have come to that conclusion and they have proposed some changes.

To ensure that workers are not worse off in terms of their pay packet, they have set out the mechanism for doing that. And they have described how, when the modern awards came into effect in 2010, they were phased in over five years; they have suggested they could phase these in over a period of at least two years. So they have set out a road map to ensure that workers are not worse off in terms of their pay packet. This is a carefully considered, lengthy examination, doing exactly what the Leader of the Opposition asked them to do. We respect this independent institution. We respect this independent umpire. The Labor Party, for 120 years, used to, but now it does no longer.

The Labor Party is not only threatening the integrity of this industrial relations independent umpire; it is threatening the jobs of every Australian. It has a set of policies, every single one of which is guaranteed to discourage investment and employment. They want to have higher taxes on business, in a competitive world where the Governor of the Reserve Bank himself points out that we need to be competitive in terms of tax. Labor is saying, 'No, it's time to soak business and get them to pay higher taxes.' And what will happen then, when businesses relocate overseas? What will happen when they take their business overseas, when they do not expand in Australia and when they do not move to Australia? That will be the consequence of Labor's populist approach to politics.

And then we see their approach to energy. Fundamental for every business is affordable and reliable energy. Labor have shown us what they do in South Australia—a state which is struggling, with manufacturing industries closing, desperately needing to reindustrialise. It has the least reliable and the most expensive electricity in Australia, courtesy of the Labor Party.

We have also seen their approach to trade—jumping on the protectionist bandwagon. In the last national accounts, we saw record figures for agricultural exports, as our exporters are taking advantage of those big export markets. We have opened them up; Labor would shut them down. We have been able to get greater access for all of our exporters, whether it is cattle, whether it is sugar, whether it is wool or whether it is wheat. We have been able to do that right across the board. Labor opposed those free trade agreements—particularly, and most disgracefully, the China FTA.

As far as company tax is concerned, remember that it is not so long ago that the member for McMahon—who is no longer with us—wrote a book extolling the virtue of reducing company tax and said it was a 'Labor thing to do', citing Paul Keating. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition in this place saying that reducing business taxes increased productivity, increased investment, increased opportunity and increased jobs. He was right then, but he is wrong now, because what he is seeking to do, yet again, is turn Australians against each other, turn workers against business, divide the country, stifle investment and stifle employment—all in his campaign to do anything to secure election to government on the basis of a populist anti-business campaign. He has no principle, no consistency and no integrity. It is a chronicle of hypocrisy posing as a political platform.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons is warned.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, wakey, wakey everybody! This is an important suspension motion—that is why I seconded it—because this is a very important issue. This goes to whether this parliament should support low-paid workers in this country. The argument that has been posed by the Prime Minister—the only argument—is that a decision was made by the independent umpire. Well, let's be very clear here: in this place, this Prime Minister has actually contravened decisions of independent umpires on at least three occasions. Let's be very clear here. Within one sitting day of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal safe rates order coming into effect, the government introduced legislation with the intention to cancel the order and indeed legislated to abolish the tribunal. Within seven sitting days of the resumption of parliament, the government legislated to restrict paid firefighters' bargaining rights. And, within one sitting day of the McGlade decision, the government rushed legislation through the House. It is a fig leaf for the Prime Minister to hide behind the fact that the independent umpire made this decision.

This decision will hurt Australians. If this Prime Minister had any fairness and any strength in him, he would defend those workers; he would join Labor to defend those workers. So I asked myself: why is it, given the precedents he has set himself, that he has not intervened and joined Labor to support those workers? It may well be that he wants to save face. I understand: he has made the wrong call, he feels embarrassed and he does not want to change his mind. He is a very smart man—just ask him! But the fact is that there might be another reason. If you go to a paragraph in his contribution to the Work Choices debate, when he voted for Work Choices, he said the following:

You have to let the free market do its work and let the cost of setting the clearing price—be it for labour, shares, home units or loaves of bread—be as low as possible.

So, effectively, what he said was, 'Let the market rip.' That is what he meant when he said that.

The fact is that that laissez faire view—that 'let the market rip' view—may well be a popular view at merchant banker luncheons or on yachts in Sydney Harbour, but I can assure you of this: the Australian public do not hold that view. The Australian public believe in fairness and decency, and they would expect their Prime Minister to defend workers in this country, not hide behind a fig leaf to attack them.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will cease interjecting.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I tell you what: I will back this Leader of the Opposition to defend workers any day before I would back this Prime Minister. The only time he seems to get excited is when he defends banks—when he intervenes to oppose the royal commission on banks. In fact, the Prime Minister is the shop steward of banks; let's be honest.

There is a more powerful way of putting this and a more serious way of putting this. It is really an utterance of so many workers who have been referred to in question time today. I just want to finish on one. Ruby, who lives in Newstead and works in retail, said: 'I am unable to live pay cheque to pay cheque at the moment. I rarely save money. Losing that bit extra makes it a bit harder. People like me in my situation, we spend money on little luxuries that go back into the community and it means I'll have less money to do that, pay the rent and other essentials.'

Some people might find that funny. I do not find that funny; I find it tragic that those members on the other side do not understand that this decision will have dire effects on hundreds of thousands of Australians. Yet this Prime Minister, who has the power to intervene and join Labor and defend these workers, refuses to do so. I do not find that funny at all. Quite frankly, I find it an outrage.

I believe the Prime Minister has an opportunity here. For the last four days he has defended his decision not to join Labor, but I think he should rethink this. This decision by the independent umpire, if implemented, will hurt a lot of people. It is up to the Prime Minister: he can either keep laughing at the anecdotes and the statements made by workers, or get behind these workers and look after them. Join Labor and do that, Prime Minister.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members, either leave the chamber or resume your seats.