Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) families in regional and rural Australia rely on penalty rates to survive;

(b) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates will hurt retail and hospitality workers and their families in regional and rural Australia;

(c) the take home pay of families in regional and rural Australia will be severely impacted as a result of the FWC's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers;

(d) cutting penalty rates in regional and rural areas would also have a devastating flow-on impact for regional economies; and

(e) the McKell Institute estimates that disposable income in regional areas will fall by between $174.6 and $748.3 million if penalty rates are cut in hospitality and retail awards;

(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and

(3) calls on:

(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and

(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.

I am proud to rise in this place to move this motion and stand up for what is fair, just and decent. I am here to stand against another of this government's relentless attacks on the most vulnerable and lowly-paid workers; quite frankly, enough is enough. I am here to stand up for the people that I represent—regional and rural workers, who rely heavily on penalty rates. The economy in the Herbert electorate relies heavily on university students. Many university students obtain work in the retail, hospitality and accommodation sectors. These students are not saving money to buy a home; they are spending every dollar earned in the local economy. They are buying smashed avo on toast from the local cafe! Why would this government want to give one of the biggest pay cuts since the Great Depression to these students and other workers? In a city where unemployment is high, our economy cannot afford to have over 13,000 people receive a pay cut. This government is so out of touch with the basic and fundamental needs of regional, rural and remote Queensland communities.

It was of no surprise to me when Senator 'Gold Card' Ian Macdonald stood to support cuts to penalty rates but was very happy to support his own interests. Just what does Senator 'Gold Card' Macdonald stand up for? Is he standing up for the over 13,000 workers in the Herbert electorate affected by the cuts to penalty rates? No. Is he standing up for the 16,000 workers affected in Leichhardt? No. Is he standing up for the 13,000 workers affected in Dawson? No. Is he standing up for the politicians who are getting their gold card travel cut? Yes. Is he standing up for politicians who have to survive on a paltry $200,000-a-year salary? Yes. The reality is that Senator 'Gold Card' Macdonald is not standing up for over 42,000 people in North Queensland—and let us not forget the member for Leichardt, Warren Entsch, who is also worried about the loss of his gold card travel instead of being worried about the 16,000 workers in his electorate.

The simple fact is, this government has absolutely no idea what it means for low-income workers and families to lose between $50 and $77 a week from their pay packet. Let me be very clear: working longer hours for the same take-home pay is a pay cut. This decision is nothing short of unjust and unfair. On Friday, 17 March, I was proud to rally with the Queensland Council of Unions Townsville branch members to start our campaign to fight cuts to penalty rates. We were outside Senator Macdonald's office at 8 am, but there was no sign of him. The sign on his office door explains why: his office opens Monday to Friday, 8.30 am to 5 pm. The reality is that Senator Macdonald does not understand the importance of penalty rates for low-income workers; he is handsomely compensated for his extended hours of work, and we all know that he will fight to protect his conditions.

I was elected to represent the people of Herbert and I am here in this place to be the strong voice in Canberra for the one-in-six workers in my electorate who will be affected by these savage cuts. I am here to stand up for people like Jaydon. He is a fourth-year law student, currently studying at James Cook University. He is engaged. He and his fiancee live in a small one-bedroom unit and pay $250 per week in rent. Jaydon works six days a week to survive. He works as a barista on weekends specifically to boost his income. He is a casual on the Fast Food Industry Award. The Fair Work decision means that Jaydon could lose $50 a week. I am asking someone in the Turnbull government to please explain to Jaydon why he deserves a pay cut. I am calling on the Turnbull government to support the 13,000 workers in Townsville and the more than 42,000 workers across North Queensland and to support workers like Jaydon by standing with Labor and supporting our private member's bill. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded? I thought you would sit down, Mr Kelly!

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are certainly correct, Deputy Speaker Mitchell. This is not a motion that I would second. I do not think there has been a motion brought into this House that is a greater distortion of the truth and a greater piece of hypocrisy than I have ever heard in my time in this place. Let us go through the truth and the facts that the member for Herbert conveniently disregards.

This so-called cut to penalty rates only affects five of 122 awards. They are starting with a scare campaign. Here we go. This is nothing but another deceptive scare campaign by Labor members trying to trick the public and scare them, just like their 'Mediscare' campaign. The member for Herbert, of all people, should be apologising in this House to the people of her electorate for tricking them at the last election. Still, they wear that deception as a badge of honour. We are going to talk about penalty rates because the truth exposes what a pack of frauds the Labor Party are on this issue. It is only five out of 122 awards.

What they fail to mention is that the changes made by the Fair Work Commission do not affect workers at Coles, Woolworths, BigW, Target, Kmart, David Jones, McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, Red Rooster and Hungry Jacks. And do you know why? It is because their penalty rates have already been ripped off by them by the shop assistants' union. I have before me the EBA for Red Rooster. Guess what it says, Deputy Speaker?

Paragraph 28.3 relates to weekend penalty rates. It says, 'All work performed on a Saturday or on a Sunday during ordinary hours shall be subject to the following penalty rates:' There is an entry for Queensland. Member for Herbert, can you tell me what penalty rates Red Rooster workers in Queensland get? Can you tell me what they would get? Is it 50 per cent? Is it 25 per cent? I will tell you, member for Herbert. It is zero. It is right here. It says, 'No loading applies.' They have already been ripped off by the unions in their penalty rates. And what for? What did they get? I will tell you. I have the KFC national enterprise agreement here. This is what penalty rates have been sold off for. Paragraph 40.2 says:

… the employer undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

Paragraph 40.3 says:

All employees, including new employees at the point of recruitment, shall be given an application form to join the Union together with a statement of the employer's policy.

What young person in their first job is going to say, 'No, I am not going to sign that form.' Where does it get them?

Paragraph 41.4 is the killer. It says:

The employer—

that is KFC—

undertakes … to deduct Union membership dues as levied by the Union in accordance with its rules from the pay of employees … Such monies collected will be forwarded to the appropriate … Union …

So what has happened here? Not only have they ripped penalty rates off the workers so that these workers are getting no penalty rates under the union deal, the union get a lifeline into their pay packet to rob their pay. And where does that money ultimately end up? It ends up financing the election campaigns of members of the Labor Party. What a disgrace! What a sham! What a pack of hypocrites you lot are! You come in here and say you are standing up for workers, and all you have done is stand there and rip them off with their penalty rates. What are Labor trying to protect? It is the competitive disadvantage to small business.

Let us take a few examples. A family owned chicken shop pay a worker $29.16 on a Sunday, but KFC, who have been touched up by the unions, pay union members only $21.19. So under the current arrangements that you lot are defending, it is illegal for that family owned business to offer that KFC worker a higher rate of pay. If they say, 'We want to pay you $26 an hour,' that is illegal. Your deals are stopping workers getting more pay. What a disgrace is it to make out that this is somehow compulsory. What a sham!

Many employers who are already paying that higher rate of pay have said that they are happy to continue to do so. One of them is a company called Lush. (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to proudly support the member for Herbert's motion concerning penalty rates. I also note the impact of the Liberal-National government's continued attacks on the penalty rates and the conditions of workers in regional and rural Australia, as evidenced in the previous speech by the member for Hughes.

The recent Fair Work Commission's decision to cut penalty rates will hurt retail and hospitality workers and their families in regional areas. Figures reveal that my electorate of Richmond will be hit hard by the decision and hit hard by the Turnbull government's refusal to act and stop the Fair Work Commission's cut to penalty rates. In fact, in the past few days, the Prime Minister has shamefully stated that he supports the Fair Work Commission's cuts to penalty rates. He therefore supports cutting the wages of hardworking Australians.

In my electorate, more than 13,000 people—or one in five employees—work in the retail, food and accommodation industries, and they will be affected by these cuts. These workers stand to lose up to $77 per week. Retail is the second-biggest industry in my electorate, employing more than 7,000 workers. Food and hospitality is the third-largest industry, employing more than 6,000 workers. Make no mistake: these cuts will be devastating for my region and devastating for local families.

These cuts to penalty rates are also bad for our local economy, as these workers will now have less money to spend in our local businesses—our local shops and restaurants. These shops rely on our local economy and local workers. The workers are also the customers, so small businesses will be impacted as well. The fact is that the Prime Minister and his Liberal and National Party members have campaigned for a very long period of time to cut penalty rates, and that campaign continues from speakers across the chamber.

I would like to note and commend those businesses both in my electorate and throughout the country who have stated they will not be cutting their penalty rates following the decision. We should make mention of them and commend them.

Labor are determined to stop this damage being inflicted on our local workers and our economy. Indeed, I commend the opposition leader for putting forward his private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, in which we aim to stop these cuts to penalty rates. Labor's bill would stop the devastating effect of penalty rate cuts from taking effect. We know those Liberal and National MPs will shamefully continue to block the introduction of laws to protect penalty rates—that is what they do. They do it because they are seriously out of touch. They will vote against protecting workers from a $77 a week pay cut, but they will vote for a $50 billion tax cut for big business and multinationals. That is truly shameful. Labor has always had a strong commitment to protecting the rights and conditions of workers—specifically, their right to adequate and fair remuneration. Because, the fact is, it is penalty rates that pay the bills. It is penalty rates that put food on the table, and that is what those on the other side do not understand: it is a vital part of a worker's take-home pay.

Penalty rates are particularly important as they ensure that people are appropriately compensated for working long hours that are inconvenient and often unsociable, and for having to spend time away from their families. Families in regional Australia rely on penalty rates. These cuts will disproportionately impact on them, because wages are lower in regional areas, so it is a double hit to them. Our community is also deeply concerned about the impact on our regional economies. I note the McKell Institute estimates that disposable income in regional areas will fall by between $174 million and $748 million if penalty rates are cut in hospitality and retail awards. That is a massive hit to local economies. Cutting penalty rates in regional and rural areas has a much broader reach than those specifically listed in the original decision. Who is going to be next? Will it be our hardworking nurses, our healthcare workers, our police, our firefighters, our ambulance officers, our tourism employees, our cleaners? Who is next? They could be severely impacted if this is extended to those industries as well.

As a former police officer, and as someone who worked shift work for many years, I understand and empathise with the challenges and difficulties faced by people who work irregular hours and I understand why penalty rates are so vitally important. But since the election of this government, we have seen an enormous increase in the level of campaigning to reduce penalty rates. The government are out there every day advocating strongly for it, and, in the country, we have the National Party strongly advocating for it. As I have said many times, National Party choices hurt. Well, this one will really hurt the country if you are going to vote against these workers and you are going to vote to cut penalty rates. But people will remember it, and we will be campaigning on it every day up until the next election, because Labor will stand by regional and rural Australia. We will stand by the workers who rely on penalty rates and will fight every day in this place and throughout the country to protect workers, wages and conditions.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this motion on penalty rates, and, in so doing, I initially reflect on a couple of very important points. I reflect on the fact that, following the Fair Work Commission's independent decision, small businesses across Australia—shops, pharmacies, takeaways, hotels—have noted and publicly stated the fact that they have found it traditionally far too expensive, in most cases, to open on Sundays. They say that this decision will allow them to keep their doors open on Sundays, to employ more people, to provide more jobs and, in particular, to provide a level playing field such that they can compete with big business. I also reflect that it was Mr Shorten himself who set the rules for this particular inquiry—

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Groom has to refer to members by their proper titles.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition leader himself set the rules for this inquiry and appointed the umpire. He repeatedly said he would respect that umpire's decision. Just like the Reserve Bank, in making decisions about interest rates, has removed any suggestion of political interference, so it is the case with the Fair Work Commission. It has spent many years studying the evidence—many submissions, many witnesses—and it has considered the views of unions and employer organisations alike, along with many experts as well. It was set up by the Gillard government in 2009. It was tasked in 2013 by Labor to review all awards every four years. And it was the opposition leader himself, as the workplace relations minister in 2013, who amended the Fair Work Act to specifically require the commission to consider penalty rates as part of that process. He said he would abide by the independent umpire—the umpire that he set up. Further, when he was leader of the AWU, the opposition leader in fact—as the member for Hughes has quite rightly reflected—removed penalty rates for some other of Australia's lowest paid workers.

In our electorate of Groom, this is fundamentally about small businesses. In my community they are the engine of our economy. They are family businesses—I am talking about the Cooreys, the Betroses, the Hannas, the Fitzgibbons—who provide retail and hospitality and other services to our community, and they have done so for decades and decades, generation after generation.

Upon hearing of the Fair Work Commission's decision, the chamber of commerce president in Toowoomba, in my electorate of Groom, Joy Mingay, provided some fairly significant feedback. She said a large shopping centre manager said to her it would have no impact on the employees of their tenants in that centre, because they had already had their penalty rates traded away by the union movement. She said others provided advice that it would help them restart businesses—popular family businesses that can now look at opening on Sundays and employing new employees, particularly students from the University of Southern Queensland who are so dependent on casual employment. There is the pub and hospitality operator who said there would be no difference to them whatsoever, and that they will continue to pay their staff the same rates, because the minimum rate set by the Fair Work Commission would not mean much difference to their business at all. Others recognise as well that it is a minimum and, for them, it will not change. Changed shopping patterns of modern day Australians—as members of the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce and other local organisations have noted—mean that it is a seven-day-a-week cycle.

I have noted Senator Claire Moore, based in Brisbane, making commentary about small business in Toowoomba. She is a fly-in fly-out senator to our city—sure, she has Toowoomba roots, such as I do—but I am concerned that she must not be touching base with small business in my city, because that is what they are saying. They are saying they recognise this as an independent decision. They recognise that they are the engine room of our economy, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission—as originally established by the Labor Party—now means that they can provide more jobs and more opportunities, and provide the benefits to our community that the Fair Work Commission itself recognised would flow.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to support the private member's motion brought forward by the member for Herbert, and I thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of penalty rates. What is at stake here is a longstanding feature of the Australian social compact. People are rightly compensated for working long and unsociable hours; they are rightly compensated because they give up precious time—the time that most Australians devote to spending with family and friends, enjoying the cultural and recreational activities that are concentrated on weekends and holidays. But they are also rightly compensated because working overtime and on weekends or public holidays can sometimes fall to those at the bottom end of the employment hierarchy. Penalty rates compensate people for working in circumstances most would like to avoid. They provide an incentive that makes such work less unattractive to a range of employees, which in turn means those hours are not forced on people just because they are a new employee, or young, or part-time, or otherwise less empowered within a particular workplace.

While I do not live in regional or rural Australia—I lived in the south-west of Western Australia as a kid, and I have family in the Great Southern—I have travelled extensively within my state, and I continue to do so. I was in Nannup on Monday last week—a lovely town and a great example of the way that rural economies have changed and diversified over the last 30 years. It continues to display traditional strengths in farming and plantation timber, but it has also developed a growing profile in the form of tourism and creative industries. The truth is that weekends and holidays are times of strong trade in regional centres, just as they are in places like Fremantle. In many centres that represent a tourism or food and beverage and retail hub, it is not the weekend that is the problem. It is the week—Monday to Friday—that can actually present the biggest challenge. So we have to ask ourselves: what will cutting penalty rates really achieve? There is little evidence cutting penalty rates will deliver significantly different amenity in the form of extended hours of business operation. There is very little evidence it will result in greater employment overall. The only certainty to be found in reducing penalty rates is that you will cut wages. There will be people who straight away lose take-home pay. That will hit individuals and households. It will hit local communities.

Do not forget that in rural and regional Australia the people who work in retail and hospitality centres like Albany, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Port Hedland and Broome are often living in smaller towns within a substantial radius—sometimes 100 kilometres or more. What those workers earn is then spent in their local communities. If you cut their income; you cut what goes through the till in local shops and businesses. All the evidence is the vast majority of those who will be affected by a change to penalty rates are on low wages already. In addition to being lower income earners, they are more likely to be young; they are more likely to be part-time employees and students; they are more likely to be single-parents and women. So why on earth would we be looking to make life harder for those people?

The proposed change to penalty rates has been floated by the Productivity Commission—but it is the government that bears ultimate responsibility. The government will choose—by action or omission—whether this change is made. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if they let these cuts come into being they will own those cuts. In the end, we have to come back to the commonsense question: what exactly is the problem that cutting penalty rates seeks to address? There is no pressing national crisis when it comes to getting something to drink or eat on the weekend, and it is ridiculous to suggest that the first step in creating jobs in Australia should be to cut the wages of those already in work.

The truth is that cutting wages is the last thing we need when we face the related issues of rising inequality, flat productivity, and faltering growth. We do not need to reduce demand in the economy by cutting the spending capacity of those who have least, and who spend what they earn. We do need to address stagnant wage growth, particularly for low- and middle-income earners. We do need to have a frank conversation about rising profits and executive salaries that have grown out of all proportion to average earnings, and which have soared irrespective of poor performance.

This government has a knack for getting tangled up in simple issues. There really is no cause for changing penalty rates. There is no cause for standing in the way of marriage equality. There is no cause for waging a bizarre war on renewable energy. It is derelict to slash funding to community legal centres, and to leave the National Affordable Housing Agreement in such a state of uncertainty. Australia needs a government focused on the big issues and the member for Herbert has got it spot on: this coalition government should swallow its pride and support Labor's fair work amendment to protect the take-home pay of low-income Australian workers, and it should get serious about tackling the issue of jobs in Australia as a whole.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hundreds of thousands of Australian workers rely on penalty rates. Penalty rates are there to recognise workers for making the sacrifice of working when others are not. They are also often the only thing helping workers make ends meet. Cutting penalty rates for our lowest paid workers will have a devastating impact on families on the Central Coast in the electorate of Dobell. A cut to penalty rates is a cut to take home pay that workers cannot afford and do not deserve. The Prime Minister made an unprecedented call over the weekend, saying that he supported cutting penalty rates. It is unconscionable that a Prime Minister would commit to making it even harder for families to make a living.

The government is sitting on its hands and will support cuts to the wages of some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, with up to 770,000 Australians losing up to $77 per week. As our leader said this morning, that is a tank of petrol or a pair of shoes for a student going back to school. That is putting food on the table. That is a uni student being able to make ends meet and get to class. It means people having to work longer hours for less pay, women being disproportionately affected and regional communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales having less money to spend in our already difficult economies. Cuts to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates will not end with the hospitality, retail, fast food and pharmacy awards. This is just the beginning, and it is being ideologically driven by this government. Nurses, firefighters, aged-care workers and others will be the next to face these drastic cuts, and others can also expect no support from the Prime Minister or the government for having their wages slashed as well.

I was at Lake Haven Shopping Centre in Gorokan, and a young single mum I spoke to works nights and weekends in retail to make ends meet. Penalty rates mean she earns just enough to pay the bills for her and her young daughter. Working nights and weekends, with the help of her family, means that she does not have to find extra money for child care, which would see her moving backwards financially.

My nana Elaine worked in retail her entire life. She was a proud member of the shoppies and bravely stood with other workers to improve their conditions. It could have risked her job and that of her friend Lola in trying to make it safe to go to work and to come home. Through their efforts—the efforts of my nan and her brave friends—other workers were able to have basic conditions, to support their families and to have dignity in work.

I am very pleased that there are members of the SDA visiting this parliament today. I ask everybody to make the time to listen to them and to hear the first-hand experience of young women like Jasmine who are so affected by these cuts. I stand here today really on behalf of my nan Elaine and her friend Lola. They would be devastated to see the cuts to the basic conditions and the loss of fairness and dignity in work, which they, standing side by side with their colleagues, saw introduced and which now are at risk.

At Lake Haven shopping centre recently, when I had my mobile office, I met with locals about their concerns about losing penalty rates. We started at 3pm with a line up already waiting and we did not leave until every last person had signed that petition after 7pm. There was a great sense of community with people signing the petition to stand up for their own penalty rates and the penalty rates of their friends and family. They were concerned by the knowledge that other industries would be hit next.

On the Central Coast there are pockets of extreme disadvantage. The unemployment rate for young people sits at just under 17 per cent. We know that penalty rates are helping people get by. Whether it is students completing their TAFE training or university or whether it is young families starting out in life, we know these cuts will hurt them. They are cruel cuts which will hurt the most vulnerable in our community. As a health worker, I know that uncertainty at work can have drastic health impacts. As someone who has worked in mental health for most of my life, I know how severe the consequences of uncertainty at work can be to individuals and their families.

I congratulate the member for Herbert for standing and speaking on this motion and drawing it to the nation's attention. I proudly stand with her to protect the penalty rates of others.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.