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

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 would have two effects: firstly, it would stop retail and hospitality workers' wages being cut as a result of the decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission last month, and, secondly, it would stop the Fair Work Commission cutting award wages and penalty rates in other industries, by constraining the discretion of the commission. That is why this bill is so important.

This is a time when wage growth in this country is at an all-time low, at least since records began in 1998—at least that long. It is also a time when more Australians are feeling cost-of-living pressures: the difficulty in making ends meet; the difficulty in paying bills and in paying the mortgage, in paying the rent and in putting food on the table and petrol in the car. These are real life experiences happening now to thousands and thousands of Australians, and they will be made worse if we allow the effects of the Fair Work decision to occur.

Of course it is also a time when the Prime Minister and the government want to give corporate tax cuts to big business and to banks. We have this most bizarre contrast in this place where, on the one hand, you have a Prime Minister wanting to see a pay cut of up to $77 a week for retail and hospitality workers and workers in pharmacies and, at the same time, allowing for a $17,000 tax cut on 1 July. We have a situation where we will see real cuts that will cause real damage to the social fabric of this country by cutting workers' wages and yet we have a government that wants to give a $50 billion tax giveaway to big businesses. It is an absolute shame, and the government must consider a different view. We have invited the Prime Minister to join Labor and support this bill, the effect of which would mean that the decision would not hurt so many Australians.

There are other issues, too, that have not been fully aired in this discussion, and it is such an important discussion. Firstly, today, there was the revelation from the Australia Institute that hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost in revenue as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision. How that would happen is that people's wages will fall—people who currently have some social benefit, which may well be a family tax benefit, paid to them as a result of the level of their income—and, if you cut the level of their income, you will see increased reliance on social welfare payments. These hardworking Australians in this country have to suffer the indignity of their Prime Minister and this government wanting to cut their wages, making them rely more on social welfare. At the same time, there is going to be a hit to revenue for this government, which of course begs the questions: why is it that Treasury made no modelling in relation to the effects on employment? We have to rely on the spurious claims from those who say it is going to be a great boon to employment. And why is it that, in estimates, Treasury could not indicate the loss to revenue as a result of the intersection of the wages that these workers are reliant upon with some of the social welfare payments they receive? This is an important bill. It will help redress inequality in this country, which is at a 75-year high. It seeks to redress the difficulties people are confronting every day when dealing with cost-of-living pressures.

I also want to touch on one other matter. Labor made clear when the decision was handed down that this would be the thin edge of the wedge, that this would be the beginning of an assault on workers' wages. The Prime Minister said that was an absurd proposition. In fact, he called it a lie. Well, what we have seen as result of the decision is that three further awards will now be subject to potential arbitration and further cuts. Hairdressers and beauticians, those who work in clubs and hotels and those who work in restaurants will now also be subject to consideration as to whether their penalty rates will be cut, and they may well join retail workers and hospitality workers in losing real income. This is a very important bill. We would expect Malcolm Turnbull, if he had any concern for Australians, if he were not so out of touch, to support this bill today and look after these workers in this country.

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

Here we go again, with another typical Labor scare campaign. It is threatening and it is making workers out there who are doing a good job scared for their penalty rates. People need to be scared for their penalty rates because of what the unions have done to them. Let us have a quick look here. We heard the opposition leader in his speech say, 'When you negotiate on behalf of workers, it's about making them better off overall.' Really? Let us see what the Fair Work Commission had to say about that in a decision last year, on 31 May 2016, in Hart v Coles Supermarkets Australia. At paragraph 33 of that decision the Fair Work Commission—Vice President Watson, Deputy President Kovacic and Commissioner Roe—said, about the idea that unions make people better off overall:

Taking into account all of these matters we are not satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT—

the better off overall test—

For some employees, particularly those who work primarily at times which attract lower penalty rates under the Agreement when compared to the Award, the loss in monetary terms is potentially significant. The potential loss is likely to be of significance for part-time and casual employees. We have considered whether or not the other benefits of the Agreement when compared to the Award can make up for this deficit. We are not satisfied that a consideration of all benefits and detriments under the Agreement results in each employee and each prospective employee being better off overall under the Agreement compared to the Award. It follows that we are not satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT.

That is not the Liberal Party; that is the Fair Work Commission, stacked with Labor Party commissioners, saying that workers are worse off under a union agreement. Why are they worse off? Because they have been sold out for union memberships and union fees. That is the simple reason.

You only have to look at the EBA for those poor old KFC workers who get zero penalty rates on the weekend under a union agreement. Their union agreement says, at clause 40.2:

… the employer undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join—

the union—

… 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 kid, 15 or 16 years of age, going to their first job, when told their employer 'positively promotes the union' and 'recommends they join' and given a form to sign, before they actually get the job and before they earn a dollar, is going to say no? Not one. What does that allow the unions to do? It allows them to get a money trail into their pay packet, where these young workers have money ripped off out of their pay to go straight into the union coffers. For the privilege of that union fee, they are not even getting a single cent of penalty rates, and you mob over there say nothing. You are silent, dead silent.

The other issue with this penalty rate decision is that it is not compulsory. Many small businesses have already decided they will pay the higher rate of pay. There is no reason that they will cut rates of pay just because of the Fair Work Commission decision. Many companies have come out and said exactly that. The retailer Lush, with close to 600 employees, have said that they are happy with their workforce, that they are happy with the rates of pay they are giving them and that they are not going to make any cuts, because they value their employees. I say that this decision of the retailer Lush—and we give them credit for it—will be repeated by company after company, by small business after small business.

Ultimately, this decision is about having a level playing field for both small business and large business. The other side like to talk about inequality. The greatest inequality is when a small business is forced to pay 50 per cent more in salaries than a large business. That is the greatest inequality. It stops many young workers from actually getting— (Time expired)

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to urge those opposite to support this private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017. As we know, the Fair Work Commission decision has slashed Sunday and public holiday rates for around 700,000 workers in the hospitality, hotel, retail, fast-food and pharmacy industries. Many of those workers—most of them—are women, and many of them have lost up to $77 a week. The bill that is before us at the moment would prevent those losses occurring.

I have heard so many stories in recent weeks about the effect that this will have on the budgets of ordinary Australians. I heard from one woman in particular: Lititia Richardson, who works as a food and beverage attendant. She said:

It's the difference between fresh vegetables and frozen vegetables. If you take that $20 away—well, I mean I live on a shoestring anyway, I don't know how I'd manage. It's not much to ask to be able to be paid enough to give your family the basic necessities and maybe if you're lucky a little something extra like a dancing lesson.

Those opposite claim that these cuts will result in extra jobs being created. Frankly, this is difficult to believe. Most of us know from our experience, from our time in the workforce, that the most likely outcome of these wages cuts is that people will do the same amount of work for less money. That is it—the same number of hours and the same amount of work, just paid less to do what they used to be paid more to do.

In their latest submission to the Fair Work Commission on Friday, the government should have said that they do not support this change. They should come in here and vote to protect people's pay. Instead of going to the Fair Work Commission and arguing to protect people's penalty rates, they have said, with their hands up in the air: 'There's nothing we can do.' If only someone in a real position of power or authority took an interest in people's pay and conditions! In contrast, Labor put in a submission arguing to protect the penalty rates of not only the workers who have already been affected by these changes but also workers under other awards who will potentially be affected.

I want to particularly draw attention to the gender pay gap and how these changes affect women. Fifty-seven per cent of hospitality workers are women, and 57 per cent of takeaway food workers are women, as are 62 per cent of retail workers and 85 per cent of pharmacy workers. We have shown that a significant majority of people working on Sundays are women. We already have a gender pay gap in this country. The Prime Minister is very fond of saying that women hold up half the sky, but we are doing it for 17 per cent less pay. Changes like this will exacerbate the gender pay gap in Australia. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. We know that up to another 323,000 workers under other awards, including the clubs award, the restaurant and cafe award and the hair and beauty award will potentially be the next cab off the rank when it comes to losing penalty rates.

I have worked in many of these industries. As a uni student, I worked in cafes, in restaurants and in clubs. I know that, for me as a uni student, it would have made a big difference to lose those penalty rates. But I will tell you who it really makes a big difference to. It will make the biggest difference to people who are trying to raise a family on these wages. They are being told that they will be expected to do the same amount of work for less pay. They are supposed to give up their time on Sundays and public holidays, when they should be home with their families, celebrating as families do at these times, having a bit of time off, enjoying each other's company and establishing the relationships that carry you through life. Instead they are giving up that time, they are giving up pay and they are expected to turn up to do the same work. In the next lot of awards that are being examined, 54 per cent of club workers are female, as are 59 per cent of restaurant workers, 86 per cent of hairdressers and 99 per cent of beauticians. If the government do not think this will exacerbate the gender pay gap, they are dreaming.

We are also very concerned about the effect on the economy, the effect on demand and the effect on taxes that have been described in the papers today. The government should back this private member's bill and prevent these pay cuts.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition—the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017—is entirely disingenuous. He seems to not remember that he was responsible for setting up the Fair Work Commission, for staffing the Fair Work Commission and for triggering this inquiry. It really is the height of hypocrisy. One could not accuse the Leader of the Opposition of being cursed with a strong memory. In fact, in so many instances he has totally deserted the position that he took as little as 12 months ago. On a number of occasions in this chamber, the Prime Minister has highlighted where the Leader of the Opposition and the union movement have done deals with big business that cut penalty rates—deals with no reward for the workers but rewards for the unions, and a lot of those rewards are monetary. The other one, of course, is access to new workers for the purpose of recruiting them to the union. I am brought back to an occasion where a mother came to me, and her son was commencing work as a 16-year-old with KFC. KFC is one of those companies that has done a deal with the unions on penalty rates. As part of his first day induction, he was met by the union official with a view to signing him up to the union. This union official happened to be an ex-senator, an ex-member of the other place, in his 60s. What kind of power imbalance is that? You have this ex-senator, a man who had great authority in his own community, sitting on the other side of the desk from a 16-year-old and telling him that he must join the union. That is a standover tactic, and that is the deal that the union has done with, in this particular case, a big employer.

Since the announcement by Fair Work Australia that penalty rates for Sunday and Monday would be reduced by a margin—it must be said; if you read some of the emails, you would believe that they were actually getting rid of penalty rates, but that is far from the truth—basically, the only contact I have had complaining about this decision has been the formula emails, the campaign emails, that have come out of groups like GetUp! But I have not actually been contacted by a real-life individual telling me that this is going to be great problem to their existence. But, virtually daily, when I am in my electorate, I am contacted by young people who cannot get a job. They say, 'Mr Ramsey, do know anywhere I can get a job? Can you point me to someone who is taking on people?' When I look around and see some of the establishments that used to operate on Sundays and holiday Mondays that no longer do, I say, 'A few years ago, you could've got a job there.'

It is pretty tough. I remember speaking to a pizza shop owner, for instance, and he told me that on holiday Mondays he had to pay his pizza delivery boy $45 an hour to drop off pizzas. I do not know if any members of the Labor Party have bought a pizza lately. Perhaps you have, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. But I can tell you, you have to sell an awful lot of pizzas to be able to pay someone $45 an hour to deliver them around the community. He said, 'On Sundays and holiday Mondays, my family are my staff.' They do not have any choice about the matter. He said, 'If I need to keep my doors open, and I do because I am a pizza shop, my family all have to work on those days.' So he does not really have the liberty to employ anyone, whether or not it be on penalty rates.

Penalty rates have robbed jobs from other people in the community already. Recently I was talking to a restaurant owner. This man employs around 30 people and he opens 365 days a year. I said to him, 'Chris, do you lose money on those high-operating-expense days?' He said, 'Yes, absolutely. We go backwards.' I said, 'Why do you open?' He said, 'Just so I can say that I open 365 days a year.' The reduction in these penalty rates does not affect the restaurant industry, and he said to me, 'Why aren't we in this as well?' What I can say is that those jobs, those 30 people he employs, are dependent on his pride—so he can say, 'We open 365 days a year.' But if he sells that restaurant, there is no guarantee that the next person will have that pride.

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

The government members of parliament—the Nationals and the Liberals—just do not get it: 700,000 workers are set to have their pay cut just in retail and hospitality alone, and that is before the employers get their way in beauty, in hairdressing, in restaurants and in pubs and clubs. There will be even more workers who will have their pay cut as a result of this government's failure to stand up for low-paid workers if they do not take action. How much a week is it? It is a straight pay cut—$77 per week. We have heard examples, in this place and in the community, about that impact. We have heard from Kerry, a pharmacist assistant who earns about $30,000 a year. She is a part-time worker, and the cut to the Sunday penalty is worth $1,500 to Kerry. We have also heard from Margarita. Margarita is a room attendant in Melbourne who works in one of the most expensive hotels in Melbourne. She earns about $30,000 a year, and her pay cut will be about $2,000 a year. These are people who work for big companies and small companies, not just the small businesses that that mob over there say that this will help—these are also big businesses.

Just to demonstrate how out of touch the MPs opposite are, the Liberal-National MPs have said that this pay cut is a gift to young people, that this will affect people in the margins and that they are pleased with this decision. We cannot go any further than the Minister for Small Business himself, who last week claimed:

I get a travel allowance, others get penalty rates …

To compare an MP's travel allowance—a claim of about $50,000—to someone's entire wage of $30,000 is just outrageous. It demonstrates how out of touch this mob are. This is also the same person who said, not that long ago, that politicians earn less than people in the private sector, and that they did not deserve as much scrutiny. Politicians earn less than people in the private sector? Perhaps the Minister for Small Business is talking about CEOs, because he is definitely not talking about the people who work for small business, he is definitely not talking about retail workers in the private sector and he is definitely not talking about hospitality workers. I would like to see the people in this place turn up for $30,00 year. I reckon we might be a few MPs short if we had to survive on the wages that people in the private sector working in retail and hospitality try to survive on.

This is a government that is desperately out of touch. They are also trying to spread some very dishonest propaganda about how collective and enterprise bargaining works. We cannot go further than the example of McDonald's. As I said, in this place and in my own electorate, you cannot just talk about the Sunday rate. You have to talk about the Monday to Friday rate, and you have to talk about all the allowances. At McDonald's, a full-time senior weekly wage is up to $70 above the award—$70 a week better off overall—because of enterprise bargaining and union negotiations. The EBA also delivers minimum hourly shifts. It delivers family violence leave, compassionate leave and study leave, and anybody working in McDonald's—and there are a lot of younger people working there—takes advantage of their study leave. There are also older people working there.

As the deputy opposition leader said just a moment ago, the majority of the people working in these sectors are women. Some of them are younger women, some of them are older women. Their wage has become the primary income in their households. They are trying to survive. They are trying to pay their bills. They are trying to support their kids. As one retail assistant told me in Tasmania, this is how she pays for her son's basketball. Another retail worker told me that this is how she pays for her daughter's ballet lessons. This government is saying that they are backing big business and they are not stepping in to protect these workers. Instead, they want to see these children miss out on ballet and basketball lessons.

These pay cuts are a wrong decision by the Fair Work Commission. We are calling upon the government to support Labor's bill to protect low-paid workers and to do it now before it becomes a free-for-all and flows through and affects workers in all these other sectors. As we have heard today in the papers, this penalty rate cut alone will give a massive whack to the budget. If the government wants to stop that happening, then they need to step in now. The government needs to support Labor's private member's bill not just for the workers but for the community and for the economy.

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 the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.