Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have all just recently heard the Treasurer announce his budget, and I am sure many people across Australia were keenly listening to hear how the Turnbull government will help ease their cost of living pressures. Unfortunately, watching the government's decisions and action since the election, many people are not surprised by what was announced in the Treasurer's speech—or, actually, by what was not announced. There were no measures to make day-to-day life easier for any ordinary Australian. For the record, I do not consider millionaires to be ordinary Australians. There were no measures to curb the housing affordability crisis and there was no mention of protecting their take home pay.

I can see that the Treasurer could not make reference to every bill that his party wishes to pass. But you would think that he would not entirely avoid referring to the measures that will leave 700,000 working Australians worse off. In fact, 35,000 of those come from the Moreton Bay region, from places like Strathpine and Redcliffe and Burpengary and Morayfield, where I come from. You might even think we would have heard of measures from this government that look to counter that devastating cut to workers' take-home pay and the loss to their local economy. But no—there is not one single mention. Do you know why? It is because the Treasurer and his government know that the cut to penalty rates is a really bad idea. They know that it is bad for workers. They know that it is bad for the economy. They know that nobody but big business wants these cuts. So they are avoiding bring it up at all.

But what any government should be doing is listening, not avoiding hearing what the country wants. They should be listening. While this government have been sticking their fingers in their ears, Labor has been listening. Labor's Australian Jobs Task Force committee has been listening to workers. They have been listening to unions, employers and stakeholders to hear and see the problems that the Australian jobs environment places on them. We have taken the task force all over Australia to get the most representative view, from metropolitan cities to regional towns, as far north as Cairns and as far south as Launceston, as far east as the Moreton Bay region and, as parliament rose last week, we travelled over to Western Australia. We have heard concerns regarding everything from the exploitation of workers to labour hire companies being used to undermine wages, issues about how apprentices are being treated and how workers are defining themselves as lucky because they get paid the award rate of pay. That is what 'lucky' is to some people.

What stood out most, what we heard people stress over the most, has been their fear of cuts to their take-home pay and what these cuts would do to the lives of people many of whom are already struggling to get by. It is just devastating. We have heard from people who have been at the mercy of a phone call putting their entire lives on hold hoping to secure a shift of work. These are people who need their penalty rates, who rely on them just to pay the bills. We have heard from an oncology nurse in the health sector. She told us that after a weekend of working over Easter—and she lost a patient—she could not walk into her own home and enjoy her family celebrating Easter. Crying, she turned to me and said, 'Why am I having this conversation? Why am I worrying that I'm next?' This is an oncology nurse who just finished doing a shift over a weekend.

People see right through these cuts. They know that there is more at play than simply to bring the Sunday rates in line with what is offered on Saturdays. Otherwise, why aren't Saturday rates being lifted to meet in the middle? It is obvious that this is a ploy to keep the hard-earned take-home pay of Australians, their money, in the pockets of their employers. The Australian people see right through it. It is not hard to see where the government's priorities lie, when they offer big businesses and multinationals a tax cut while cutting penalty rates. They are lowering the HECS payment threshold. They are setting out on a witch-hunt against welfare recipients, raising the cost to attend university and very, very quickly dismissing any call to raise the minimum wage.

So I say, Prime Minister Turnbull, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Listen to the people of Australia, the people you swore to work for and stand by. Because, Prime Minister, let me tell you something: when you listen you hear things. Listen to these workers and hear their stories. Hear how cruel these cuts are and how tough life will be, when, on 2 July, you are celebrating your anniversary as elected Prime Minister. You are celebrating by cutting their take-home pay.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I began my career as a builder, but in the 16 years before my election to this place I was a barrister. There is one very important principle that you learn when you practice law. That is the independence of the judiciary. The value of a court or arbitrator is that they can act independently. Where there are important questions to be decided and there are strong views on both sides, an independent umpire can weigh the evidence and make a decision without fear or favour. That is why the opposition leader set up the Fair Work Commission review into penalty rates. But now he presents us with this bill to consider. How his tune has changed.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill contains the sort of Orwellian double-think that only this Labor Party under this leader are capable of in modern politics—a Labor Party that is not a shadow of the party it was under prime ministers Hawke and Keating. The explanatory memorandum claims, seemingly with a rhetorical straight face: 'The bill preserves the independence of the Fair Work Commission.' Independence? Not only is it a bill that dictates to the Fair Work Commission what it can and cannot decide and that tells the Fair Work Commission that it can do whatever it wants as long as it is exactly what the Labor Party tells it to do; it is a bill that retrospectively reverses a decision the commission has already independently made. The blinding hypocrisy of the provisions contained in this bill is only matched by that of its mastermind proponent.

I do not know why I am even surprised. This is exactly the kind of top-down, nanny-knows-best world that the Labor Party are desperate to create: a Human Rights Commission that tells us exactly what to think and what to say, a workplace relations system where the only voice to be heard and dictated by is the CFMEU's and a Fair Work Commission that is legally obliged to agree with the Labor Party. That is the future that would face us if Labor were in government.

I believe that this bill contains at its heart a contradiction just as fundamental as the contradiction inherent in preserving an authority's independence by shackling it to Labor Party ideology. The new clause 135A prohibits any modern award which would be likely to reduce the take-home pay of any employee covered by the award and retrospectively annuls any decision after 22 February that would have the same effect. I have spoken to a great many business owners in my electorate, in Caloundra, Mooloolaba, Maleny and throughout the Fisher electorate, and they all tell me the same thing—that is, the cripplingly high penalty rates they are required to pay on Sundays and public holidays prevent them from opening, limit the staff they can employ and reduce the hours they can offer. They tell me that without these penalty rates they could offer more work to local people and would do so with great enthusiasm. So what would the effect of the new clause 135A be? It would be to prevent employees under an award being offered more hours and therefore more take-home pay. It would prevent unemployed Australians from becoming employees under the award and getting any pay at all. The effect of this clause would be to limit the income and opportunities available to potentially millions of Australians.

Why would the Labor Party want to keep small businesses closed on a Sunday? My colleagues in the House and in another place have given us the abundant evidence that makes the answer clear. It is because their union mates want to be able to go on handing big business a competitive advantage by giving away their workers' penalty rates while potential competitors have to pay more. With small businesses shackled, the unions can preserve their membership, grow their income and maintain their own power base. This bill, just like another well-known Bill, tells Australians to their faces that it will stand up for their pay and then gets stuck into selling them out to preserve union power. It is an absolute disgrace.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side of the House believe it is our absolute duty to protect this country's most vulnerable people. These include people on the lowest wages, people whose employment is precarious, people working under casual contracts, people working on weekends, people working part time and people who are underemployed. They are some of the lowest paid workers in this country. We on this side of the House see it as our duty to ensure that we put in fair legislation that protects these people so that they can live a dignified life.

Those on the opposite side, as we have just heard, are washing their hands of any assistance to these people. We have just heard the previous speaker talk about how this will create more employment. By cutting people's wages, you may create more employment. We could halve their wages and create more employment. We could pay them a plate of food once a week, if you like, and that would create more employment. But to cut people's wages is the most simplistic way that you can create work. I would really like to see the figures after six months and see if one single job has been created. People who give up their weekends, their family time and the things that others take for granted should be compensated for it. There is no other way about it. When you leave your family on a Sunday because you have to go and work, you should be compensated for it—that is only fair. This government obviously does not think that is fair.

This is the first time in the history of Australia where we have seen a cut in wages—in other words, wages going backwards. I am sure that the intention of the Fair Work Commission, when it was set up, was not to cut people's wages; it was there to intervene, look at different situations and perhaps to be an umpire and come up with some findings. It was never the intention of anyone who was helping set up that Fair Work Commission for it to one day cut people's wages, but that is what it has done—without any negotiations, without any discussions and without any enterprise bargaining agreement being put into place that perhaps would give increased hourly rates in return for some cut in penalty rates. There was no negotiation; it was just a straight out cut, which will hurt people. We on this side oppose it.

There is an opportunity, though, for the government—that opportunity is here before us today in legislation put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. That opportunity for the government is to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 and ensure that we put in a mechanism to protect people's wages so that they do not get a pay cut but continue to be able to earn enough money to pay their bills and put food on the table when they leave their families and serve us on weekends and after hours. Firstly, this bill would stop retail and hospitality workers' wages being cut as a result of the decision handed down, as we know, by the Fair Work Commission. 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.

Wage growth in this country is at record lows—the ABS figure is 1.9 per cent. This is the lowest wage growth since 1990s, when the ABS began tracking it, but estimates are that it is likely to be the slowest rate of pay rise since the last recession. So what we have here is a government that keeps banging on about jobs and growth and yet is willing to stand back and allow approximately 700,000 of our lowest paid workers to cop, on average, a $77 a week wage cut. This will hurt people. The McKell report into penalty rates estimates that workers in South Australian rural communities could lose up to $66.2 million per annum with a partial abolition of penalty rates in the retail and hospitality sectors. In my electorate of Hindmarsh, we recently held a meeting of Labor's Australian jobs taskforce to hear about the devastating impacts that penalty rate cuts could have on low-paid workers in my electorate. Figures show that there over 12,586 people—or one in six workers—in my electorate work in the retail, pharmacy, food and accommodation industries, and these people will be hurt. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"The House is of the opinion that the bill does not fully address the issue of penalty rates, and:

(1) notes that:

(a) when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union (AWU), his union negotiated enterprise agreements that reduced or removed Sunday penalty rates, including for:

i. around 780 workers at Big W in North Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;

ii. around 129 workers at Target Country in North Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;

iii. around 119 workers at Just Jeans in Queensland, whose penalty rates were 50% under the award;

iv. around 101 workers at Rydges Tradewinds in Cairns, who got no penalty rates at all;

v. around 480 workers at Cleanevent, who lost all their penalty rates;

(b) when the Labor Party was in Government, penalty rates were reduced in 2010 following its award modernisation process, including for many workers in the hospitality, restaurants, fast food and clubs sectors;

(c) presently, millions of workers – including staff at multinational and large businesses, such as Woolworths, Coles, Bunnings, McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Officeworks, Target, Kmart and the Langham Hotel – receive Sunday penalty rates that are below the award, thanks to enterprise agreements negotiated with large unions, including the AWU and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA);

(d) the proposed Sunday rate of 150 per cent in the retail industry that has been determined by the Fair Work Commission is the same as the Sunday rate in a range of retail industry agreements negotiated by the AWU and the SDA;

(e) small businesses that compete with large retail and fast food chains, and wish to employ staff on a Sunday, must currently employ them at higher rates than those large chains; and

(2) agrees that any legislation to address cuts in penalty rates under awards must also address cuts in penalty rates under union negotiated enterprise agreements".

I have some sympathy for the stance being taken by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not like to hear of any workers taking a forced cut in pay, and that goes for those who work Sundays at Coles and Woolies as well as those who work at small businesses across the country.

The Leader of the Opposition claims that he wants to protect workers from the independent Fair Work Commission, but I must ask how he can turn a blind eye to the penalty rate cuts that he allowed big business to get away with when he was the Australian Workers Union boss. To turn a blind eye to such union approved penalty rate cuts would be unfair not only to workers but also to small businesses, who struggle to compete on Sundays.

In Mackay there is a Coles supermarket that is one block away from a family owned grocery store. Coles gets away with paying their workers 150 per cent of regular penalty rates because the unions allowed it, whereas the family owned store is required to pay 200 per cent. How can that be fair? If those opposite are against the independent Fair Work Commission eroding the take home pay of retail, hospitality, tourism and fast food workers who work on a Sunday, they should also be against the reduction of take home pay for the vast majority of workers in those industries who have had their penalty rates cut due to the collusion between big unions and big business.

It is not fair that a Coles worker or a Woolies worker takes home less pay on a Sunday than someone who works at a local independent grocery store. It is not fair that local small mum and dad businesses have to pay more on Sundays than major corporates. If you truly support fairness, you will reinstate the pay of workers who had their Sunday penalty rates cut.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I think this is an incredibly important aspect. We have to look at penalty rates across the board, rather than just a single sector. So I thank the member for Dawson for moving the motion.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dawson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question is that the amendment be agreed to; however, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate will be adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.