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

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the government business order of the day relating to a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017) being called on immediately, being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages, the Member for Gorton being called to move that the bill be now read a second time, and, if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 5.30 pm on 13 June 2017, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the government business order of day relating to a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 and for related purposes being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages and the member for Gorton being called on to move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill must be called on because this is an important matter. This is a matter of national importance. If this bill is passed in this place today the penalty rates decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission in February will be quashed, which will mean that 700,000 workers in this country will not lose penalty rates. We have heard a lot from those on the other side talking about fairness. In fact they decided to hand down a budget arguing that it was a fair budget. That budget, of course, imposed taxes on all workers under $87,000 a year and gave a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires. Yet here is a bill that will provide relief for workers in this country by quashing an order of the Fair Work Commission, therefore enabling them to be given decent remuneration.

In the last three months we have seen this Prime Minister, and indeed this government, choosing to support a decision that will cause very difficult hardship for too many workers in this country. Hospitality workers, retail workers and other workers are losing conditions of employment and rates of pay as a result of that decision. We saw only last week the Commission decide to start the cuts on 1 July. In 18 days we are going to see people lose real money. We are going to see the Prime Minister provide support for a decision that will see the cutting of wages of hundreds of thousands of workers across the country.

There is no point in the members opposite saying they support workers in this country when here they have an opportunity, for once in their lives, to defend workers and to support workers' conditions of employment, indeed to support the current rates of pay that are in awards so that they will not be affected by that Fair Work decision. It is a simple bill. By the way, this bill has already passed the Senate. All it will take now is a vote for this bill in this place and we will have legislation that will prevent the cuts to penalty rates for too many of our fellow Australians.

We are at a time when wage growth in this country is lower than at any time in a generation. We have wage growth going backwards. The ABS data came out three weeks ago showing that wages are falling in real terms. Add to that the effect of this decision by the Fair Work Commission, and you will have further erosion of people's conditions of employment, further erosion of rates of pay. The same people, by the way, will have to pay increased taxes as a result of the budget that was announced by the Treasurer a few weeks ago.

This is a choice for the government. It can support the bill that has passed the Senate and has been introduced into this place. It can support a bill that has been supported by Labor from the outset and support those workers, or it can repudiate those workers and turn its back on hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. Every member opposite has thousands of workers in their electorates who will be affected by this decision. It will not end there. One important part of this bill is the fact that this will not allow the Fair Work Commission to make similar decisions that will change awards to cut penalty rates. At the moment we are talking about hospitality workers and retail workers, but of course there are already other matters before the commission. Clubs Australia is looking to vary its award to change the conditions of employment. We have the hairdressers' award being sought for amendment, which would cut the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. Indeed, there is no protection for other workers in other awards. Nurses, emergency workers, other workers that are regulated by federal awards could find themselves in a position to have their awards up before the Fair Work Commission to have their wages cut.

That can all change. We have a motion, moved by myself and seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business, to bring forward a bill that will prevent the effect of the Fair Work decision and ensure that future decisions of the Fair Work Commission cannot cut the wages of workers in this country.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about fairness. He has had focus groups telling him what to say about fairness. Here is his chance. We have a bill, introduced into this parliament, that has been passed by the Senate. It will take only the passing of this bill to ensure that we have the change of law required to quash the order determined by the Fair Work Commission. They have to decide this. We have had a few members of the government suggest that they want to entertain the thought of supporting this bill. Where is the member for Dawson? Where is the member for Gilmore? They have said they are going to support this. There is no point going to your electorate and saying you are going to support penalty rates if, when you come back into this place and have your first opportunity to support a bill that will do exactly that, you choose not to vote for it. I expect the member for Dawson, the member for Gilmore and other members of the government to cross the floor now, if the Prime Minister does not have the guts to support these workers, and come here and support this bill.

This bill, if passed, will ensure that workers in this country, suffering the lowest wage growth in a generation, suffering tax increases by this government, will get some relief. If government members choose not to support this bill then I think it is fair for everyone to conclude that this government has no regard for workers in this country, has no concern about the cost of living pressures and has no concern that workers cannot afford to pay for petrol, put food on the table, pay the rent or pay the mortgage. If they fail to support this motion today, they will stand condemned as a government totally out of touch with Australian workers, those people they pretend to look after when they go back to their electorates. The time is now. The Prime Minister and the government should support this proposed legislation. In doing so there will be relief for workers. It would show that they might stand up for workers for once in their life, but I have to say, given the history of this government and the callous disregard from the Prime Minister, I will not hold my breath.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is seconded. I love watching the—

Dr Gillespie interjecting—

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

You cannot, unless you want to second it.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he wants to second it, I am happy to give way. Has there ever been such confusion from a government as what we just witnessed while the member for Gorton was making that speech? Over there we saw the panic on the face of the member for Lyne—'Do I move that he stop talking or do I let him keep going?'—with advisers showing him mobile phones and telling him what to do, and a little huddle happening over there next to the Speaker's chair, while they work out that, if they bring it on now, move that members be no longer heard and then move that the question be put, there will be a vote before question time. Would they rather do that, or would they rather give themselves a chance to have a few hours to heavy some of the members of their own backbench to try to bring them into line before this comes to a vote?

This vote would give the parliament a chance to stop the pay cut. That is what they are terrified about. That is what they are worried about. The simplicity of this vote is that if the parliament votes in favour of the bill that the member for Gorton is saying should be brought forward then 700,000 Australians will not get a pay cut. There are a couple of members opposite who, if the vote had been brought on quickly, you might have thought, given their public statements, would be willing to join Labor in stopping the pay cut. We have always seen the ritual, when suspensions are moved: they move that the member be no longer heard, the seconder stands, they move that the member be no longer heard, they move that the question be put and we then have a vote.

But no: for the first time those opposite are afraid of the vote and are doing everything they can to prevent the vote from happening, so that they have the chance to heavy members of their backbench. I am sorry to the member opposite. All he needs to read are the two words 'pay cut' and he will know what it is about. And if he is going to speak against the resolution, if he is going to vote against the resolution, he can do so with his eyes wide open, knowing that he is voting in favour of a pay cut.

On this one they cannot hide behind the process. They cannot say, 'Oh, no; it's an independent tribunal.' What was their argument when we were dealing with safe rates of pay for truckies? When an independent tribunal came down with a decision they did not like, not only did they set aside the decision; they abolished the tribunal. It is gone completely! They completely obliterated it. But on this one there is one reason why they want to stand behind the independence of the tribunal. It is because they like the decision. It is because they want the pay cut to go ahead. They understand that a pay cut here will have a knock-on effect for penalty rates for workers in industry after industry after industry. They know that, and that is why they support it.

This is a bill that has already passed the Senate. This is a bill where the Senate has already agreed for this to go forward. We simply need the members of this House to have the courage to care about what a pay cut means for 700,000 workers. The day after a tax cut comes through for millionaires in this country, you will not find them jumping to attention saying, 'We need to do something to prevent there being a tax cut for millionaires.' But you will find them jumping to attention to do everything they can to deliver a pay cut for ordinary workers.

If you have a situation where people rely on these penalty rates to be able to make ends meet, where people are in jobs where they have become completely dependent on these penalty rates for their household budgets, and where award decisions have been made based on the fact that these penalty rates will be paid, you have a situation where, for ordinary workers in retail and hospitality, this is a direct hit on their household budgets. This is a direct hit on their capacity to make ends meet.

It does not matter how many times the minister opposite keeps peering at that piece of paper; it will still say 'pay cut' for 700,000 people. Those opposite cannot hide behind process. They cannot hide behind, 'Oh, well, would it get through the Senate?' It already has. But for 700,000 Australian workers this vote has one meaning: either those opposite are on the side of their take-home pay or those opposite are not. Labor will vote to defend their wages.

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

Here is a chance. We have regional MPs sitting across from us. Here is a chance for those Nationals MPs, regional MPs, to cross the floor and stand up for regional communities. Seven hundred thousand workers, many of whom live in regional areas, face a pay cut. We have two sitting weeks of parliament, and today those opposite can join with Labor to protect the take-home pay of 700,000 workers, workers who are on the smallest of incomes. We are talking about people working in retail, in hospitality and in pharmacy. We are talking about mums who have told us that the Sunday penalty rate they currently get is how they are paying for their internet or their kids' basketball lessons. Yet all we have from those opposite is a do-nothing attitude when it comes to protecting the take-home pay of some of the lowest-paid workers in this country.

But there is a chance right now for this government, for those opposite—those members who are claiming to stand up for workers—to join Labor in supporting take-home pay. It is really simple: come in here and vote with Labor to allow us to bring this bill on for debate. This is that chance. We have seen the government, time and time again, when it suits them, bring on debates in this House. They abolished the safe rates tribunal. Once upon a time they said that they stood up for truck drivers, and they abolished the safe rates tribunal—rushed legislation through at the end of parliament to scrap the tribunal. They did not just disagree with the decision; they actually scrapped the entire tribunal. We have seen them do it time and time again with legislation, yet on this issue they are dragging their feet; they are refusing to stand with Labor.

But there is a chance—on 1 July, as we have heard from this side, this government is giving millionaires a tax cut; they are giving people on the highest of incomes a tax cut. We are talking about giving people who earn the highest incomes in this country a tax cut. This is the same government that are sitting on their hands and doing nothing, when they have a chance to support Labor help those on the lowest of incomes, including people working in retail, hospitality and pharmacy; 700,000 workers in regional areas, in our suburbs, people who rely on these penalty rates to make ends meet. They are doing nothing. Here is their chance. They can stand with Labor, cross the floor and vote with us to bring on this bill now. I support what is being moved by the member for Gorton to allow this debate to happen. We are calling on the government, on those opposite, to vote with Labor. Let us fix this problem. We support the Fair Work tribunal, we support Fair Work, but when they make decisions that are not based on the best interests of workers we should intervene. We should change bad laws. We need to support take home pay.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think there has been a misunderstanding, because you called for a seconder when the motion had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business and therefore it could not possibly be seconded again.

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

I did, yes, after he had finished.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You called for a second seconder, but it had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business. I think the only fair thing is for the call to now be given to a member of the government rather than to the opposition, because you have called three members of the opposition. My colleagues very reasonably sat back down when they heard you call for a seconder, because obviously they were not going to second it again—they were not going to second a motion from the opposition. It should be the call of the government. We are happy to accept it as a misunderstanding, but we need to have a speaker and move on.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I believe the Leader of the House's recollection of the events is somewhat different to what happened. There was a long pause before the member for Bendigo jumped. Had she not jumped the question would have been put. That is why she jumped.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would have been deferred.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question would have been put. If I can explain the standing orders to the Leader of the House: it would only have been deferred after being put to the vote if there was then a call for a division. We defer divisions; we do not defer the initial vote—and the initial vote would have occurred. It is in the standing orders—we vote on a whole series of things. Check with the Clerk. That said, if a member of the government wants to defend a pay cut for 700,000 Australians, then it is their turn.

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

To clarify the issue, I asked for the motion to be seconded, following which the minister jumped. I then asked him whether he wanted to second it, and he said no. It was then seconded by the member for Watson. At the end of the member for Watson's speech I asked if the motion had been agreed to. No-one jumped. The opportunity was there—

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was at the dispatch box.

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

No, you were not at the dispatch box. When the member for Watson had finished the motion that it be agreed to was the question, and you two looked at each other. There was not anything else, and then the member for Bendigo jumped. I would be happy to look at it, but given that this was five minutes ago I am going to call the member for Bendigo in continuation

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's ridiculous.

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

No, it is not ridiculous.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have no idea—

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

That is close to a reflection on the chair, and, coming from the government, which seek to have an issue with communication, I do not think that is a fair point. Does the member Bendigo want to continue.

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

I will continue, thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. Look at the chaos of those opposite—stand up here and defend your position; stand up here and justify why you will not let us bring this debate on. Stand up here and say why you do not want to support us on this. Seven hundred thousand people are about to have their take-home pay cut. Support the bill. Support the discussion about the bill. Bring on the debate now. Do not let it lapse. Here is your chance as a government to support low-paid workers. Otherwise, stand up and make your statement. Why do you want to stop the House from proceeding with this debate? Why does the government not want to allow this House to have this debate?

This is a chance for the government to do the right thing by 700,000 low-paid workers. This is reform that will strengthen the Fair Work Commission and allow and encourage them to make decisions that will not cut take-home pay. These are people on the smallest of margins—in hospitality, in retail and in pharmacy. And we know it will happen in the rest of the community. We know that other industries also want to cut take-home pay. That is why it is so important that this government allows us to have this debate. That is why it is so important that those opposite cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion so that we can fix this and ensure that people's take-home pay is not cut as result of the changes that Fair Work have made in cutting penalty rates. Stop the pay cut. This is your chance to stand with Labor and vote up the member for Gorton's motion so that we can stop the pay cut for 700,000 workers immediately—not to mention those who are also in the firing line. That includes people who work in beauty, hairdressing, clubs and in a number of other industries who are also now facing their industry asking for their penalty rates to be cut. This is a problem that Labor has identified. We have done the hard work and drafted the changes to ensure that we as a parliament can protect take-home pay for our lowest paid workers.

Here is a chance for those opposite to stand up, cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion to make sure we protect take-home pay. Here is your chance. Or at least get up and defend why you will not allow us to have the discussion and to have the debate. I urge those opposite to do the right thing, support these low-paid workers and fix the loopholes in Fair Work so we can make sure we protect take-home pay.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole assumption here is that you are in favour of it and we are against it. Many people on this side have worked in industries where there are shifts, overtime and you work unsocial hours. I spent 30 years doing shiftwork. So the idea that only the opposition understands this is quite faulty. But that is quite different from a situation where someone just gets a job on a weekend because they are at uni or other things and there is an automatic assumption that they have already worked an eight-hour day or a 37-hour week. That sort of mentality means that in my part of the world, where we have a tourism industry that stops operating on Sundays and many Saturdays, it is counterproductive; it means that there are fewer jobs. So, even though the sentiment might be to protect income, it depends on which way you are looking at it. In my part of the world there are plenty of people who would love to run their tourism businesses on a Sunday but cannot because it is uneconomic. There needs to be two sides to the coin in any discussion about this because not everywhere is the same. Most of what was proposed before would mean people would be getting rates of pay that were uneconomic for businesses and businesses would not employ them. What we are trying to do is grow employment opportunities. For employment to happen anywhere, you need to have a business. If you price yourself out of existence, the business folds, and that is the commonsense approach that we are adopting in this whole space.

The issue that you are referring to is not the sole preserve of the opposition. We understand a lot of those arguments, but the arguments fall down. Employment is the driver behind any—

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

The assistant minister will resume his seat.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Gorton to suspend standing orders be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.

Debate adjourned.