Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

It's a basic principle, fundamental to our system of financial regulation, that if someone is managing the investment of a large amount of other people's money we apply governance rules to ensure that investors have a reasonable chance of that money being deployed in their best interests. When it comes to bodies like banks, credit unions and super funds, we oversee them with APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. We require them to have independent directors, we require them to meet strict reporting standards and to keep written policies, and we require them to act prudently to protect their members or customers' interests.

There is, however, another kind of organisation that holds and invests billions of dollars of hardworking Australians' money. Each year, millions of dollars are being poured into what are called 'worker entitlement funds', controlled by union and employer organisation officials. These opaque funds are now worth around $2 billion. While they are supposed to pay and protect workers' entitlements, in reality some unions skim around $25 million every year from these funds. The money for these funds comes from employers who are forced to pay as much as $100 per employee per week, or more than $500,000 per year from a single employer. Around 30 per cent of enterprise agreements compel payments into funds just like these, and that figure is as high as 60 per cent in the CFMEU dominated building and construction industry. This is all money which could be going to employing more workers or be invested back into that company.

Currently, the basic rules of good governance that we rightly apply to banks, credit unions and super funds do not apply to worker entitlement funds. They do not need to be managed by trained professionals or even by people of good character, they don't need independent directors, they don't need to be transparent or provide even the most basic of reporting, and they don't need to state in writing their policies on investment. In short, there is no requirement on them to act responsibly, to use workers' funds in their best interests, or even to tell them what they are doing with that money.

This is yet another area of secrecy and corrupt self-service in the union movement uncovered by the Heydon royal commission. The trade union movement and their friends in their political wing, the Labor Party, do not like transparency. When they had the chance, the Labor Party abolished the ABCC and, with it, the powers needed to uncover union corruption and illegality. When we sought to investigate, the Labor Party tried to stop the Heydon royal commission happening at all. They called it a witch hunt. They called it politically biased. They attacked its commissioner on frivolous grounds. And they called its evidence 'smears'. They fought tooth and nail to avoid the Leader of the Opposition being required to testify. They sought to undermine it at every turn.

When the Leader of the Opposition testified, he was—in the words of the commissioner—'evasive', and gave cause for concern as to his credibility as a witness. When the Heydon royal commission had identified widespread union corruption, illegality and violence, and had demonstrated the damage unions were doing to workers, Labor voted down the reintroduction of a tough cop on the beat, and even were willing to force the country into a double-dissolution election to try and prevent its reinstatement.

What do we find when we break through the secrecy and examine what unions are actually doing with their members' funds and their collective power? We find a CFMEU that has accrued fines of more than $12 million for illegal activities, and 90 CFMEU representatives before the courts on more than 1,300 charges. We find the secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, saying on national television that it's okay for unions to break the law, that the unions are above the law. Most recently, we find a union picket line at Oaky Creek Mine, where officials threatened to rape the children of those who were simply trying to do their jobs.

So, when it comes to the union movement, we desperately need transparency, and we need governance rules every bit as strong as those that pertain in the private sector. The bill imposes that transparency and those governance rules on unions and their schemes in the area of investing funds on behalf of workers. The need for this has been clearly demonstrated in recent years. There's more than $245 million of workers' money held in the Protect scheme, which ostensibly exists to provide workers with redundancy and income protection. That sounds perfectly good, doesn't it? That's fine. Employers are made to pay into it on their employees' behalf by arrangement with the Victorian Electrical Trades Union and National Electrical and Communications Association, NECA.

So where does this money end up? It's invested for the benefit of the workers, to ensure that they have an income when they need it. Well, is it? Nearly $5 million of it is not. $4.5 million is funnelled straight into the coffers of ETU Victoria, and another $330,000 goes back to NECA. If it were not for the work of the royal commission, workers would never have known about this arrangement. They would never have been told, because there is no rule that forces the fund to tell the very workers it alleges and purports to protect.

UPlus, another Victorian income protection scheme, is a joint venture between that worst of unions, the CFMEU, and insurer Coverforce. The scheme provides free travel and insurance and ambulance benefits to workers whose employers pay into it, but only those who belong to the CFMEU. If you're a law-abiding citizen and you don't want to join a union which has accrued record fines for illegality, then you are out of luck. It almost goes without saying, of course, that the scheme has also made around $810,000 a year in undisclosed payments to the CFMEU.

Sadly, in my own state of Queensland, we have the Building Employees Redundancy Trust, sometimes referred to as BERT. It holds $130 million of workers' money and, like too much of the construction industry in this country, it is controlled by the CFMEU, along with the CEPU and the Queensland Major Contractors Association. The fund regularly uses money that should be helping workers who were made redundant to pay those who actually have a job. It has channelled millions into the unions and associations that control it and has even made illegal payments to striking workers. The CFMEU is so desperate to keep this cash cow that its Queensland secretary, Michael Ravbar, is currently in court facing penalties for boycotting Universal Cranes because their employees had the audacity to find an alternative fund that offered real value for money.

Something must be done to ensure that these funds act in the interests of their members, just as anyone else who holds millions of other people's money must do. This bill does just that. This bill will require funds to be run by people of good character—not a particularly unusual thing, you would think. This bill requires funds to have at least one independent voting director on their boards, and it will require the funds to be managed at arm's length. This bill will require workers' money to be responsibly invested and managed by trained professionals. This bill will require transparency in the form of regular reporting to workers, employers and the Registered Organisations Commission. This bill will require the registered unions and employer organisations that run these funds to have written policies on basic matters like how they make financial decisions, how they use credit cards and how they treat hospitality and gifts. Finally, this bill will put these funds under the proper regulation of the Registered Organisations Commission. The Registered Organisations Commission will monitor the funds. It will ensure that they comply with the law and check whether they are managing workers' money responsibly.

As the Heydon royal commission told us, we need to go further to ensure that workers are not compelled to get involved in schemes like these when they have no interest in doing so. This bill ensures that enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot include terms that require people to contribute to election funds that are set up to fund the campaigns of people running for office in a union or employer group. The bill also bans the coercion of employers into contributing to specific union approved super funds, welfare funds or other worker benefit schemes like those we've been discussing. The pressure that unions have placed on employers to contribute to specific schemes is not in the interests of workers. As we've seen, it has often been applied because those schemes were to the direct financial benefit of the union, and this must stop.

Once again, we've discussed throughout this debate that the best solution to the blight of union corruption and the selling out of workers in this country is transparency. The unions have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to obey the law or to act in their workers' interests. I will make a correction on that, because I firmly believe that not all unions are bad. Many unions do a great service to their members, and in fact I'd go so far as to say that we need unions in this country, because if it wasn't for unions then some unscrupulous employers would take advantage of their workers. I'm not against unions, and neither is this government. What we are against is the illegal conduct of unions who continue to break the law, who continue not to observe the rule of law, who continue to think that they are above the law. That's why this bill also requires unions, employer groups and employers to disclose any financial benefit they will receive from promoting or arranging insurance products or payments to workers' entitlements, training or welfare funds.

I recently had a group called MATES in Construction come and see me, just last week. They were concerned about how this bill would impact on them. MATES in Construction does a terrific job in the construction industry. MATES in Construction, as the name suggests, educates people working in the building industry, particularly about how to look after your mates who are working in the construction industry. The construction industry is renowned for high suicide rates and high rates of mental illness. MATES in Construction does a terrific job of teaching building and construction workers how to look for signs and symptoms in mates who might be suffering from mental illness. They were concerned that this bill might impact upon them. They went and saw the minister, and they came and saw me and a couple of my colleagues, and the bill was amended to appease their concerns. MATES In Construction should have no fears with this bill and nor should any other group, any other valid group, any other bona fide group, that is conducting training or welfare services to those who are working in the building and construction sector.

Workers need to know when a conflict of interest exists. Where their interests are being sold out for the benefit of their union or its officials, I'm confident that workers will take action to protect themselves and withdraw from or reform the unions that have abandoned them.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is a steriliser that the government is determined to apply to the union movement and all of its corrupt practices. At the Heydon royal commission we saw the reintroduction of the ABCC, and also the introduction of the registered organisations act, the protecting vulnerable workers act and the corrupting benefits act. In the many years to come, when we reflect on the achievements of this government, our comprehensive and determined delivery in forcing the secretive and corruptive union movement into the light will be one of our enduring legacies. This bill is an important part of that mission, and I commend it to the House.

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

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment that's been moved by the member for Gorton. It focuses on and calls on this government to protect the penalty rates—the penalty rates that have been cut for over 700,000 workers—workers in retail, workers in hospitality, workers in pharmacy. The previous speaker didn't even make reference to the amendment, which would see those pay cuts restored for all of the workers who've had their pay cut, meaning that they would not cop this pay cut. The previous speaker and the government aren't even interested in protecting the pay of low-paid workers, some of the lowest-paid workers in our community.

I urge all of those on the government side to finally stand with Labor to protect the penalty rates for 700,000 low-paid workers. Since that penalty rate cut, we've seen other industries—hair and beauty, clubs and hotels—now also ask the Fair Work Commission to cut the penalty rates for their workers. These workers don't receive compensation for this pay cut. This is a minimum entitlement, a minimum wage, and there's been a straight wage cut.

I'd also like to set the record straight on a few things that the government is saying in relation to this bill. You'd think that they were living in some kind of alternative universe, that they were completely ignoring what is actually happening in the space of your rights at work and in the space of the ABCC. They're completely rewriting and changing history. Let's start with the royal commission. The Heydon royal commission was supposed to be independent and impartial, yet during the process of the royal commission, the commissioner himself, Dyson Heydon, agreed to be the keynote speaker at a Liberal fundraiser. Hardly impartial. Hardly independent. When you as the commissioner agree to go to a Liberal Party fundraiser, before the report is even handed down, I'd call that a little bit biased. It wouldn't even pass the pub test. Because of the findings of this particular commission, we now see legislation after legislation attacking unions—anti-worker, anti-union legislation. They took us to an election on the ABCC but hardly ever raised it during the election, then got the ABCC through, and now what's happened?

It's going so well for the government that the commissioner himself has had to resign because he knowingly broke the law; he knowingly broke the Fair Work Act. And yet they stand up here and talk about how great it is. You'd think there'd be some humility within the government—that they'd realise they've made a mistake. But, no, talking point after talking point still talks up how they needed to reintroduce the tough cop in the construction industry, who's had to resign because he broke the law. He knowingly broke the law. In fact, the minister recommended that he be reappointed to the role, knowing that he had broken the law.

Then we get to what has happened this week. The ABCC legal counsel quit, citing that Hadgkiss's actions made the role untenable. The whole reason the government forced this country to an early election was on the back of the ABCC. The commissioner has quit, the legal counsel has had to quit because of the consequences of the commissioner, and yet they still stand up here and lecture us—lecture people in the Labor Party, lecture construction workers, lecture the union movement.

Whilst the ABCC has been in place under this government, the hardest thing to stand here and say is that the union, unfortunately, was right: the number of construction deaths has gone up. There were 27 yesterday and 28 today and counting. That is because of this government's actions, deliberately weakening workplace health and safety on worksites. The ABCC, under their watch, is more interested in prosecuting union officials who fail to give 24 hours notification that they're walking onto a site, when that union official, in most instances, is walking onto that site because a construction worker has incurred a workplace injury. Some of the most grievous of those cases have been in Victoria. A union official walked onto a site because they received a call from a union member that a good friend and a delegate had fallen in the workplace. He died in the union official's arms. The company did the right thing and shut the job down. They called in counselling and the site went into grieving. Do you know what this government did, what the ABCC did? Issued a notice to the CFMEU: 'Why didn't you give 24 hours notification before entering that workplace?' The man was dying in the union official's arms, and the government doesn't talk about the workplace health and safety breaches—they ask why they didn't file the paperwork. Well, 24 hours after that man died, is there really a point to issuing a notification that you're going to walk on site? That is the audacity of the government, and that is where they're going.

Then we get to the bill that we have before us. I need to set the record straight on a couple of things that were raised by the previous speaker and that also came up in question time. As I've said previously, the Queensland Police have said that they are not investigating any member of the Oaky North picket line for accusations suggesting that they would rape a child. That is wrong, and every single person in this place stands united in condemning any threats of child rape, any threats of child abuse and any actions of it. The Queensland Police have said, in The Australianwhich is not a workers' paper, which is not a union paper—that they are not investigating that incident. Yet this government—the ministers and the speakers on this bill—used that for political purposes when there is no evidence that it was ever said. The miners at Oaky North have been locked out by their employer, Glencore, for over 117 days—miners, working people, who just want to go back to work.

Today the Fair Work Commission basically issued a stunning rebuke against Glencore for their behaviour and conduct. They have ordered Glencore to order their security company to stop surveilling workers when they're at home. The commission declared that Glencore withdraw its direction in which it tried to discipline workers for being involved in the dispute. It has also said that it must stop the private security company applying military tactics to its anti-worker operations, likening union members to the Vietcong, and following union members and their families into schools and around their homes.

This is the behaviour of the mining company in this dispute: they are following families, they have private security behaving like a military organisation and they are referring to these workers as the Vietcong. They've said openly to the commission, 'We know where every CFMEU member lives.' The company has handed over their personal addresses. This has come out in the commission. The Fair Work Commission has turned around and said to Glencore, 'Stop what you are doing to your own workers.' But not one member of the government has stood up and condemned Glencore. Not one member of the ministry has stood up and condemned this multinational. Instead, they seek to condemn the workers who have been locked out, are frustrated and just want to go back to work. This is the nature of this government.

You can understand why Labor is saying that this bill needs to go to a Senate committee to make sure what is trying to be done is fully understood. The member for Fisher, the previous speaker, said to MATES in Construction, a great organisation: 'Don't worry. We've amended the bill so that your organisation will not be affected.' I don't take the government and the minister at their word, which is why this bill's content should be fully examined.

Worker entitlements funds are a way unions and employers pool resources to support workers, to protect their entitlements and, importantly, to provide services workers may need, such as training, counselling, suicide prevention and OH&S officers, just to name a few. We've already heard about the great work that MATES in Construction do. They're necessary. Every year about 190 construction workers take their own lives. That's a high statistic. Very few other professions would have a suicide statistic that high. A construction worker is six times more likely to die of suicide than from an accident at work. About 5,500 construction workers attempt suicide each year and just under 1,000 of them are permanently disabled because of their attempt. In acknowledging this and knowing this, unions and employers helped establish and fund MATES in Construction.

MATES in Construction was established in Queensland in March 2008 by the building employer redundancy trust—one of the trusts and organisations that this government seeks to target in this bill. MATES in Construction believe that, as a result of this bill, they will lose about 18 per cent of their funding. They estimate that would see a cut to frontline services: a 40 per cent cut in staffing and services in Queensland, a 15 per cent to 20 per cent cut in staffing and services in Western Australia and the organisation having to close in South Australia. That is the impact that MATES in Construction believe this government's bill will have.

This 80-page bill is being rushed through this parliament. We don't really get the chance to explore the true impact. These are significant issues. If the government's intention is to stop unions from being able to provide these types of services to workers, then we on the Labor side cannot support it. There are far too many questions that are yet to be answered about the details of this bill and the impact that this bill will have. This is why it needs to be properly explored.

How does what the bill imposes on registered organisations compare to regulations in place for corporations? Is the bill yet another layer of regulation over and above that that applies under other legislation, such as the fringe benefits tax act and the Corporations Act? How does the proposed deregistering scheme compare with what is in place for managed investment schemes? Again these are more questions that the government needs to answer. We are particularly concerned that the minister will have the power to flesh out details of this new regulatory scheme via regulations—so let's just leave it up to the minister, who knowingly appointed a commissioner who had broken the law. You can understand why we're a little bit sceptical on this side about giving that kind of power to the minister, who knowingly appointed someone who has had to resign because they had broken the law.

Further, why would we not want to encourage more organisations like MATES in Construction? Perhaps the government fails to understand that in a number of workplaces, in a number of industries, employers and employees, through their union, do work collectively and collaboratively together to make sure people are safe at work. I've mentioned MATES in Construction, but there are other organisations that are, for example, tackling drugs, making sure that workers are fit and ready to work. There are lots of schemes being operated to ensure that workers have support. On Friday I will be on site in Victoria attending some toolbox meetings which the CFMEU run around DV prevention, to make sure that their members understand what their role is not just in terms of White Ribbon but in making sure that women are always safe. Will this organisation be at risk because of these changes?

I urge the government to stop its attacks on unions and to start focusing on the real issues in Australian workplaces, like wage theft. Where is the legislation to tackle the chronic issue of wage theft in our country? Where is the government supporting Labor's amendment here today to reverse the cuts to penalty rates? These are the issues that we need to tackle in our workplaces. We do not need more rhetoric from the government or more attacks on unions that are getting on with the job to make sure not only that workers are safe but also that their work rights, their wages and their conditions are protected.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may come as a surprise to the government, but sometimes people like to use their money to help other people. Not everything is about profit. Some might say, 'Well, you can come together collectively as a group of people, get in a community group, or a workers' group; you might want to pool your money and then use that to help out people who might be doing it a bit tough.' In many industries, like the construction industry and the electrical industry, that's something that workers have to deal with quite regularly because they are industries where a lot of people work for a short period of time when there is building going on, a piece of construction, and then they might find themselves without a job for the next little while. They will spend their whole lives going through many, many employers. Over the years in those industries the workers, with the agreement of employers, have managed to set up funds that the employers pay some money into, under an agreement with the workers, and those funds then sit there to be available to people when they fall on hard times—when they are out of a job for an extended period, for example, or when they find themselves injured or they get sick when they are off the job and are not covered by WorkCover. They might get income protection insurance at below market rates, for example. This happens because people have pooled their money together and said, 'We recognise that this is the nature of our industry and we want to look after each other.' This has worked very well in looking after people. Unless the government is going to say, 'We want to tighten up the unfair dismissal laws in the construction industry and the redundancy laws so that no-one ever gets sacked,' then it is going to be a feature of life in construction or in the electrical and plumbing trades that people will go through periods of work and not having work, and they will have to look for support in those times when they don't have work.

So we've got these funds around the country that look after people in these industries, and they look after them in a number of ways. One is that they provide access to things like insurance at rates that are cheaper than they would be if you went to the market and got them yourself. A second thing they do—one of the main reasons for their existence—is to provide redundancy and income support for those periods when you're not working. And there are other services that they don't provide at a cost but because they're good things to do. For example, they provide counselling. We know that the suicide rates in the construction industry, in part because of the hours people work, are higher than average. What has happened over the years through people chipping in a little bit, a couple of dollars a week, and that money adding up is that there's now a fund, managed by workers and employers alike, to look after people in the industry. It means, for example, that if you find yourself doing it really tough then not only do you have access to financial support but there is someone to get on the phone to who will provide counselling—and you don't have to pay for it. That's not something that's done because they went out to tender, went to the market, and said, 'Who can give us the best possible rate?' No; it was seen as a good to look after the people in their community.

So we've got schemes that currently do this, in Victoria and right around the country, and they're serving their members very, very well. They can do it because they're run on a cooperative model. When they don't have to run everything at a profit they can do things like subsidise insurance, which they might not otherwise be able to do, and offer free counselling, which they wouldn't be able to do if they had to pay for everything at market rates. There is a basic understanding that if everyone pitches in a little bit to a central pool, and that central pool is managed properly—not like a corporation as a profit-making entity but with the money going back to the members in the industry—then everyone benefits. It allows these funds, for example, to make grants to training organisations to train people up so that there's safety in the workplace and people increase their skills.

Bear in mind that very often these funds are run by an equal mix of employer and union people. When funds go off to these training organisations it's not done because they're running things like a company, working out how they can make a profit, but to benefit everyone in the industry. It means that training can be offered in a way that doesn't impose additional costs on employers. Many of these training centres run without having to charge the people who front up, which means that employers get a benefit as well. They train people in aspects of construction, they train people in plumbing—not far from my electorate of Melbourne—and they do it right around the country. They can do this because when they get money from the workers they invest it, and when they get returns they can use them for these purposes that improve the lives of everyone in the industry.

This government looks at that and it hates it. It says, 'That should not be allowed, because these are not commercial, market-length transactions where we open up everything to the private sector.' It's the equivalent of saying: 'You can't go and join the RACV and pitch in your money and run things on a cooperative basis. Every time your car breaks down you have to go out to tender and find someone to come and look after it for you. If it costs you a bit more, so be it.' No. People have the right to come together and put their money into cooperative ventures, and that's exactly what is happening here. But the government wants to break it apart.

We saw a version of this with the Kennett government when they got their hands on local councils in Victoria and said: 'Councils aren't allowed to run things not for profit anymore. You have to contract everything out to the private sector.' Rates have gone up and, as a result, many councils are trying to pull things back in. They have council-run providers running a lot of their services. What we've learned in Victoria is that the whole process, which is embodied in this bill, of saying we have to do everything at market rates and make a profit out of it results in people getting fewer services but paying through the nose for them. We've seen it with electricity, we've seen it with councils and now the government is ideologically trying to do it to unions as well. It will mean that when the central fund, one of the funds governed by this legislation, says, 'We'd actually like to give a grant for some training to be run in the industry on a zero-cost or not-for-profit basis,' they won't be allowed to do it anymore. They won't be allowed to do it anymore under this bill because everything has to be paid for at market value. If you want to offer a bit of counselling to people, on my reading of this bill you won't be able to do that for free anymore because using money from the fund to pay for a service can only be done if you are giving it to someone offering the service at market value and at arm's length. It goes on and on.

It's typical of the government to give us an 80-page bill and say, 'Pass it now.' In the short time we've had it available to us to read, the bill has made us go, 'Hang on; this will actually make life very, very difficult for a number of services at the moment that are actually making people's lives better, only because they're not being run at a profit.' The government, for purely ideological reasons want to come in and say, 'You've got to reconstitute your board and you've got to rewrite your contracts,' without asking the first question of, 'Is the system actually working at the moment?' If the government actually ask that they will probably find that, by and large, it is. If there is a case for making some improvements, you would probably find some willing participants within the sector who'd say, 'We are happy to sit down and discuss improvements.' But that's not the government's approach. The government's approach is to bring in a bill that could grind to a halt the operations of some very worthwhile services and to say: 'Pass it. We are going to give you a couple of days to look at it.'

That suggests that the government's purpose is not at all to improve governance in the sector. Yet again this is purely an ideological stick to beat up people with. That's all it is. They say, 'We've had a royal commission that has recommended it.' It was a royal commission headed by someone who was going to go and speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser until he got found out. The government are quite happy to say, 'We'll have a royal commission into unions and particularly unions we don't like because they sit on a certain side of the political fence,' but, when there are allegations that Crown Casino have been tampering with pokie machines and causing people to lose money, they say, 'We couldn't possibly have an investigation into that.' That tells you everything about this government's priorities. So, pardon me, government, if, when you whack an 80-page bill on the table and say, 'Trust us; it's all about improving governance,' I don't believe you.

They have the gall to come in here and say, 'We want to improve the rule of law in areas like the construction industry.' I'm still waiting for the explanation from this government about why they appointed someone to head up the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, who has just had to resign because he broke the law that he was meant to enforce. He has admitted this in court. He knowingly went out and said to people: 'I know that the law gives people certain rights to meet their unions to discuss things like safety and so on in the lunch rooms, but I don't want you to tell anyone that. In fact, I want you to tell them the opposite.' He got his organisation to publish misleading information to workers and builders in the sector to say, 'No, you're not allowed to have these meetings,' when in fact, by law, they were allowed to. He got found out and he had to resign. All the while, it turns out the minister knew these allegations were hanging over his head. The same minister who is bringing this bill to us and saying, 'It's all about improving good governance,' has not given an explanation at all about why she appointed someone to head up the construction industry watchdog who broke the law that he was meant to enforce.

Meanwhile, if you look around the country at the moment, if you want to focus on something in industrial relations or fix up issues in the workplace, there's plenty to do. We've got a youth unemployment crisis in this country. Youth unemployment is always higher than general unemployment. Historically, every time we have a downturn, we know that young people get hit hard and youth unemployment spikes up. But what you usually find is that a couple of years after that the lines come back into sync and youth unemployment comes back to its normal levels—still higher than general unemployment, but the two lines come back into sync. What we found in this country since the GFC, though, was that youth unemployment spiked and stayed high. The lines haven't come back together. In other words, we have a situation where, when it comes to the workplace—which the government is telling us they're concerned about in this bill—there are now young people who, since the GFC, have never been able to find a job, and the unemployment rate for them has not come back to its historical norm. We've abolished entry-level jobs in this country to a large extent. They just don't exist anymore in the way that they used to, and young people are suffering. As a result, we have the stats of five young people applying for every one job advertisement, with youth unemployment at historical highs and no jobs for them to go into.

If the government were seriously concerned about addressing issues in the workforce, it would be dropping everything to deal with this youth unemployment crisis, because it is worse than it has been for several decades. I'm still waiting for the government to come up with a bill that tells us how they're going to address that—what nation-building infrastructure they're going to invest in to find jobs for young people or how we're going to make sure young people can work. But not a week goes by that they don't come up with another bill that attacks people's rights at work and disrupts services and systems that are working perfectly well. So, pardon me if we don't take you on trust, government, and if we don't accept that this is all just about tidying up some loose ends. When you're serious about dealing with some of the issues that are facing people at work, when you're serious about dealing with the fact that wage growth is at historic lows because you've spent the last three decades, often with Labor's support, changing the industrial laws so that people can't bargain—when you're serious about addressing that—come back with some proposals, and we'll take you seriously.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, another day, and it's no surprise, as the member for Melbourne observed in his closing there, that we see yet another government bill—a trumped up Trump-style government bill—attacking unions, the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. This is extraordinary, in terms of both substance and process. The process does need to be looked at from the outset. There are five schedules—80 pages—amending five pieces of legislation, with significant implications for employer groups and for unions. This needs detailed technical examination. It doesn't deserve to be rushed through the parliament as if somehow this is a crisis, as if this is urgent. It would behove the government to allow us to do our jobs as legislators and spend time actually reflecting on the clauses and the words, particularly given that apparently it's implementing some of the recommendations from that outrageous Heydon royal commission—which was quite some time ago, so it's difficult to understand what the urgency is. But the government of course is trying to rush it through. There may well be worthy bits, but you wouldn't really know, and you can't be confident in the time available. And, as the member for Melbourne and others have observed, you certainly cannot place any reliance anymore on this minister's word, given her appalling behaviour and given that there is still a lack of explanation around the affair with the ABCC commissioner.

It is based, as we see from the press release—a bit like the energy policy: it's government by press release or letter, these days; you don't have to release policy or modelling—on familiar nonsense about unions. Unions are apparently big business, and they're focused on making profits and not representing workers, and therefore we should just vote for this, which is utter garbage. Just because you say it, government, that doesn't actually make it true. Worker entitlement funds are jointly established by unions and businesses, and they operate primarily to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected. But they also have important secondary functions, and there should be no shame about that; there's no problem with their providing important services, including safety advice and services. Regarding the Heydon royal commission, apparently we're supposed to vote for this because it came out of a dodgy royal commission. I mean, give me a break: it's the same old conservative trick that we've seen through the decades. It started I think with the Queensland conservative government having a witch-hunt royal commission on, as they say, 'Red Ted' Theodore, when he was the Commonwealth Treasurer back in 1929-30. We saw the same outrageous, garbage trick played by the Court government on Carmen Lawrence when she was a senior minister in the Keating government. We see exactly the same trick that conservatives always pull: they misuse the powers of a royal commission. In this case, it is to get the opposition leader in the dock, get him on tellie being investigated by a former High Court judge. It is completely outrageous. He attended a Liberal Party fundraiser and we give it no credence whatsoever.

You really have to look at the context. We have made some important points in the second reading amendment. This fundamentally is a desperate attempt. If you say 'fair work' in the title, perhaps the government thinks that someone might be fooled that this is in some way fairer, in some way going to improve workplaces—

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

Indeed. Thank you, member for Brand. You are my muse here in this chamber. We have a packed gallery.

This is a desperate attempt to distract public attention from the fact that the government has no agenda to address wage stagnation or underemployment or rising inequality, and to distract people from remembering that the government is really only focused, as you see from their budget and legislative priorities, on the top end of town. We all get a tax cut. Everyone earning over $180,000 in this country gets a tax cut. Let's give it away! Fire up the nation's ATMs—$65½ billion company tax cut, including for Gina Rinehart and her mates in the next tranche! Defend to the death the unjust and highly regressive damaging and unsustainable tax breaks that go to high-income earners overwhelmingly. Not just stagnant wages though—and this is the piece de resistance—

An honourable member interjecting—

That's right. Pop that into Hansardis to actually cut wages. And, as the second amendment shows, the government could legislate now. They could put this bill aside, push it down the Notice Paper, let the parliament do its job, let us work through it clause by clause, let us reconcile it to your dodgy royal commission report and see whether it is one of the reasonable bits in there, and focus on stopping the wage cut for 700,000 low-income workers. That should be a priority for the parliament to legislate.

Indeed, there is a bill on the Notice Paperyou shouldhave had enough time to look at it because it has been hanging around for months—that the Opposition Leader introduced to do exactly that. Perhaps, if plebiscites and surveys are the order of the day, you can have a survey and see what the Australian people think about penalty rate cuts. Try that on for size.

An honourable member interjecting—

No. Call an election. Try that. With regard to the penalty rate cut for hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacy awards, fundamentally this is a wage cut for 700,000 workers. You can dress it up however you want; it is a wage cut, a wage cut, a wage cut. It is the thin end of the wedge, as we are already seeing, for millions of others.

This is not a blank sheet. We are not designing society or the economy from scratch. We need to consider reality as we find it in the real world, outside this building, not on the IPA's magical happy place or on the whiteboard where they dream this rubbish up, but in the real world, in families and communities where young people and women will bear the brunt of these wage cuts, as the second reading amendment points to.

The first point I would make is this is not inevitable. We are told there is a sense of inevitability. 'Oh well, the Fair Work Commission said this. It's a neoliberal happy trickle-down world. It's inevitable.' It's not. We choose. We can, and we have the responsibility to actively choose the kind of society we want. This is an unwanted and unnecessary change to the long-established economic and social structure in Australia. It goes to the heart of the kind of society we want to be.

Labour is not—this is news to those opposite, the bean counters, the widgets, the Daleks—a normal economic input like electricity or rent, at least not outside the IPA's happy whiteboard place. Ethical and human concerns must be taken into account in workplace relations laws. The Australian community has long valued people working unsociable hours. They miss family events, they miss time with kids, they miss sports and they miss social events. Everyone else can have a day or a night out, but not those people working unsociable hours. And this stuff is important to the fabric of our communities, to the kind of place and country we want to be. It is often thankless work—shop workers, shelf packers, cleaners—people who make everyone else's Sundays relaxed should be valued.

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

You're on my side, Member for Brand. Reducing penalty rates reduces the necessary respect and the value of time that should exist between employers and employees. Remember? Key point: it is not a normal economic input. These are human beings, with families and lives; they are part of society, not just rent or electricity. As a society we have every right to shape our economy to suit our way of life. We can choose to keep these arrangements, and the economic arguments that we somehow just have to ditch them are wrong.

The second point I would make is that penalty rates are a necessity for millions of Australian households. They rely on them to cover their expenses. They're not optional extras or executive bonuses. So what this wage cut for 700,000 people means—that the government is too gutless to actually stand up and stop—is that people will be forced to try and work more hours just to maintain their family's take-home pay, which of course is impossible for most people because of family or caring responsibilities or study.

Secondly, if they can't work more hours to keep their same take-home pay, guess what? They lose household income, which worsens inequality, because, unsurprisingly from this mob, these wage cuts overwhelmingly affect lower-income workers. That in turn reduces spending in the real economy, because the people affected by these wage cuts spend every dollar of their pay. They are not pouring thousands of dollars extra into superannuation; they are not spending it on enormous overseas holidays; they are not piling it up in the bank. They spend it on their daily lives.

In terms of the economic impact, cutting wages is not an efficient way of boosting productivity or growth. It actually does the opposite, because reducing domestic spending reduces turnover in exactly the kind of businesses that are cutting wages. It is an unvirtuous reinforcing cycle. An average $3,500 per year will be reduced from full-time employees wages. Thousands of people will be unable to spend thousands of dollars in local economies. Instead, these funds will be pocketed by businesses as profit for high-income earners, which means a less-positive impact on the economy, because these people, probably people in this room here, are more likely to save this money or spend it overseas, which doesn't add to our national prosperity.

With regard to employment, we're told that somehow you have to just roll over and suck it up, grin and bear it, because, somehow, it will create more jobs overall. This is based on a flawed version of the discredited trickle-down myth, which goes something like this: make doing business cheaper and it will increase aggregate profits and therefore employment will somehow increase, as business has more revenue with which to employ staff, and businesses will also remain open for longer hours as the cost of labour reduces. Yet the Fair Work Commission finds that the aggregate impact on employment rates of cutting penalty rates is negligible. So, all we have is a very weak case based on theory and anecdote, and it is not a proper basis on which to make policy or to justify such a massive change. The evidence, of course, is that larger businesses do not choose to remain open for longer and they don't invest labour savings into more jobs. Larger businesses, of course, employ as many people as they need to do the job—no more, no less. If they need more people they will employ them.

If a few businesses do open a bit longer, that doesn't mean that consumers will spend more. Most businesses in the affected industries are already open for long hours. There are plenty of opportunities for consumers to spend their money. Longer trading hours don't mean more money in the average consumer's pocket. People can't spend money they don't have—who knew! For any extra hours created here or there, as I said at the start, back to where we began, existing workers will be working those extra hours just to try to maintain their take-home pay. It doesn't create new jobs overall. It forces people to work longer for the money they already have.

If you think about timing—timing is everything, they say—even if you believe this nonsense theory this is the worst possible time in years, decades really, to cut wages, because wages have stagnated for the last five years. We are in the 20th quarter, I think probably the 21st consecutive quarter, since mid-2012 of falling wages growth for private sector workers. The most recent rate of growth was only around two per cent, the lowest since 1991. This consistent reduction in wage growth rate has resulted in real wages remaining stagnant for over 4.5 years, and in many cases actually declining in real terms.

We have the government over there introducing voluminous legislation to implement supposedly critically urgent recommendations from a dodgy royal commission that has hung around for ages—it is still unclear why it is so urgent—instead of focusing on something that actually matters to Australians. As I said, I dare you to have a plebiscite or a survey to see what people think of penalty rates cuts.

This is happening at the worst possible time. It shrinks the whole economy, because we create a negative cycle where wages remain depressed. Most sensible mainstream economists cite that average everyday Australians have identified lack of wage growth as one of the biggest problems facing the economy. It makes the cost of living even more difficult, it worsens inequality, it is bad for business, consumers spend less and, of course, it threatens budget projections.

The final point I want to touch on is something we've been whacked over the head about. When the Fair Work decision came out we said, 'This is going to set a pattern. This is going to flow on to other industries and other sectors.' We were told that that was wrong, it was not fair and we were making it up. Labor said it was the thin end of the wedge. We were told by the government: 'You're running a scare campaign. It's only these awards.' Well, now we're seeing the true agenda. This decision is spreading, right now: other awards, other sectors, other workers and other industries are pursuing these pay cuts. We've seen the application, already, from the restaurant and catering industry. There's talk of the hairdressing industry and many others.

The decision itself is flawed, and that's why we should be prioritising legislation to fix this decision, not mucking around with voluminous legislation, shoving it through the House when the case hasn't been made. Some findings in the Fair Work Commission decision about fact and law do go beyond these industries. It's not a Labor scare. This is a considered, detailed analysis that commentators have made, and we are now seeing it happen in the Fair Work Commission. The kind of factors which the Fair Work Commission said justified these wage cuts include: existence of entry-level jobs, consumer expectations of weekend public holiday service, the potential for increasing jobs, and the disutility for employees not, on balance, preventing a reduction in rates. The fact that employees were earning just enough to cover their weekly expenses wouldn't prevent a reduction in rates.

These exact same factors apply in numerous other industries. That's the text of the decision, and that's what we're seeing other sectors now jumping on board with, salivating for a wage cut, so they can pocket some profits. The industries most at risk are aged care and health care, nursing, transport, security, cleaning, construction, teachers, education workers working on weekends—such as sports coaches, mining workers, social, community, disability and homecare nurses. I'll probably be told by those opposite that that's a scare campaign. But it's not. Exactly the same conditions that underpin this flawed decision are flowing to other sectors right now. The decision is wrong. It was a flawed legal framework. There's a need to prevent it from being implemented and to fix the legislation.

The final thing I'll point out is that it will also affect people on enterprise agreements. Some commentary is saying that people on enterprise agreements are immune. That is, frankly, rubbish, because in the real world the relevant award becomes a measuring stick. This will flow through. It is flowing through elsewhere, over time, even within this sector. If the government had a shred of decency and had any contact with the real world, they would introduce legislation now to fix this flawed decision.

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

I feel for the member for Bruce. He was hoping to get an answer, but, clearly, no-one on the government side wants to defend this dodgy piece of legislation. I rise to speak about the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017 which was introduced to the House last week. You can just guarantee it: another day, another government bill designed to attack workers' pay and conditions. The government has, once again, managed to find another way to try and rob Australians of their rights in the workplace. This time, they're targeting workers' entitlement funds, funds which were set up, due to the countless complaints against phoenix companies, to provide better security to employees against loss of their entitlements.

In the manner that we've come to expect from this government, they're doing all they can to stop us from properly scrutinising this bill and from undertaking any real consultation with stakeholders. They want to rush this bill through the House faster than they can down a Cristal champagne or two by the harbour side. At the end of the day, it's just another measure to continue the government's absurd war against unions. It's clear that they simply don't understand the need for workers' rights, or the vital role that unions have played throughout the years. The minister is under some strange illusion that unions have become big businesses, focused on making profit instead of protecting the people they represent. It is an utter load of rubbish.

This kind of arrogance could only come from those opposite, who have never done a hard day's work in their lives. They've never been a worker, never understood a worker, and never, ever, stood up for a worker. Maybe if they left their marble offices and their big velvet chairs once in a while they would see that Australia is made up of hardworking people—people who will be gravely affected by the loss of penalty rates of up to $77 a week. Workers' entitlement funds are put in place to make sure that workers' entitlements are protected, that workers are adequately trained, that the proper funding of OH&S officers is guaranteed, and that employees can access fundamental services like counselling support and suicide prevention. I'd love to see those opposite own up to this disgrace of a bill and tell Australians what it really means. It means the government are backing away from what is right, once again showing they're putting dollars first, even when it means ripping off everyday Australians.

The absurdity doesn't end there. The government have told us that they've based this bill on 10 recommendations by the Heydon royal commission—the Heydon royal commission. It isn't that hard to see that the previous pieces of legislation based on this disgraced royal commission have been a flop, and they simply can't be trusted. Put simply, the disgraced royal commission was a political witch-hunt, using $100 million of taxpayer money that has delivered nothing better for workplaces. In what universe is it appropriate that their hand-picked royal commissioner attends a Liberal Party fundraiser in the middle of a commission to do the government's political bidding? What did the disgraced commissioner do when we raised this inappropriate behaviour? He investigated himself! He thought he'd go and talk to the tough cop on the beat! So he sat there and said, 'Commissioner, have you done the wrong thing?' 'No, Commissioner, I haven't done the wrong thing.' 'Are you sure?' 'Yes, I'm positive. I'm 100 per cent sure.' 'That's okay, then. All is good. All is forgiven. Let's move on.' You couldn't make up this stupidity.

Effectively, the government is trying to take away the independence of crucial unions and employers around Australia and put them under the umbrella of incompetent organisations like the IPA. You can be sure that all this does is replace real union advocacy with bureaucratic nonsense. The government want to stack these independent boards with Liberal Party stooges in an attempt to destroy fair working standards in this country. From a government that spruiks the need for less red tape, this measure is another broken promise as they push back efficiency to allow rolls and rolls of red tape to come in. The government claims these will be run by good people. Those are the minister's own words: 'good people'. Who exactly are they talking about? If we're talking about some of the government's good people, we're talking about Nigel Hadgkiss and Michael Lawler. What about Kathy Jackson or, of course, the Prime Minister's favourite, good old Godwin Grech? We know, when it comes to good character, the government has no credibility whatsoever.

We on this side see that workers' entitlement funds benefit workers. They are managed transparently and responsibly, and are spent for the genuine benefit of Australian workers. You only have to look at the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to see how fast the government is to kick aside the matter of workers' rights. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was put in place to pay truck drivers a fair wage and to make sure, when they're out on the road, they can pay their bills and feed their families. But the second the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal attempted to bring in minimum wages in order to combat unsafe contracts—which are causing death and serious injuries on our roads, and in the trucking industry—the government went into an absolute frenzy: 'We can't have people being paid proper wages!'

More than 200 truck drivers die in Australia each and every year. The government took the easy way out. Instead of addressing these deaths and protecting Australians, it completely destroyed the RSRT, turning a blind eye to the unbelievable conditions and pressures that truck drivers are expected to work under. This government, time and time again, ignores the advice of experts. When the National Transport Commission demonstrated the clear link between safety outcomes and truck driver pay rates, the government feigned ignorance. By axing the RSRT, the government took away protections for whistleblowers in the industry who were concerned about the safety of their workplaces, and took away their right to take leave without losing contracts. It was and is an appalling, short-sighted move by the government—just a way for them to point at something tangible, to give them a win during their time in government.

We on this side of the House know better than to gamble with the lives of Australians. It's not a win when you make it easier for truckies to die on our roads while they're trying to make a living. It's not a win when, for political gain, you drive good men and women truck drivers to suicide. But just like the trucking industry, the construction industry has one of the highest levels of worker vulnerability. The construction industry relies on entitlement funds for payments regarding leave, termination of employment, contracts, awards or agreements provided for an employer to make to an employee.

Quite often the government will come in and want to attack the CFMEU. It's their plaything. I really think John Setka should be panicking about what the Prime Minister's up to. Is he looking over his fence day in day out? Why is he always on his back?

My son-in-law works in the construction industry, and I'm more than proud to stand with the CFMEU to know that they are going to, each and every day, make sure he can come home, make sure he has a safe workplace. Even today, we had a construction worker die on the job. And where was the government's empathy for the family or for the workers? It was nowhere to be seen. They just want to keep sprouting proven false allegations. And the disgusting work in question time today: fair dinkum; I don't know whether anyone had the misfortune of watching that. I remember the chief of the ADF saying, 'The standard you set is the standard you walk past.' Well, today we've seen the lowest standard of the most morally and ethically bankrupt and corrupt government in this nation's history. It was wrong. The CFMEU stands up each day and makes sure people have safe workplace practices. I like the idea of knowing that my six-month-old granddaughter is going to know that her dad's going to come home each day because the CFMEU is standing up to make sure that he's looked after—to make sure that he's paid and gets the entitlements that he's due, to make sure that he can come home safely and go to work again tomorrow. That's what it's about.

The government just want to kick the union as a plaything, but they've got no understanding, because of their arrogance and ignorance—just as they are ignorant and arrogant towards the 700,000 Australians who are going to be losing up to $77 a week. That's $77 a week that a family in Mernda could use to pack their kids' lunches. It's $77 a week that a young couple in Sunbury could set aside to pay their mortgage. And it's $77 a week that this government is taking out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. Why does the government think families shouldn't be able to sit around the table to share a meal and have some quality time? You see just how little they care when you look at their attacks on penalty rates. The fact is that penalty rates are in place because people working on weekends or working unsociable hours are missing out on what we value in Australia. My father was a printer at News Limited. It hurts me to say that he worked at News Limited! But he worked all his life. He missed out on birthdays, Christmases—you name it: everything—because he worked at night-time, just so he could have the rag out in the morning.

The McKell Institute report found that McEwen will be the second-worst impacted by penalty rate cuts in the whole of Australia. We're set to lose approximately $19 million a year out of the economy that this government is doing nothing about. I have heard countless stories from constituents who are affected by these penalty rate cuts. At our local Amcal Pharmacy in Craigieburn pharmacists are fighting for their fair share in wages. Amcal turned over a $50 million profit last year. And how did it repay its staff for their hard work? By cutting the pay of their workers, who already earned as little as $27 an hour, thanks to this government and to big businesses ripping off hardworking employees and making it harder for them to make ends meet. While our local pharmacists serve our community 24 hours a day, seven days a week, this government sits idly by while they lose out. The government is so completely out of touch that it thinks cutting penalty rates will improve job opportunities. The irony is that the government's own information shows that's factually untrue. The government fails to see outside the Sydney Harbour bubble. In the small towns in McEwen, where more businesses are being opened, that doesn't actually mean more jobs or a huge boost in trade. Cutting penalty rates means that people throughout Australia and in McEwen will have less money to spend, which means they won't be visiting those restaurants and shops. Small-town economies are bound to suffer, and that's just unacceptable. In electorates like McEwen, a high proportion of retail and hospitality workers earn less than their city counterparts already.

When regional workers are employed by firms that are not locally owned, the benefits leave our communities. The McKell Institute study shows that workers in 45 regional communities will lose $667 million per year from penalty rate cuts, and $289 million of that is expected to leave our regional electorates altogether—just to line the pockets of corporations in the city and, even worse, overseas. The research shows that more than 277,000 workers in regional communities will be hit by the cut to Sunday penalty rates. Most of the savings businesses owners stand to make will not feed back into local communities.

The government are trying to stop unions from being part of the Australian workforce. They are trying to stop unions from providing crucial services to workers. We simply will not stand for that. They've done it before and they're doing it again with this bill. They'll keep coming and coming. Australian families and Australian workers know that the Australian Labor Party is there to stand in the way of these right-wing ideologues that run this pathetic government. It's disgusting, it's unjust and it just goes to show that, when it comes to Australian workers, only the Labor Party can be trusted.

The Prime Minister presides over the worst wage stagnation in years, though he did pretty well giving himself a $16,000 tax cut on 1 July. He keeps that nice and quiet, doesn't he? This government wants to continue to undermine workers and the unions. It's all words and no action when it comes to the government's plans to address wage stagnation, underemployment, rising inequity and really anything else, for that matter. Under this government big business gets tax cuts while Aussie workers get wage cuts. Labor will not stop fighting for workers' rights and exposing the truth behind this government's flawed and convoluted plans to empty workers' pockets and make sure that big businesses are looked after. If this bill were a dog, you'd take it out the back and shoot it. Maybe that's what needs to be done now.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. I cannot commence talking about this bill without making initial comments about the absolutely extraordinary attacks by this government on the union movement that played out this afternoon. We've seen outrageous raids on the offices of the Australian Workers' Union in Sydney and Melbourne. On the same day that this parliament is told that Malcolm Turnbull's cuts to the Australian Federal Police have meant serious crimes like drug smuggling cannot be properly investigated we see the extraordinary use of the AFP and taxpayer dollars to raid the offices of the Australian Workers' Union in Sydney and Melbourne.

The Turnbull government has openly directed the commission to start this witch-hunt. It's entirely responsible for this turn of events. It's an alarming misuse of ministerial power. It's an abuse of power, and it needs to be called out for that. The Liberals have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on their witch-hunt into unions. Their visceral anger and hatred towards the union movement and towards workers and their rights is absolutely disgraceful. They will stop at nothing in attacking workers and their representatives. We've seen that play out this afternoon in these extraordinary raids on the AWU.

Of course, this is a bit of deja vu. It's about the political incompetence and desperation of this government. We're seeing the NBN raids play out all over again. What did that get us? Absolutely nothing but more wasted taxpayer dollars. I believe that the Australian people will see this for the desperate act it is. It's an act of desperation by a desperate, pathetic government in the last throes of trying to figure out what to do with itself.

At the outset, we're also extremely concerned that we're debating this bill, given that it has five schedules, running to a total of 80 pages, and was introduced only last Thursday, 19 October. Barely five days, including the weekend, is hardly sufficient to get across an extremely dense and technical bill. I note, too, that the member for Gorton, as shadow minister for employment, received a departmental briefing on this bill only yesterday. Several questions put on notice to the head of the department have not yet been answered. The government is clearly attempting to avoid scrutiny of this bill. In everything they do they seek to avoid scrutiny, responsibility, accountability and transparency. It's being rushed through this parliament and that is simply unacceptable. The government claims that this legislation's purpose is to implement various recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. We remember that, don't we? Tens of millions of dollars was wasted on that royal commission, on that witch-hunt. The Heydon royal commission, as many will remember, was presided over by an individual who attended Liberal Party fundraisers and whose sole aim was to do the political bidding of the then Abbott government.

The explanatory memorandum states that this bill amends five separate pieces of legislation, and it will: first, put additional requirements on the government's financial reporting and financial disclosure requirements of 'worker entitlement funds'; second, prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from requiring or permitting contributions to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement fund or a registered charity; third, prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from permitting or requiring employee contributions to a union election fund; fourth, prohibit coercion of employers to pay amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation fund, training fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme; fifth, put additional financial management and disclosure obligations on registered organisations; and, sixth, introduce new penalties for registered organisations' non-compliance with financial management disclosure and reporting requirements.

It is quite clear, even in this summary, that this bill has significant implications for both unions and employer groups. But it is entirely reasonable to say that a detailed examination of the technical provisions in the bill is essential in order to fully ascertain what the full impact of the bill is and which groups will be affected. On this basis I note that Labor has attempted to have the bill examined by the Senate employment committee—in my view an extremely appropriate approach, given the density of this particular bill. Regrettably, the government has joined with a group of senators, led by departing Senator Nick Xenophon, to block Labor's efforts on that front. The inquiry the Senate is having on this bill will be forced to report on 10 November 2017, setting an almost impossible deadline for stakeholders to prepare submissions and evidence. This proposal represents yet another chapter in this government's relentless attacks on unions. I know the media is focused on what we're seeing play out at the AWU offices this afternoon; nonetheless, this is part of this government's relentless attack against unions and it is no less important, given how they're trying to rush this through the parliament.

Of course, we know why they are doing this—the Liberals have always loathed the trade union movement. They've always hated the trade union movement. That's part of their DNA. Particularly disturbing is that those opposite remain obsessed with this ideologically driven antiworker agenda given the current environment of low wage growth and rising cost-of-living pressures. The latest Department of Employment Trends in federal enterprise bargaining report provides more evidence that the Turnbull government is presiding over record low wages growth and a 22-year low in approved enterprise agreements. According to the latest data, wages growth for enterprise agreements approved in the June quarter fell to 2.6 per cent from 2.7 per cent in March—a 26-year low. In addition to low wages growth, there were only 845 approved enterprise agreements in the June quarter—the lowest since 1995. It's staggering, then, that the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have both warned that declining union density and collective bargaining are contributing to stagnant wages and growing inequality.

This government wants to further undermine workers and their unions. Cost-of-living pressures are a very real problem and are having a real impact on people's lives, and those people demand real solutions. Instead we have this bill, hastily introduced by those opposite. They hope they can sneakily rush it through the parliament, probably while all these raids are occurring this afternoon on the TV screens, hoping that no-one fully understands what they're actually doing because they haven't had the time to assess the bill. It's extremely telling that the government, in their disreputable attitude to this debate, are seeking to squeeze union-backed worker entitlement funds, such funds being defined as funds which are for the purpose of paying worker entitlements, including those in respect of leave, payments in lieu of leave, payments in relation to termination, other payments due contractually or under an award, and death benefits. These very funds were designed and set up by the unions to protect their workers and ensure that their lawful entitlements were paid by employers, something that we know does not always happen.

This bill seeks to limit when a worker entitlement fund can become or stay registered, including defining what sort of organisation can operate a fund. It prescribes what the make-up of the board can be and the way in which the assets of the fund can be used. The bill further establishes a subset of worker entitlement funds called single-employer funds, which are funds that are controlled by a single employer for the benefit of its own employees. It would appear that these single-employer funds essentially escape all of the regulations contained in the bill, other than the tax related ones, unless the operator of the fund elects for it to be a worker entitlement fund and applies to be registered. In reality, worker entitlement funds often operate in the interests of creating a source of finance for unions to provide training, OHS support and other services to their members, hence the bill's very real potential to undermine the benefits that some workers receive through these funds.

The bill also contains provisions which we understand would operate to prohibit enterprise agreements specifying that employers have to pay into training funds. To reiterate the question posed by the member for Gorton earlier, during his remarks: what is the justification for this, given that enterprise agreements are completely transparent, voted on by the workers, and Heydon himself, even given his background, conceded that the training funds provide a public good? What is the justification?

Several stakeholders have raised concerns about the significant uncertainty as to whether worker entitlement funds can continue to provide safety training and wellbeing services such as suicide prevention support and mental health and drug and alcohol counselling. These are extremely significant issues. At this point there are just too many unanswered questions about this bill for Labor even to get close to supporting it. Despite the minister's hot air in the media, where she laughably tried to cast unions as evil, profit-hungry entities, what the government is actually doing with this bill is limiting the legitimate activities of unions and limiting the legitimate sources of income for unions, which unions use, of course, to represent their members, as they are duty-bound to do. A press release issued by the Minister for Employment in September read:

Through cosy deals with big businesses, unions have become a big business in their own right, more focussed on making profits than representing people.

That is ridiculous. It shows the government's ideological and visceral hatred of the union movement. It's a slur. It's rubbish. Worker entitlement funds—which, by the way, are jointly established by unions and employers—operate, firstly, to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected and, secondly, to provide important services to workers: training, counselling support, suicide prevention and funding of OH&S officers, just to name a few. This government simply does not understand the genesis of worker entitlement funds and the important service that they provide. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it doesn't understand the basic needs of working Australians. That's apparent in its attacks today and in this bill.

In recent months we have seen this government stand idly by while some 700,000 hospitality workers nationwide have suffered cuts to their penalty rates and cuts in their take-home pay. According to research I commissioned from the Parliamentary Library, informed by figures in the ABS labour force survey, as many as 3,046 people in my electorate of Wills will be adversely impacted by these cuts. Some of the lowest-paid workers suffered an arbitrary pay cut of up to $77 per week. That's a lot of money for someone on a low income. It's the difference between putting food on the table or not. It's the difference between getting school clothes for your kids or not. It's the difference between being able to afford public transport or not. It is money that they could not afford to lose, and this government stood by and did nothing about it. It could have acted but it failed to do so.

I commend the second reading amendment moved by my friend the member for Gorton, as it once again calls on this government to do something for the 700,000 workers nationally who have had their take-home pay cut and to legislate to stop this egregious and unfair decision of the Fair Work Commission from taking effect. This government has no plan to arrest wage stagnation and no desire to do anything to protect workers. In stark contrast, the Labor opposition is committed to the strong economic conditions and fair and equitable industrial relations framework that will deliver a better standard of living for ordinary Australians.

We believe that every working Australian deserves a good wage and decent working conditions. We know that the best way to tackle poverty and reduce inequality is to ensure that every Australian who can work is able to get a decent job, and that's why Labor will always put jobs first. Labor is, of course, the party that works with the unions and union movement, business and industry. It's a party that works with all of these groups to create and secure decent jobs.

A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to hear Bill Kelty reflect on the role that he played as one of the authors of the accord between the trade union movement and the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating and the business community. This remarkably successful period in Australia's history is testament to the fruits of a productive relationship between capital and labour and what's potential and what's possible. It should be a lesson on the perils of the needlessly adversarial approach to industrial relations that is taken by this government. In cooperation, pay rises were achieved during this period, entitlements were expanded for workers, inflation was contained, unemployment numbers fell and the then Labor government was given the electoral authority to establish important public services, such as Medicare. I reflect on this golden era of Australian politics with some regret and angst because I know that this type of harmony and productivity will never exist under this government and Australians will be quite literally the poorer for it.

While we're not declining to give the bill a second reading in order for it to be subject to a Senate review—albeit an extremely short one—Labor do not support the proposition that is before the House. Labor will never support any measure which attacks workers and the unions who are so important to their livelihoods and, indeed, who are so important to the future of our nation.

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

I am a proud union member and I cannot possibly support this bill, the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. I am proud to be a member of the Australian Services Union and I'm also proud to be a member of the Commonwealth Public Sector Union. I am a very strong believer in the power of the collective. That is the strength of the unions' work. It has only ever been the Labor Party and the unions who have fought for equality. This government seem to want to grow inequality. They want to achieve this by attacking the only people and entities that have ever stood up against the government's mistreatment of workers. There has been attack after attack, untruth after untruth, just so the government can assist their big business mates and give them a $65 billion tax cut without pesky Labor and the unions fighting for useful things like access to free health care, access to quality education for all, workers' rights and social inclusion and equality. There has been attack after attack by the Turnbull government and, with every blow, we stand united and fight back because workers united will never be defeated.

The unions that I am a member of are fighting against some of the shocking inequality and cuts that the Turnbull government is forcing on people. The Australian Services Union has been a strong advocate for the NDIS, but, under the guidance of the coalition, the aspirations for the NDIS in assisting the most marginalised group of people have been completely lost. The ASU has been vocal against the Turnbull government and its mishandling of the NDIS, and I am proud to be a member of a union that stands up to protect the NDIS and workers.

Then there is the CPSU. Haven't they experienced an absolute battering from the Turnbull government? There have been cuts to the Department of Social Services, cuts to the Australian tax office in Townsville and cuts to the services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Townsville. It has been cut after cut after cut. This union has stood up and fought not only for its members but for the most vulnerable people in our society. Their work is just amazing, and I want to particularly note the work of the National Secretary, Nadine Flood, and the Queensland state secretary, Bill Marklew, who have been relentless in their fight against the Turnbull government's unfair cuts.

Today we see another attack on unions with this bill. The Turnbull government is trying to rush this bill through the parliament without any proper scrutiny or stakeholder investigation. They are trying to undermine the process and get this nonsense bill, which is attacking unions, through the parliament as quickly as possible without the community uproar. This bill has significant implications for workers who benefit from their entitlements being protected through funds, including services like counselling, training, occupational health and safety, and support services that these funds invest in.

The government's purpose is to use this bill to limit the legitimate activities and source of income of unions, because they don't understand the genius of worker entitlement funds and the important services that they provide. A worker entitlement fund is defined as a fund that is for the purpose of, or purposes including, paying worker entitlements and death benefits. Worker entitlements are defined as including payments in respect of leave; payments in lieu of leave; payments in relation to termination of employment, whether ETPs or not; and any payments that contracts, awards or agreements provide for an employer to make to an employee. Worker entitlement funds—which, by the way, are jointly established by unions and employers—operate, firstly, to ensure that worker entitlements are protected, and, secondly, to provide important services to workers: training, counselling support, suicide prevention, and funding of occupational health and safety officers, just to name a few.

This bill puts additional requirements on the governance, financial reporting and financial disclosure requirements of worker entitlement funds; prohibits awards or enterprise agreements from requiring or permitting contributions to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement fund or a registered charity; prohibits awards or enterprise agreements from permitting or requiring employee contributions to a union election fund; prohibits coercion of employers to pay amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation fund, training fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme; puts additional financial management and disclosure obligations on registered organisations; and introduces new penalties for registered organisations' noncompliance with financial management, disclosure and reporting requirements.

This bill places limits on when a worker entitlement fund can be registered or stay registered, including what sort of organisation can operate the fund, the make-up of the board of the fund and the way in which the assets of the fund can be used. The stakeholders have raised concerns that there is significant uncertainty about whether worker entitlement funds can continue to provide safety training and wellbeing services, such as suicide prevention and mental health support, and drug and alcohol counselling. As someone who has had 15 years experience working in the mental health sector, I am particularly concerned about that fact.

In particular, I am incredibly concerned over the impact this bill may have upon the excellent work undertaken by MATES in Construction, which is in the direct firing line of this bill. Changes in this bill have the potential to negatively impact upon MATES in Construction. MATES in Construction is a charity established in 2008 to reduce the high level of suicide among Australian construction workers. It was established in response to a major report on suicide, the AISRAP report, in the Queensland commercial building and construction industry. This report found that suicide rates in the industry were higher than the Australian average for men and that youth suicide in the industry could be as much as 2.38 times higher than it is for other young Australian men. Every year, 190 Australians working in the construction industry take their own lives. That figure is staggering, and MATES in Construction is there to assist construction workers and their families through these devastating and tough times. They do this by suicide prevention community development programs on sites. They support workers in need of help through case management and a 24/7 helpline. Together with OzHelp Foundation, they also provide Life Skills Toolbox training to apprentices and young workers.

If you don't believe me, then allow me to read a letter I received from a Herbert constituent today regarding MATES in Construction and this bill. The constituent asks that I do not use her name, as she is fearful that her husband's employer may identify him. The letter reads:

To the Sitting Member,

I bring to your attention as the wife of a union member the Bill the Turnbull Government are introducing into Parliament this week, the Fair Work Laws amendment (proper use of the workers benefits) bill 2017.

My husband told me about this after a CFMEU sub-branch meeting last Thursday night.

Our family has had to deal with the devastating tragedy of losing a child, personal illness and severe depression.

Without the services of the Union's Mates In Construction, anything could have happened to my family.

The threat of this Bill getting up and the blue-collar working class battlers losing the ability to use Mates In Construction suicide prevention assistance program and free counselling program for families including children would be devastating. I fear with this proposed bill all will be lost and many families will be disadvantaged, as we would have been. MATES in Construction gave us a funeral benefit that covered the cost of giving our child a dignified send-off. It will be a sad day if this bill gets over the line and a grim future for the generations to come if this government continues to take away the hard-fought entitlements that working-class people have continued to fight for to keep government from looking after the elite big end of town.

Yours sincerely,

Proud working-class union family in Townsville.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, these are the lives of real families that you aim to detrimentally affect as a result of this bill. This is the story of a family who has been through hardships that no family should ever have to suffer, a family that sought hope and help from MATES in Construction. MATES in Construction was the beacon of light for this family in very tough times, and I will not allow the Turnbull government to attack this vital service. I will fight for the workers in the Herbert community. I will fight for my comrades, and I will fight against this bill. It is vicious and malicious that the Turnbull government would attack this program just because MATES in Construction partners include the AMWU and the CFMEU. Causing any sort of detriment to an organisation that is purely there to help those in the construction industry with suicide prevention and mental health awareness, and to do so purely because it has links to unions, is abhorrent and disgusting. There is union bashing and then there is this. This is just plain outrageous by the Turnbull government. To put MATES in Construction under pressure, an organisation that assists an industry to decrease high suicide rates, is just downright wrong.

It is beyond comprehension, at a time when even the IMF and the OECD are warning that declining union density and collective bargaining are contributing to stagnant wages and growing inequality, that this government wants to further undermine workers and their unions. The Turnbull government is desperately trying to distract the public from the fact that it has no agenda to address wage stagnation, underemployment, unemployment and rising inequality—and, for that matter, anything else. Coalition governments will continually try to undercut and attack unions. But Labor and the unions will continue to do what we do best when we are under attack: stand up and fight back.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no limit to the willingness of this government to use the extraordinary powers of the state to go after their political opponents for political reasons. In this parliament today we have seen some extraordinary circumstances. The government, in the House of Representatives, had one of their ministers stand up in parliament and make some absolutely outrageous observations about their political opponents on the other side of the House. The reason they did this? Because we had the temerity to expose some weaknesses and some problems with their administration of the Australian Federal Police.

A few moments before question time we saw the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police tell a Senate estimates committee that staff cuts to the Australian Federal Police—we understand about 117 jobs—and budget cuts to the Australian Federal Police were interfering with their capacity to conduct drug raids. We understand that the ABC has seen documents from senior sources within the New South Wales branch of the Australian Federal Police saying those very same things: staff cuts are interfering with their capacity to conduct drug raids.

Yet, at the very same time that evidence was being given and the minister was standing up in the House saying all sorts of slanderous things, the police had the capacity to be planning and conducting a raid on union offices. 'Staff cuts mean we can't conduct operations against drug smugglers and criminals, but we've got enough staff to raid the offices of the Australian Workers' Union about an alleged event that is alleged to have occurred 10 years ago.' I am sure that most Australians are scratching their heads and saying, 'Where are this government's priorities?' 'We haven't got enough staff to go after drug smugglers, but we've got enough staff to put on an operation to go after our political opponents.'

We have become anaesthetised to this government's willingness to use the forums of parliament, day after day after day, to slander law-abiding Australian citizens who do nothing but dedicate their lives to protecting the rights and conditions of their fellow workers. They are a target as far as this government is concerned because they are political opponents as far as this government is concerned. We have become anaesthetised to this government's willingness to use the legislative instruments of this place to go after their political opponents. In fact, you know it's a sitting week in Canberra because the government's got a bill before the parliament which is going after workers and their representatives. That's how you know when parliament's sitting; they go after workers and their representatives. You've got that fool of a Treasurer who goes on the radio this morning and says, 'We've got to do something about inclusive growth.' Then, a few hours later, he stands up in parliament and attacks unions and the representatives who are trying to do something about dealing with inequality in this country.

Australians are scratching their heads. They know that this government will leave no stone unturned in going after their political enemies, using the protections available in this place to slander and defame law-abiding citizens; and using the legislative instruments of this place to attack the very institutions whose sole purpose is to look after workers' rights, protect their rights and conditions and ensure that they get some wage equality in this country. They will leave no stone unturned to use the legislative instruments of this place to go after those organisations.

And yet today we see that is not enough: 'We have to go further. We are going to use the police force to go after our political enemies.' This at the very same time that the police force is telling parliament, 'We do not have the resources to go after criminals and drug importers and other people who legitimately should be attracting the police enforcement efforts of this country,' because this government has cut the resources to the AFP. And the minister who is responsible for this legislation before the House today thought it was more important that she instruct the AFP and the Fair Work Commission to have them go after this union. It is nothing short of a disgrace! The minister deserves to be condemned. The Prime Minister needs to be condemned. Is it any wonder that there is no member of the coalition government who is willing to come into this place and defend their actions and defend their legislation?

It's not only the legislative instruments and the police force of this country that the government are using to go after their political enemies; they are doing it as an employer as well. They are doing it as an employer as well. There is not a day in this country where good, hardworking members of the Australian Public Service aren't putting themselves on the line to represent the government and its policies, whether they agree with them or not, and to ensure that they are providing the service that the Australian public deserves and expects of their government. They don't get paid well. They don't get paid as well as you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough. They certainly haven't enjoyed the pay rises that members of parliament and ministers of government have enjoyed over the last five years.

In fact, let's look at what's happening in the Federal Court of Australia. The work of the Federal Court and the Family Court is incredibly important to the Australian community. Court staff often deal with some of the most difficult cases. Funding and staffing of our federal courts have been a challenge for a long, long time. The courts have generally had a strong working relationship with their staff and their union representatives, but this has broken down in recent times. It has broken down under the decisions of this government. In June this year, staff overwhelmingly rejected an enterprise agreement, with a 90 per cent vote against it. After four years of a pay freeze, staff were offered an agreement which proposed substantial cuts to conditions and money in exchange for a one per cent per annum pay increase. Now, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to understand that a one per cent per annum wage increase is actually a pay cut, because of inflation and other cuts to conditions. But instead of attempting to negotiate in good faith with the staff and their representatives, the government is slamming the door shut.

Well, members on this side of the House understand the important role performed by members of our court's staff. We understand that they are on the front line, just as the staff in this place are often on the front line, standing between the politicians, the ministers and the government in this place and the members of the public and what they expect of their government. We on this side think they deserve a fair and decent pay rise. Labor supports a pay rise for these people that will at least see them keeping pace with the cost of living without having to trade off hard-fought-for conditions.

If we had to spend this afternoon debating a bill to do with industrial relations and the rights of workers and their representatives in this country, these are the issues we should have been dealing with—things that are within the direct control and interest of this government and that it turns its back on, at the very same time it is using the instruments, the forces—the police force—of our government to go after its political enemies. Is there no level to which this government will not stoop? If there is a decent member on the other side of the House, they will stand up in this parliament today and condemn the actions of their government as an employer, condemn the actions of their government as a legislator and condemn the actions of their government as an executive, for using the police force of this state for nothing more than political purposes and diverting resources away from their proper purpose.

If we are to debate an issue that matters to the Australian people, an issue that is relevant, these are the things and this is the legislation we should be debating today, not this stuff, which is nothing short of a political attack on those who seek to represent workers and those who are dedicating their lives to ensuring that people who go to work every day—whether in our courts, in our public sector, on a building site, in the transport industry or wherever, in a small business around the country—get the wages and conditions they deserve, and perhaps a bit of a pay rise, and the dignity they deserve day in, day out.

This legislation is nothing short of an attack on the political enemies of this government And I can tell you: the numbers of those who have a grudge with this government are growing day after day—this government's mismanagement of everything from the NBN to the economy, their attack on workers' rights, their failure to do anything about inequality in this country. The workers of Australia, the people of Australia, have worked them out, and they're coming after them.

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

Like the member for Whitlam, I came in here prepared to speak on a bill before the House—the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017—which of course I will do. But the raids today have to be dealt with. What an absolutely disgraceful misuse of government power to allow a police force to be used in this way, to use the power of the state against your political enemies. It should send a shiver down the spine of anybody who cares about the way a democracy should run—to use the power of the state, the police, against your political enemies. And what crime are we talking about? An allegation that 10 years ago some paperwork wasn't done. That warrants a police raid? It is absolutely outrageous, particularly when you think that just in the last few months Nigel Hadgkiss, the minister's hand-picked henchman at the building commission, resigned in disgrace for breaking the law. This man, the right hand of the employment minister, actually broke the law. Were the police called in? Was he dragged away in handcuffs? Was there a raid on the minister's office? No. The man quietly resigned, was quietly sent on his way.

And then we learnt that the minister knew of his transgression for a full year and kept him in the office. So it's okay when your friends break the law, but woe betide anybody you disagree with, woe betide anybody that disagrees with this government, because the full force of the state will be down on your head. There will be NBN raids against senators for speaking out against the NBN policy of this government. There will be AWU raids against the union from 10 years ago. It just beggars belief that we live in a democracy in the 21st century and these are the depths that this government and this Prime Minister—who, prior to being in politics, was well known as a lawyer and somewhat of a social progressive—will go to. This is how far he has descended. This is the abyss that he has come to in his desperate attempt to cling to government. Nothing is too low for this Prime Minister, as he clings to government, as he grapples with the right wing of his own party.

I can't understand it. When I know police resources are stretched and we are told all the time that they have to make choices about what they can and what they can't do. In Tasmania, we've got five AFP officers for the entire state. I'm pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has promised that a Labor government will restore AFP officers to Hobart Airport, and not before time. AFP officers were taken out of service by this government. We will restore those officers.

Just yesterday, a pair of bikies was dragged off a plane at Hobart Airport. I believe Senator Abetz and Senator Bushby were on the plane. I'm not sure if the officers dragged the wrong people off the plane, but a pair of bikies were dragged off the plan. They weren't taken off the plane by AFP officers. That plane was on the tarmac and Tasmanian police had to be called in. They had to drive into the airport—because they're not based at the airport—and take the bikies off, and then the plane could go on its way. There was an hour delay, because Tasmanian police had to be called out because AFP officers are not based at the airport. That's the effect of this government. There are no AFP officers at Hobart Airport, but you've got AFP officers to raid union offices for alleged transgressions of 10 years ago.

Why is this government so keen to push this latest legislation before us through? Because it deals with their political enemies. It is like groundhog day. Ten years ago, the former coalition government, the Howard government, thought it would be a brilliant idea to take on the workers of this country with that dreadful Work Choices legislation. 'That'd be a good idea!    Let's take on the unions and take on the workers of this country, cut their conditions, cut their pay, cut their penalty rates.' That worked out really well! Labor was swept into office in 2007.

We have an election in two years time. If you want to go to an election on this issue—the issue of taking on workers, reducing penalty rates, cutting workers' conditions, keeping wages flat and keeping work insecure—we would be very happy to accommodate you. The workers of this country—the employees, the cashiers, the office staff, the police, the nurses, the teachers—deserve better than what they're getting from this government. This government is trying to make it easier and easier to cut workers' pay, to cut workers' conditions, to make work more insecure, to make work more flexible for the employer, and to take away the rights, the conditions and the fairness of what it means to be a worker and a citizen in this country.

We've just seen the disgraceful, unbelievable situation where penalty rates in this country were actually reduced, at a time when wages have never been flatter. Since records started wages have never been flatter, and you've reduced penalty rates. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, a record high. So let's reduce the penalty rates for people working on Sundays. Let's make it harder for them to make ends meet. With power prices going through the roof, let's make it harder for people who depend on Sunday penalty rates to pay their bills. Bravo! Bravo! While you're cutting taxes for millionaires and people earning over $180,000 a year, you're making it harder for people on modest incomes to make a living in this country. What an absolute disgrace you are. In Tasmania, United Voice—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.