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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This Government's failure to respect the contribution of Australian workers.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

We've heard a lot in this place in recent days about aspiration, and what's become blindingly obvious is that aspiration means very different things to different people. This morning I had a visit from Raj, Ernestina and Namgay, cleaners from Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. They were telling me how insecure contracts, split shifts and low pay are making it difficult for them to make ends meet. They've been working in the same jobs for years without pay increases, hoping their contracts will be renewed but fearing they won't be. They've got aspirations: they aspire to decent pay and secure contracts.

Yesterday I met Alanna, an apprentice and TAFE student from Queensland. She's an absolutely inspirational young woman taking an apprenticeship in heavy diesel engine maintenance. She's got an aspiration: she wants to be an assets and facilities manager, and good on her. Yesterday I also met with electrical trades apprentices. All of them, all of these people, are worried about the funding of TAFE and whether their jobs are going to be secure and decently paid when they finished their apprenticeships. And today I met Carly, another apprentice, from Tomago. She's got aspirations as well. She aspires for a decently funded TAFE system and a good job when she finishes.

What about the aspiration of the 8,000 Telstra workers who have lost their jobs today—an aspiration to keep their job, to keep a roof over their head and a pay packet coming in. And what can the minister say about that? He says, 'As a former telco executive, these things happen.' 'These things happen', as though these people have no right to aspire to secure employment and a job to go to.

These workers, and the others that I talk to from right around Australia, have aspirations: for good pay and conditions, yes; for wages that keep up with the cost of living; for secure, stable, well-paid jobs where they feel confident that they'll have a pay cheque coming in next week and next month and next year. They have the aspiration that, if they work on a weekend or a public holiday, they'll actually get paid for the time they're missing out with their family. They aspire to an affordable roof over their heads, a good education for their kids. They aspire to a health system that will be there when they need it, no matter their pay packet or their wealth. Do you know what? We in Labor share these aspirations with them. What these working Australians want for themselves, we want for them too. And guess what? We want to give them tax cuts as well. We want everyone on up to $125,000 a year to be better off, to get a bigger tax cut under Labor.

You do sometimes, every now and again, get a cut-through moment in here, where people drop the facade, stop running out the pat lines, and the spin falls away. Yesterday in question time we got a couple of those moments, where you actually see into the heart of people, into their values. When the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether a 60-year-old aged care worker from Burnie should aspire instead to be an investment banker from Rose Bay so she can get a $7,000 a year tax cut, the Prime Minister said she should aspire to 'get a better job'. 'Get a better job' were his exact words. Do you know what? We all knew exactly what he meant. What he meant was: become an investment banker, make more money, accumulate more wealth, put your money into shares or, better still, the Cayman Islands and get yourself a mansion. Because that's what aspiration looks like to this Prime Minister. It is the only aspiration that he understands.

Caring for elderly and vulnerable people, giving them comfort and love during some of the most difficult days of their lives, that's actually something to aspire to in your work. Working to educate the very young, providing them with a loving and supportive environment while their parents are off at work, making sure they're ready to start school—that's something to aspire to. Spending your life in the service of others, whether it's keeping their workplaces clean, serving in a shop or a restaurant, building offices or homes, farming the food that feeds us—they're all jobs to be proud of, but you wouldn't know it from those opposite. The Prime Minister thinks the only reason that anyone would do any of these jobs is because they can't get a better-paid job. It blows me away. These people opposite talk about 'job snobs'. Who are the job snobs here? People are proud of the work they do in aged care, in child care, in child protection, in manufacturing, in building, in farming, in retail, in hospitality, and those opposite think they only do this work because they can't really be merchant bankers. If only they could be merchant bankers, they would jump at the opportunity

People in these professions would like better pay. They'd certainly like to have their penalty rates restored. They'd like to see better wages growth than they've had in recent years, for sure. But they also do their work because they love their community, they love their country and they get personal satisfaction out of the work they do, and that's something the Prime Minister will never understand.

When the Prime Minister talks about aspiration, the only aspiration he understands is aspiration for yourself, for your own hip pocket. He means: be prepared to crawl over anyone who gets in your way through survival of the fittest, rule of the jungle, dog-eat-dog, trickle-down economics, opt out of paying tax if you possibly can—if your clever lawyers and accountants can get you a tax-free account in the Cayman Islands somewhere. That's the Prime Minister's world view to a tee. If he were still working at Goldman Sachs or working for Kerry Packer or presiding over Australia's worst corporate disaster at HIH, that would be his prerogative. But he's the Prime Minister now and is supposed to be the Prime Minister for all Australians. It's that arrogant, out-of-touch perspective which says, 'Where you're born is where you'll stay. Get what you're given and be grateful,' that's hurting Australia. That idea of cold charity and tough luck, that's hurting Australia.

Yesterday, in all of that red-faced, hoarse-voiced vitriol—a performance only equalled by his tantrum on election night—the most cutting insult he could think of to throw to those of us on this side was that we're 'university educated'. You know what, in the world that this Prime Minister inhabits, if you're a working-class person, if you come from a family where you are the first in your family to go to university, that makes you a class traitor. Universities are okay for him; he can go to Oxford. In fact, universities are a necessity for people of his stock; they're allowed in the club. But if you're a kid from the outer western suburbs of Sydney, if you come from a small country town, if you don't have ancestors who bought the first run of shares in Westpac then you ought to know your place. You're just getting ideas above your station going to university. That's what he means when he goes on about 'social climbers'. How often have you heard that term from the Prime Minister? He means: stay put, stay where you belong, and make sure your kids do too.

Let me tell you something: we don't call it social climbing in the Labor Party. We call it justice. We call it fairness. We call it opportunity for all. We call it giving everybody a chance to fulfil their potential, to lift themselves out of poverty, to give their kids a chance to live a more comfortable life than they've had.

He'll cut Medicare; he doesn't need it. He'll cut the pension; he'll never get it. He thinks public transport's an amusing hobby, not something you wait for at 5 am to get to your job in the city. He's never relied on penalty rates; he doesn't know anyone who has. Every Christmas he talks about the cleaners in this building and how great they are. But he's happy to see their wages cut and see them put on insecure contracts. This is a man who's got millions of dollars but not a cent's worth of empathy for anyone who's not just like him. He has got shares in everything, but he does not share the values of the Australian people. He was born out of touch. He's lived his whole life out of touch. He will always be out of touch. He proved it again today, going on and on, defensive, about this aspiration idea.

To all the aged-care workers out there, this is what we say to you: caring for the most vulnerable Australians is something to be proud of. You're doing a great job. You don't need a better job. You need a better government.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not surprised that so many people are off politics at the moment, because that was just an outright disgrace—a 10-minute character assassination of a man who was not born into money. He had a single father. His father was a hotel broker—known to my grandfather—who did his best. And now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to shame me.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I'm happy to take the interjection. I'm the grandson of an orphan who left an orphanage at 15 with the clothes on his back. He put everything on the line. He aspired, with my grandmother, to start our business. Am I ashamed of that? No, I'm not. What have I done? I've spent 23 years working and growing that business, working side by side with my staff. As for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in all her mentions of all the workers, the one thing she didn't mention was that every worker employed, that she mentioned, came at the end of a small and family business operator—the overwhelming majority of them—putting their family home on the line, taking a risk, backing themselves and employing people.

I get asked this question by parents all the time: 'Where are my kids' jobs going to come from?' And I'm sure they're hoping for some pearl of wisdom about the internet of things, Industry 4.0, machine learning and artificial intelligence. The reality is simple: the jobs of tomorrow are going to come from where they've always come from—entrepreneurs prepared to back themselves, take on bank debt, start a business, grow that business and employ people.

That's exactly what the Prime Minister has done in his career. He started in his career as a lawyer. And he moved to the private sector afterwards. It's so sad! Modern politics—do you want to know why people are so off it? Ten minutes of tearing apart someone who should be a role model—the same as you; you all should be role models. We should be proud of our politicians in this place. Why? Because a person like the Prime Minister has seen fit to turn his back on his own career and serve the public, as you all have. But what do we do in this place? We stand here and we assassinate the reputation of everyone. Well, I say: rubbish! And I'm not surprised people are over it, because I'm over it too.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to stand at the dispatch box and do the same as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Yet his pathway to where he sits today was absolutely privileged as well. And good luck to him. He shouldn't be embarrassed by it; he should be proud of it. He's here serving his community. But what do we do? We just want to throw barbs at either side of the chamber. Do you know what? The Prime Minister of this country is a role model. He should be proud of his journey. People should see what he's had the chance to do and be encouraged by it. They might want to do the same.

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

Avoiding tax.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is warned.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her selective rendition on penalty rates—I've met a few young students in my electorate, working on the weekends at McDonald's for six hours on Saturday and six hours on a Sunday. They will be $15,000 worse off over the next three years because of the EBA they are signed up to.

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

That's crap!

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absolutely the truth.

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

No, it's not.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are $15,000 worse off. Why? The pay rise from Monday to Friday that was meant to compensate for that doesn't do it if they only work Saturdays and Sundays. It doesn't do it. Those opposite put in place the better off overall test. They now claim it's broken. Coles have had their EBA struck out because of exactly what I said. It's not me; it's the Fair Work Commission.

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

Rubbish!

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not rubbish. It was the Fair Work Commission. At Big W, if they work Saturdays and Sundays, over the next three years they'll be $13,400 worse off. At Woolworths, if they work Saturdays and Sundays—and we're talking about school kids—

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

So they don't work during the week?

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part-time workers don't; they work on Saturdays and Sundays because they're at school during the week. I'm talking about school students. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to stand here and say that we're for cutting penalty rates. The Fair Work Commission came up with the decision, and we respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission. We weren't on our own.

In 2010 the Fair Work Commission reduced weekend award rates in restaurant awards. The shadow minister at the time was the current opposition leader. He did not say boo. In 2014, when he was the opposition leader, weekend awards were reduced. Not only did he not say anything; the shadow minister for industrial relations actually respected the outcome of the decision, saying, 'That's what the Fair Work Commission is there to do.' Why? You put it in place. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition put the Fair Work Commission in place between 2007 and 2009—and the Leader of the Opposition has the gall! When he was a union leader, CleanEvent lost all penalty rates on weekends, no matter who you were, under their EBA. The Leader of the Opposition had a personal involvement in that. This is the reality of where we find ourselves.

The topic of the MPI is 'this government's failure to respect the contribution of Australian workers'. What are we doing for Australian workers? We're not just talking; we're actually doing something. There's the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act and $21 million of additional resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman to make sure that employers not paying their people in the right way are caught and prosecuted—as they should be. The Turnbull government does not stand beside any business that does the wrong thing by workers. Indeed, it empowers the watchdog, the Fair Work Ombudsman, to do their job.

The Leader of the Opposition, when he was in charge of the portfolio, drastically reduced the resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman and cut their staff as well. When the protecting vulnerable workers bill was sent to the Senate, what did they do? They voted against it. They say one thing here and they say another thing when it suits. The inconsistency is across the board. It's across all things. Yet they say they are protecting Australian workers.

Again, those opposite like to talk about the rise and the threat of the gig economy. The Fair Work Ombudsman two weeks ago brought action against Foodora. The system is working exactly as it should—

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

By giving tax cuts to people who steal superannuation?

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection—stealing superannuation. The 769 workers dudded by Queensland Nickel in Townsville were compensated to the tune of $67 million by the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. The Queensland Supreme Court two weeks ago froze the assets of former member and owner of Queensland Nickel Clive Palmer to the tune of $205 million. Our great hope is that the action we're taking in the courts will, as it unfolds, return every cent that the workers of Queensland Nickel are owed—that they are entitled to. This is the reality. Those opposite want to hypothesise or character slay; we're interested in results.

Today there are more people working than ever before in our country's history. That comes at the end of 4½ years of strong economic management. It doesn't come at the end of taking a punt or having a crack; it comes at the end of strong economic management. Of the one million jobs that have been created—417,000-odd in the last 12 months—80 per cent are full-time jobs, and this is at a time when the union movement in this country is claiming that we have a crisis of occasional work. Eighty per cent of the jobs created in the last 12 months are full-time. Twenty-five per cent of jobs in the last 20 years—and it hasn't changed—have been casual, predominantly filled by school students, uni students and carers, and they get a 25 per cent loading. Another myth that those opposite like to propagate is that those on casual wages aren't compensated for holiday pay. That's rubbish. They get a 25 per cent loading for that. That is the reality of what we face with those opposite—character assassination after character assassination, and misrepresentation of the truth.

The reality of where we find ourselves today economically is that more workers than ever have a job. That comes at the end of a plan. What do we want to do? We want to continue to decrease personal and company tax. We don't think that is our money, unlike those opposite. We think that companies or individuals should keep their profit from their labour. It's their profit or wage, not ours. We on this side get that. I know that those opposite don't get it. They've never actually put their hand in their own pocket and paid anyone themselves. They've never run their own business. Their ignorance is stunning. The character assassination isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a surprise! In 10 minutes we didn't hear one defence of the Prime Minister's comments in question time yesterday where he told a 60-year-old aged-care worker that they should aspire to a better job. I wonder why the minister didn't defend that comment and why he didn't defend the Prime Minister.

Mr Laundy interjecting—

You didn't say a word about aged-care workers and you didn't defend the Prime Minister and what he said about aged-care workers. Why wouldn't you? It's because what he said was appalling. I think it shows that those on the other side don't interact with aged-care workers and their ilk. We on this side, of course, meet with aged-care workers all of the time. We meet with people who care for others in our community and we talk to them. Over 360,000 aged-care workers were insulted by what the Prime Minister said yesterday, yet the minister for workplace relations come to the dispatch box and talks for 10 minutes and does not even mention that comment! That comment was so insulting. To cast any doubt on these workers and what they do is appalling.

Anyone who has ever spoken to an aged-care worker, visited a facility or visited the home of an older person who has a home care worker come and visit them knows the incredible work they do and how hard they work. These people are feeding older Australians, they are showering older Australians and they are helping them with their chores so that they can stay at home or so that they can live with dignity and respect in their residential aged-care facility. It is not okay for this government to say things like the Prime Minister said yesterday—it is absolutely not okay—and for the minister to be silent on it shows that they really have no respect whatsoever for aged-care workers.

We know that they don't have much respect for childcare workers. We know that they don't have much respect for teachers and early childhood educators—for people who are teaching our young people. We know that they don't have respect for nurses and people working in our health system. We know this because this is a government that has wanted to cut health funding and does not want to support people who want to go back to work in terms of child care. We have families in Australia today who are missing out because of this government's childcare changes. We have kids that want to go to university in my home state of Tasmania but, with the university cuts, we know that places are going to be capped. So, even if you have a bit of aspiration and you want your kids to go to university, this government is saying to them, 'There'll be a cap on that, and not every child who wants to go to university will be able to.'

They come in here and they want to talk about aspiration for Australians. People that work in aged care, child care and education have aspirations. They have aspirations to care for our community. They have an aspiration to care for the vulnerable. They have an aspiration to actually put something back into their community. Just because a job is paid less does not mean it is valued less. That is the value judgement that we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday. It is the value judgement that we continually hear from those on the other side.

They seem to think that a job and its pay are the value of that work. That is absolutely not true. Absolutely not true! It shows their contempt for Australian workers when they continually repeat that rhetoric, use words like 'aspiration' and twist things. They come in here and say things like, 'People should aspire to get a better job when they're a childcare worker,' because that is what they really believe. Those on the other side actually really believe that you get paid for the value of your work.

We all know on this side of the House—and Australians know—that that is not true. There are people, millions of them, in Australia today who are doing difficult, rewarding jobs and who are not well paid. There are millions of Australians who are working in areas like child care, in areas like hospitality, in areas like aged care and in areas like disability, who are doing really, truly valuable work, who are not being valued and who have no value put on them by this government.

Interestingly, of the 360,000 aged-care workers, a majority of them—in fact, over 75 per cent—are women. They are women in insecure casual jobs. They are women who don't know what shift they're going to get next week. They are women who are going to people's homes to care for vulnerable people. This government does not value those workers, and that's what the Prime Minister said to them yesterday. It is outrageous, and this government should do better!

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition started to speak today she referred to apprentices that she had met recently. And I think that's great. We should all take the opportunity to meet with apprentices and acknowledge the work that they do. We should also—and I'm sure that we all do—acknowledge the great work that's done by so many Australians in a whole variety of jobs here, and congratulate them and thank them for what they do for this country.

I want particularly to take up the opportunity to speak about apprentices, given that it has been raised in the context of this debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because this is where the coalition government is certainly making some very positive commitments—to make sure that we are skilling Australians for the jobs of the future. There are approximately 4.2 million students involved in VET across this nation. They are gaining the skills that they need to get a job or to upgrade their qualifications, or upskilling for a different job, if they so wish. That's about one in four Australians aged between 15 and 69 who are participating in the VET sector.

We recognise that we do have some issues here with skills shortages in a whole range of areas, and many of those skill shortages are in areas where apprentices, through becoming qualified tradespeople or by going through a traineeship, will actually fill those needs now and into the future. When I was first appointed into this role, the best part of two years ago now, I took the opportunity to speak with many of our apprentices and to get feedback from them. I spoke to our Australian Apprenticeships Ambassadors. For those who are in the chamber today, let me say that we have around 300 Australian Apprenticeships Ambassadors here in this country. What they are committed to is visiting schools and visiting community groups, doing everything that they can to promote what they have done with their careers and to highlight to young people the jobs that are available to them if they follow a vocational education path—particularly if they take a pathway that leads them from an apprenticeship through to a trade or a non-trade qualification. They are outstanding individuals.

There were a number of things that I took from the very first meeting that I had with those apprentices. Firstly, was their lack of understanding as to why more people are not interested in becoming an apprentice and becoming a tradesperson. They also indicated that one of the things we needed to do to change that was start a campaign where we were able to show what the jobs of the future were likely to be—to indicate, by using individuals who were currently qualified through the VET sector, the jobs that they were doing.

We talked to childcare workers. We talked to people who were in health care, disability services, aged care and a whole range of industry sectors—building, construction, hospitality and tourism. We talked to them about ways that we could put together a strategy to ensure that we had the skills for the future. Through all of that engagement about two years ago, we developed the Real Skills for Real Careers strategy. Real skills for real careers—this is what we are out there now promoting throughout the community. We have engaged with leading sports organisations—NRL, AFL SportsReady and Touch Football Australia—so that we can get into the hearts and minds of our young people, so that those who are heading into their final years at school have before them some real career opportunities. We want them to understand that, for some, university will provide them with the opportunity they need for the future, but, for many others, a pathway through vocational education, where they can study, learn on the job and earn while they are studying, is going to lead them to a very rewarding and fulfilling career.

This government is absolutely committed to meeting Australia's skills needs now and into the future. We are working with state and territory governments around this country to make sure that together, positively, collectively, we will increase the number of apprentices in training that we have in this country. And, through that, we will go a very long way to meeting the skills shortages that we face now and in the future. I can assure you that the coalition government is absolutely committed to meeting skills needs and making sure that we honour and respect those people who are following a vocational education pathway.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's got to be said that this government shows, time and time again, its genuine lack of respect for Australian workers. Coming to the table and talking about the jobs of aged-care workers shows that this government recognises a person's worth in this community by the size of their pay packet, not the value of the work they do within a community. But we should not be all that surprised. After all, this is the party of WorkChoices. This is the party that made it legal, for the first time in Australian history, to pay people below an award rate of pay. This is the party that went out of its way to show its disdain for Australian workers.

Only today, those opposite brought a superannuation bill before the House to give a 25-year amnesty to dodgy employers that have done the wrong thing by their workers by underpaying superannuation. Not only do they want to give them an amnesty so they can voluntarily come forward; they want to allow that to be a tax deduction—not a penalty but a tax deduction! That shows where they see worth in the community. And yesterday the Prime Minister showed his true colours. When asked about the difference in taxation benefits for a millionaire and an aged-care worker, his response was: 'They can be aspirational. They can get a better job.'

I don't know about you, but those of us who believe in community see day in, day out—and I imagine many on the other side would too—the value of workers in the aged community. They do an incredible job. We aspire to have our parents taken care of as they age and be treated kindly and with respect. We make a lot of demands on these aged-care workers, no question about it. Yet aged-care workers are very, very low-paid workers. My little brother is the secretary of the HSU, and I know aged care is a very big issue for them. I know that the cuts that this government has placed upon the aged-care sector are why wages are terribly restrained in that area. They get what this Prime Minister did yesterday—they made a statement about it, actually. They talked about how this Prime Minister has demeaned the work of aged-care workers—people who, as I've said, go out on our behalf looking after our friends and relatives, making sure they're treated with respect in their elder years and doing the things that most people probably wouldn't like to do. That's the way they treat the people who look after the aged and infirm in our community.

Talking about people who actually represent workers—Deputy Speaker Hogan, you will know from your time in this parliament how many times those opposite have given praise to worker representatives. Yes, trade union officials. Every day you will hear an attack being made on trade union officials and many of us on this side being linked to the trade union movement. I'm proud to say that I did grow up in the trade union movement. Hopefully in my time there I made a contribution towards looking after workers, their welfare and their families; I hope that I was able to achieve that. I think that's the aspiration of all people working in the trade union movement. Sorry, they actually have praised a trade union.

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

Have they?

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have: Kathy Jackson, the then National Secretary of the HSU. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the House and the then Prime Minister made it very clear that she was a hero of the working class; the person that other union leaders should aspire to be like. I'm not quite sure where she is at the moment, but probably still defending the criminal litigation that's been taken in terms of funds being taken from that organisation, the fact that member's didn't get the benefits that they were promised—a whole host of things. That's the hero they want to hold up and say, 'This is what the trade union movement should be about.' No wonder they bring legislation to support dodgy employers today. (Time expired)

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal-National Party believes in free enterprise. We believe in empowering the individual to realise their full potential. The Australian Labor Party believes in big government and ensuring that the average Australian worker is kept down and cannot achieve his or her full potential. That is why the motion being put by the shadow deputy leader today is a disgrace. I say that on three grounds. Firstly, the Labor Party wants to deny Australian workers the opportunity to work in the first place. Secondly, the Labor Party wants to ensure that the Australian worker is treated as a second-rate citizen. Thirdly, where the Australian worker makes a buck, the Labor Party wants to tax them as much as it possibly can.

Let's take these three in good order. They want to deny the opportunity to work. Here we are, as a government, trying to provide company tax cuts so that companies can reinvest in their businesses and create jobs for Australians. The Australian Labor Party do not want that to happen. They do not want to see more jobs created for Australians. Here we are, making a record spend on infrastructure—$75 billion over a 10-year period—yet the Australian Labor Party will not support our infrastructure spend. When they make announcements, they're announcing old money or they're covering money that's already been announced by state Labor governments. They're not interested in seeing infrastructure built, which, of course, would create jobs for everyday Australians.

We have the most ambitious trade agenda that any government has ever had—evidenced by the China, Korea, Japan, Peru and TPP-11 free trade agreements—and all we have been is stymied by those opposite. With the China FTA, we have the union movement, with Labor support, running a fear campaign. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition wanted us to dump the idea of any TPP-11—and, of course, now we're on a fast track to have that ratified—denying the opportunity for everyday Australians to enjoy jobs through exports.

Our latest national accounts delivered a 3.1 per cent growth over a 12-month period. The No. 1 driver from the last quarter was exports, and yet those members opposite are trying to refuse the opportunity for Australians to enjoy jobs through the export markets. Despite their mantra for fairness, the Labor Party will always put the worker second. We know that because this government restored the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. Those opposite wanted to fight against it. They were happy to see lawlessness prevail on the Australian worksite so the thugs and bullies could have it over the everyday Australian worker. That's how they treat them, as second-rate citizens.

We on this side, of course, wanted to prioritise Australian workers by getting rid of the 457 visa scheme and replacing it so Australian workers get more work. But of course, those opposite love the 457s, as evidenced by the opposition leader, who had almost a world record in increases when he was the responsible minister for the 457 visas—from about 68,000 to 110,000. Loving the idea of foreign workers over Australian workers, that's the Australian Labor Party. Despite the fact that this government is now seeking to legislate an amnesty so that hard-earned savings earned by workers can be restored to them, the Australian Labor Party are denying that opportunity. Second-rate citizens: that is how they treat the workers. Those workers who make a buck, they get taxed. We want to have personal income tax cuts. What do they say? 'Uh-huh! We do not want the worker to pay less tax.' They want to ensure that if they own an investment property, the everyday Australian worker will be punished through negative gearing capital gains tax restructuring. That is how they treat the Australian worker. And likewise the retirees, older Australians in particular, if you own a share portfolio through their franking credit scheme, it's all over for you too; you will pay more tax.

Ged Kearney (Batman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been much said by the members of the government about the aspirations of Australian workers. The term 'aspiration' has a few meanings. As a nurse, I know of its use in medical terms. To aspirate means to inhale a foreign object or fluid, and aspiration then means to have it sucked out so you don't die of a coughing fit or pneumonia or worse. I am tempted here to use an analogy to the government's use of this term but, in the interests of time and getting to the crux of the issue, I have resisted. 'Aspiration' is a broad term generally meaning a strong desire to have or do something. The example sentence given in the online Oxford dictionary is the sentence: 'I didn't realise you had political aspirations.' It is quite apt, really, given its overuse by the members of the opposite side yesterday, who seemed to want to narrow-cast the meaning to one thing and one thing only—the aspiration to be rich and politically powerful.

While there is nothing wrong with aspiring for wealth and, indeed, power and while we on this side believe workers should receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, there is so much more to the aspirations of our workers. Yesterday many of my friends and colleagues and, indeed, many of my constituents were hurt and outraged by comments by the Prime Minister that inferred that anyone working in aged care would automatically be aspiring to a better job. I have had direct connection with the aged-care sector, with the carers, the nurses, the cooks, the recreational officers and others who work in aged care. Indeed, in my first speech, I referred to the aged-care sector and those who work there. I spoke of those who rely on those wonderful people who dedicate their working life to their care. I said a society is judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable. Our elderly are indeed among our most vulnerable. The aged-care sector is screaming out for reform and resources, a call that has been ignored by this government—a government that used smoke and mirrors in the last budget claiming that money had been injected into the sector when there was not one cent of extra funding; it had merely been shifted around, reallocated. And then those opposite made claims that this is new funding. I say again: no few funding for the sector.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the unions who represent workers in aged care. In my state, there is the Health Workers Union, United Voice, and the ANMF, who value their members and the work they do. Over my years as a nurse and at the ANMF I worked with and met many of those workers over and over again. In my new capacity I was recently visited by a delegation of wonderful Health Workers Union members who were aged-care workers. They are tired, overworked, concerned and caring but adamant to make change. The Health Workers Union and the other unions are all campaigning for better funding, better wages and better conditions for nurses and carers.

Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, do you know what those workers' aspirations are? Their aspirations are to be able to give better care to the elderly, the people whose lives have been entrusted to them. They hope for better staffing, better resources and better pay, but not one of the people who came to me said they wanted a better job. They love their jobs. They are dedicated. They get intrinsic rewards from ensuring dignity and quality of life. They aspire to make their residents' lives as comfortable and meaningful as possible, and they aspire to ensure that their residents have, at the end of their lives, a dignified death. That is the type of aspiration that the member for Wentworth and his colleagues perhaps do not understand. When they talk of aspiration and connect it to unfair tax cuts that favour the wealthy, they show their true colours. I'm not even sure that all wealthy people would agree with the Prime Minister saying they aspire to be wealthier. Many of us would have seen testimonials from the incredibly rich US citizens who decried the recent round of Trump tax cuts that favoured them above middle-wage earners or the poor.

Labor supports tax cuts that benefit our aged-care workers—tax cuts that mean they can have a little more to spend on life's needs and maybe even a few luxuries; tax cuts that we know will go straight into the economy, spreading their effectiveness even further and lessening inequality. Tax cuts for the rich who, let's face it, don't need them mean our aged-care workers lose healthcare services, have poorer quality schools and, importantly, have fewer resources to do their jobs properly. Tax cuts will exacerbate rising inequality.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't rise to speak on many of the MPIs, but I really couldn't go past this one, particularly as I would be following a former trade union leader who was talking about respect. In my response to the MPI today I'm going to talk about the lack of respect that many in our trade unions have for workers. The Labor Party is not the party it once was. It is not the party of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating that backed jobs, understood aspirational Australians and backed workers and their families. Today's Labor is too busy reporting to the union bosses of the CFMEU. It is too busy accepting donations from them and too busy being linked to those organisations that have shown nothing but disrespect for Australian workers. The CFMEU is a case in point. Last year about 80 officials were before the courts. Last year $14.9 million worth of fines had already been paid by the unions, and it has now clicked over to $15 million worth of fines. It is an organisation that just does not respect the rule of law. They openly flout the legal system. But why don't you hear about this from the Labor Party? Perhaps it is because of the over $600,000 worth of donations from the CFMEU to the Labor Party in the last three years alone. What a disgrace!

Australian workers think it's unacceptable as well. I really can't understand how the Labor Party can talk about respect for Australian workers when you look at the CFMEU's own actions at Glencore's Oaky North mine site last year. They were threatening and intimidating workers who were going to work at a job to make a life for themselves and their families. I choose not to repeat those particular threats that were made. They were not acceptable for repetition here in parliament. They're not even acceptable for repetition in the roughest and toughest front bars of pubs across Australia. And then we get to someone like John Setka, Bill Shorten's workplace relations director and key advisor. He is a person who has a long history of criminal behaviour, yet he's determining Labor's agenda on almost anything from behind the scenes. It just shows you Labor's priorities. But, given that the unions have donated over $31 million to Labor since the member for Maribyrnong became the Labor leader, it is no wonder they are joined at the hip.

I'm in parliament for hardworking Australians who want to apply their effort and succeed. The government has a plan for every hardworking Australian, and we can see those plans bearing fruit now. Some of the best news we have seen is on the creation of jobs. Four hundred and fifteen thousand new jobs—the largest number in our country's history—were created only last year. And 75 per cent of those were full time. Over a million jobs have been created since the coalition government was elected in 2013. That's respect for the contribution of Australian workers, right there—making sure that many more people have the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded for their effort.

In relation to personal tax cuts, the government's responsible plan for personal income tax relief is a plan for every Australian. We have a plan that makes personal income tax lower, simpler and fairer. Our tax relief package encourages and rewards those hardworking Australians. It backs businesses to invest and create jobs. Hardworking Australians are respected when they keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets and they get to decide how to spend it.

The other thing that we can do as a government is to respect the contribution of Australian workers by managing their taxpayer dollars in a very disciplined way. This government is making sure it manages taxpayers' money in a disciplined way. We've kept a tight rein on spending growth. Spending is forecast to grow by an average of 1.9 per cent. That is the lowest spending growth of any government in the last 50 years. And that's less than half of the four per cent spending growth we inherited from the Labor Party. The underlying cash balance is in the best position we've seen since the Howard government's final budget, and the budget will return to balance in 2019-20. We have legislated over $41 billion of budget repair measures. That's respect for the workers who work hard and pay their taxes.

The government is standing up to Labor and union thuggery. We are providing an opportunity for more Australians to get the benefit of work, to provide for them and their families. That's respect for the Australian worker.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to get personal about that particular contribution from the member for Tangney, so I won't. But those opposite just don't get it. They fundamentally don't get what this debate is about. We had the Prime Minister, the so-called leader of this country, talking about an aged-care worker aspiring to management. He was saying you'll get more value back the more you get paid. So the value proposition is in the wage. And you'd probably agree—the member might believe that—in your world view. Millions of other Australians, who those opposite have probably not connected with in any real way, see life a bit differently. Maybe they were brought up, as I was, by parents who gave us a sense of the value of community, the value of volunteering, and, of course, yes, a sense of the value of a dollar earned, but it was always put in the perspective of that responsibility that we all have to those in our community and to finding your unique gift in your life.

One of the things about the Labor Party that is core to us is lifting up the horizons of the Australian people—not just of the elite—and lifting up their opportunities, through doing things like investing in education, and supporting everyone, because we are all part of this team. We are all part of Australia; we are all Australians. So our focus should be to provide the services and the care that we owe our fellow Australians, because that's the contract. We went through this decades ago. The contract is that, when you work and pay taxes or contribute in your community in whatever way you can and you raise your family, you'll be looked after in your old age. But who's going to do that? Will it be those opposite, the investment bankers, the managers? Management has a place, of course, but is aspiring to management where the value is? How about the person who works with our elderly, who holds our elders' hands while they're dying? Those people who are providing that service will benefit from our system when they aspire enough to become managers.

I helped a constituent in my electorate recently who was having a very difficult time with a for-profit, on-the- stock-market, residential aged-care provider. His mum was having an incredibly difficult time and was not receiving the greatest level of care. I went along. The reason why some things had been missed is that, of course, they didn't have enough workers. The workers weren't being treated well, weren't being paid much at all and were stretched, so sometimes things were missed. When I went to talk to the management, they were quite dismissive, unfortunately. In the world view of those opposite, the people who are not respecting their workers by giving them good conditions of pay and good conditions of service, the managers who are getting paid more to screw things down, are the pinnacle. They're not. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance as we await the deliberations that are occurring over in the rarefied atmosphere that is the Senate. As we await the vote that's going to occur in the Senate, many people are asking a question of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is: how much more of their money does he think he deserves? They know he won't spend their money wisely and they certainly don't want to give him any more of their hard-earned cash. Why are the Leader of the Opposition's comrades over there in the Senate working to stop hardworking Australians from getting a tax reduction on 1 July? Why are they standing in the way? Why does the Leader of the Opposition have a vendetta against a new tax structure that would address the important issue of bracket creep? Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to prevent average Australians from keeping more of their hard-earned money as they earn more, gain new skills and invest in their own training and intellectual capital? The opposition leader wants a much greater cut of their hard work.

The government has in the parliament legislation that addresses one of the biggest bugbears of the current tax system: bracket creep. We hear too often from our constituents that they feel that they shouldn't do extra overtime, that if they work harder then too much of that money goes in tax. We are putting in place a system that will encourage hardworking Australians to work even harder. The plan that we have before the parliament is a plan that recognises the fact that wages will grow over time. With more experience in the workforce, with more investment in training, you have the opportunity to earn more money. We want to see hardworking Australians keep more of that money, but the Leader of the Opposition, in stark contrast, wants to get his hands on more of their cash.

The plan we have before the parliament is a good plan. It is a plan that has three phases. Phase 1 of the plan will come in on 1 July—if the Labor Party does not get its way and frustrate the introduction of those tax cuts—and under that plan taxpayers would receive an initial tax reduction of around $530. Phase 2 of the plan comes in 2022. And when phase 3 comes in, in 2024, around 94 per cent of taxpayers will be on a marginal rate of 32½c in the dollar or less. I'll repeat that: 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay a marginal rate of no more than 32½c in the dollar. That compares with around 63 per cent of taxpayers if no action were taken. Clearly, this is a government that is about encouraging people to do better, whereas the Labor Party merely wants to stand in the way.

We are about simpler, fairer and lower taxes. They are about getting their hands in the pockets of average Australians when they strive hard to earn a better living for themselves and their families. We're about building a stronger economy because we know a stronger economy creates more jobs and more opportunities for Australians. We are about allowing the pie to be grown. The Labor Party are about redistributing the same pie. We're about fixing Labor's budget mess by putting in place responsible financial management for the purposes of growing a stronger economy, creating more jobs and creating more opportunities for Australians. We're about investing in infrastructure because we know better infrastructure means a more efficient economy and more jobs. It's not just the fact we would have new infrastructure such as the Coffs Harbour bypass, creating safer motoring and faster travel times; we are also in the process creating more jobs.

We're about putting in place free trade agreements so we can have more exports—again, creating more jobs and more opportunities for Australians, and higher farmgate prices for our farmers. The benefits of trade cannot be underestimated. The Labor Party by comparison was unable to negotiate quality free trade agreements. This government has succeeded—free trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan. And we're now working on a new trade agreement with Europe. We're about creating opportunities. The Leader of the Opposition is about taxing Australians harder.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.