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

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

The Government's unfair cuts, including those cuts to childcare and penalty rates which begin in July.

I call upon those honourable 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—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the end of this week, families are going to be hit twice by this government and its cruel cuts. On Sunday, we are going to see the penalty rates that Australian workers rely on cut by this government. And then on Monday, the Turnbull government's new, unfair childcare system will come in—a system that will make it harder for so many children to get access to early education and childcare. We know that cutting workers' entitlements is an article of faith for the Liberal Party. It is an article of faith for the Liberal Party to cut from workers—to cut penalty rates and to cut their working conditions. They have never shied away from that. But I thought they cared about early education and access to early education for so many people. But of course it is clear now that their ideological crusade is not just about penalty rates and cutting and stripping workers' rights but also about denying children—often the most vulnerable children—access to early education.

When these new childcare changes which the minister has been talking up come in, we know from the government's own information that 279,000 families will be worse off as a result. The majority of these are low-income and vulnerable families. That is 279,000 families across this country. We know the plight of families is absolutely no concern for this government. The fate of this activity test that the government's introducing will come to fruition shortly. We know that the government is now requiring families to meet a set of complex activity and income tests in order to qualify for the childcare subsidy. This activity test is all about treating early education as glorified babysitting. It doesn't seem to understand that your child, no matter where you come from, should get access to early education. Children in families where parents aren't working will have their child care cut in half, to 12 hours of subsidy per week, and children in families earning over $65,000 where one parent is at home caring will have no access to subsidies. Where is the National Party when it comes to these families? The National Party says that it stands up for families and that it loves to support families. Well, the National Party has gone missing in action, and instead we are seeing families being denied access to early education, and we will have many families in electorates right around this country that will no longer get access.

The minister has often said that it's only Labor that has spoken out against these changes. Well, he is misleading the Australian public and the community, because, of course, there have been many people in the sector who have been vocal about the impact that this activity test will have. Australian Community Children's Services have said that the changes take Australia backwards in the early childhood policy arena. The Early Learning Association Australia said:

… we're very concerned about the notion of children being impacted because of effectively the actions or inactions of their parents.

The New South Wales Liberal government—the Liberal government—said:

… reducing the minimum hours of subsidised care for vulnerable and disadvantaged children is inconsistent with universal access commitments.

So there are all these groups—all those that work at the coalface—that understand that the government's new, unfair changes will have an impact on children.

But of course this Turnbull government is so arrogant and out of touch it does not believe that children in families that may not meet its cookie-cutter activity test deserve access to early education. The minister has stated that those parents at home should basically go and get a job and stop bludging off the taxpayer. In January he said it would be 'a waste of taxpayers' dollars' to 'support child care for people who are sitting at home'. There you have it: Australia's education minister saying that parents that may have complex family arrangements where one parent may need to stay at home are just couch potatoes and their children are less deserving of early education.

Let's just consider who these families might be. There are cases that have been widely canvassed in the media involving ill parents and carers such as Rebecca Tucker, who has breast cancer and cannot look for work because she is undergoing chemotherapy. She needs access to early education and child care, but what will she get under this government? Nothing. Olivia White is self-employed, has wide variation in the hours she works and will regularly fail the fortnightly activity test. This government says that she's not doing enough. They say she's just a couch potato. Of course, there's the mother—or father—at home with two or three children who is also caring for elderly parents who can no longer live independently. She's just a bludger, according to this government. She doesn't deserve early education for her young children. So it is inappropriate and absolutely disgraceful that this government is cutting support for so many children.

We on this side of the House know the importance of quality early education. It leads to a range of better educational, social and health outcomes for children later in life. It literally lays down the solid foundations for life. But this government would rather give $80 billion away in corporate tax cuts than invest in early education. Talk about priorities!

If it were just utter ideology, I could probably understand it, because we know that this government does not care about working people or about families. We've seen in this area of childcare changes complete incompetence by the minister as well. Currently, with only a few days to go, 235,000 families have not been able to register on the new system—20 per cent of families are not registered—and from 2 July they are going to miss out on support. In response to these families not registering, what has the minister had to say? The minister said: 'It is their fault. Why are families being so lazy? They just need to get onto myGov and register.' That just demonstrates that the minister is completely out of touch. What else has happened is that a number of providers have not been able to register. Once again the minister's response is just to say that they are lazy. This minister doesn't take any responsibility. These are his childcare changes and this is his program. He needs to stop blaming families and centres.

The government's new system was meant to put downward pressure. 'The hourly fee cap will put downward pressure on prices'—that is what the minister said. This is his usual spin and it is not backed up by facts. We are now hearing that fees are going up by 10 per cent. Under this government, families are already seeing increases of more than $2,000. What has the minister had to say? He said, 'I encourage any families being ripped off to consider what alternatives may be available to them.' There is proof again of an out-of-touch minister who has no idea about moving your child from one childcare centre to another. Children develop relationships with their carers and develop connections with the other children, and often there are no vacancies available. Plucking children out of one centre and putting them in another centre and letting the free market rip is just not the answer when it comes to early education. Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the minister.

Finally, we heard the minister representing the minister in the House talk about compliance and quality. The budget just handed down by the government ripped out money when it comes to compliance and quality. They took $20 million out of ensuring and enforcing quality in the sector. So, while they want to give $17 billion to the big banks, they take $20 million out that was supporting states and territories actually improving quality. This means that there will be fewer checks on centres, less compliance and less security and confidence for families.

It's not good for this minister to take a hands-off approach when it comes to early education. We want to see a minister committed to early education, committed to quality and committed to access. Unfortunately, this minister has proven he is not up to the job. Labor are up to the job. We will deliver quality early education for families across this country. We won't blame families and centres when it comes to his failed system.

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

Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor. There is $2.5 billion extra for our new childcare subsidy system. That's on top of the $1.2 billion safety net that we have in the system. Some of the biggest beneficiaries are in electorates that those on the other side represent. In fact, Lalor is the electorate that will benefit the most out of this—with 13,303 new beneficiaries of this system. Over one million families will benefit as a result of this government's reforms to the childcare system.

We saw under the previous Labor government a massive spike in costs. That amounted to a 53 per cent cost increase. Child care is not affordable when you have increases of that magnitude. We will provide the greatest subsidy. We will remove the cap for those on low and middle incomes. Unless you're earning over $187,000, there will be no cap on the number of hours you can claim as long as you are meeting the activity test. The subsidy will be paid directly to the childcare centre, but there's an hourly rate cap to prevent that exponential increase in the cost of child care. For those with an income of under $67,000 per year the subsidy will go up from 72 per cent to 85 per cent. They're the people that need the most support. A family on a $60,000-a-year income whose childcare centre charges $100 a day will be up for only $15 a day. As the income increases up to $351,000, it drops down from that 85 per cent to 50 per cent, 20 per cent and so on, then to zero. That's because we feel that people earning $351,000 per year should be able to look after themselves. The biggest subsidy goes to those most in need.

The member for Kingston has mentioned in public that she will not upset the new system but will observe it for a year, and I'm very pleased to let the member for Kingston know that in her electorate 7,160 more people will benefit from the system. The beneficiaries are far greater than those who have adequate income to put their children in child care. In my electorate 4,300 will benefit. In nearby Paterson 6,900 will benefit. North of me in the seat of Cowper 5,800 will benefit. In Braddon 3,000 will benefit.

The other criticism put up is that vulnerable people and children will suffer. We have an additional childcare subsidy that provides extra subsidies to families with children at risk of serious neglect or abuse, those experiencing temporary financial hardship, grandparent carers and people moving from income support into work. In fact children at risk of serious abuse will qualify for up to 50 hours of child care a week at 100 per cent of the subsidy rate and up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap. Families moving from income support will get a subsidy of 95 per cent of their childcare fees. That is encouraging them into work. The activity test is quite reasonable: volunteering, working or studying will easily be reasonable activity to qualify for the subsidies.

The other criticism the member for Kingston brought up was that patients with health conditions will be left short. In the childcare safety net are conditions and additional childcare subsidies for people who are undergoing cancer treatment and have medical conditions or hospitalisations, and they're excused from the activity test. The member for Kingston needs to read the policy. At the moment they don't even have a policy. We just have a failed policy that we're trying to correct, and 950,000 people have registered for it. I encourage any of those that haven't to go onto the myGov website and enter their details. A moderate, middle-income family working full-time, earning $80,000 a year, with two children under the age of six in long day care will be $8,000 better off a year. For those earning $150,000 a year the benefit won't be as great, but they'll be $1,000 better off. We also have our commitment to universal access to early learning of a quality nature in the first year before school. That's $870 million over two years. It goes on and on.

As I said before: 'hypocrisy, thy name is Labor' applies to the comments about changes to weekend penalty rates. The decisions were made by the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission, which is a creature of the Labor Party. They dreamt up the scheme. They appointed all the current officers in there. Hypocrisy—you only have to look at how so many workers were so short-changed by changes the Leader of the Opposition brought in when he was working at the AWU. At McDonald's, young people lost all their weekend penalty rates. If you had worked at McDonald's for three years you would now be $15,000 worse off. At Big W, where penalty rates were cut to zero, they'd be $13,400 worse off. As I said: hypocrisy, thy name is Labor.

There are plenty of small businesses that are suffering because they have to pay uncompetitive penalty rates. There was a modest change in hospitality, retail and pharmacy that was gradually brought in. There are still very generous penalty rates on weekends, but they are just more affordable for small businesses. Some of the small businesses in my electorate actually can't operate at the moment. The penalty rates were so deleterious to these small businesses that the big unionised employers had a strategic advantage. They can't operate because the unions organised a worse deal for them. That's where the Fair Work Ombudsman came to this decision. It wasn't a government decision. And it was the Labor Party that created the Fair Work Commission and the ombudsman. It's hypocrisy, again. We are committed to supporting the independent umpire.

We have such a good childcare system coming in. Almost one million people will be so much better off. The rate is dependent on how much work is being done—the more you work, the more you can claim. Those on low incomes are getting the greatest support. Those with incomes under $67,000 are getting the greatest subsidy. There is a childcare safety net so that those who can't work because they are ill or because they are grandparents who are no longer in the workforce are excused from the activity test. Those who are coming off income support and getting back into the workforce get a larger subsidy.

Looking at these figures, the biggest beneficiaries are the electorates that are represented by members on the other side. My good friend the member for McEwen is going to have 10,200 families that are better off. The members for La Trobe and Lalor will get big increases, and I've mentioned Kingston. Child care became unaffordable with this rebate cap and increasing the subsidy from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, which they brought in. The Productivity Commission said they were the architects of the increase, because there was no capping of the hourly rate. It just gave a free kick. There was criticism that quality assurance wasn't happening. In the last year there have been 4,500 visits to childcare centres in the compliance— (Time expired)

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no doubt about this government. It always wants its pound of flesh, but it takes it from the poorest. I rise today to speak about the priorities of this government and its unfair cuts to child care and its unfair cuts to penalty rates—because it's all about fairness. I have strong views on both these topics, but I'll start first with the cuts to penalty rates. It's simply incomprehensible that the government would even fathom allowing the penalty rates of the hardest working and most disadvantaged Australians to be ripped away. In my electorate of Macarthur, over 8,000 residents work in retail and an additional 5,000 work in the accommodation and food services industries. Collectively, this equates to about 20 per cent of workers from my community who are facing real attacks on their standard of living by Malcolm Turnbull and his government. I will not allow the government to continue on this trajectory without a fight.

This is a fight that affects the poorest in my community. It affects people who are trying and struggling to make ends meet in an environment where housing, power prices and transport are increasingly unaffordable. And yet this government is content to allow money to be ripped away from those most disadvantaged. Over Australia, almost five million hardworking, everyday people rely on penalty rates to help make ends meet. On a backbencher politician's salary of over $200,000, some of those opposite might not understand what that means. But, for many in my community, getting fairly paid with penalty rates can mean the difference between being able to put a roof over their heads and putting food on the table. Maybe those opposite should understand that. These are cuts to the most hardworking, disadvantaged, shift-working people in my community. Those opposite may not understand that, but this is a real cut to people's standard of living at a time when they're giving thousands of dollars in tax cuts to those earning large amounts of money. It is patently unfair.

Workers like police officers, firefighters, paramedics, nurses, retail workers and hospitality workers and workers in manufacturing, tourism and many other sectors all rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. Yet, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, penalty rates for hospitality, fast-food industries, retail and pharmacy will be cut again on Sunday, 1 July. I see that as a tragedy. I see it as an attack on the most disadvantaged workers in my community, often workers with young families, who are trying to make ends meet, trying to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. It's dreadful. I wonder if those opposite have ever had to rely on penalty rates.

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

Yes, 100 per cent.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're kidding me—you had to rely on penalty rates?

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

It's called my university career. I relied on them for years.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on! I dare say we wouldn't be in this position if you really had to rely on penalty rates. Under this national government, we've seen wage growth at a record low, and yet this out-of-touch Prime Minister and his ministers are allowing this to happen. This is a joke! On the second topic of child care—

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to rip it away from everyone else!

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

The member for Oxley.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addition to the government's agenda of cuts to marine parks, changes to the HELP scheme and axing of the pensioners' energy supplement, it is now cutting child care, again, for the most disadvantaged. As I've mentioned before, this is an issue of fairness; it's an issue that the government should be facing, but it can't. We know that the government's childcare changes will leave one in four families worse off, including the most disadvantaged. I could talk for hours about this, as a paediatrician, and how important it is that the most disadvantaged children in our community not miss out because of this government's policies. These are the consequences of the government's inability to look at fairness in our community, and it's a shame. (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If those on the opposition benches, including the member for Macarthur, want to support the vulnerable in our community, if they want to support the hard workers, then they will support the coalition policies, because the coalition policies are spending more money on childcare reform, more money on workers and more money on families in our country. Unlike Labor's shambolic childcare policy, which on their watch saw fees absolutely skyrocket, the coalition government is putting $2.5 billion back into the sector. The opposition didn't do that. We are delivering a fundamentally fair package that provides the highest rate of subsidy to those on the lowest income levels, with more hours of subsidy for those who work the most. That is what is called fundamentally fair. The coalition is increasing the base subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 families earning around $66,000 or less a year. Low- and middle-income families earning up to around $186,000 will no longer be limited by an annual cap on the amount of child care they can access. That's more than 85 per cent of families using child care. Families earning more than $186,000 would also benefit from an increased annual rebate cap of $10,190. Introducing hourly rate caps recommended by the Productivity Commission will help put downward pressure on fee increases—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

well, support our policies if you want to fix it—by setting a limit on what hourly fee the government will subsidise based on an efficient price of what it costs to deliver child care. The $1.2 billion childcare safety net—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They went up 10 per cent this week. It's not working.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't start until 1 July. Support this policy if you want to support hardworking men and women in Australia—hardworking families, the vulnerable in our community.

The coalition government is increasing Australia's investment in early childhood education; it's not cutting it—once again another scaremongering campaign from those on the other side, probably suited to the campaigns for the by-elections, where they're not going down too well, because the coalition government is delivering an extra $2.5 billion over the next four years, which will help more than one million Australian families. Low- and middle-income families will be the greatest beneficiaries from this package.

The opposition leader has always been big on promises and short on delivering. Instead of attempting to govern in the interests of their union puppetmasters, the opposition should be considering how they should serve their constituencies and the families in their constituencies. On penalty rates, it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as the employment minister, established the Fair Work Commission. It was the Leader of the Opposition who, as the employment minister, appointed a former trade union leader as the Commissioner of the Fair Work Commission. It was the Leader of the Opposition who instigated the four-yearly review of penalty rates by the Fair Work Commission, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who said he would accept the decision of the Fair Work Commission. He publicly went out there and said the opposition would accept the decision of the Fair Work Commission. But then, after 39 days of hearings, 143 witnesses and more than 6,000 submissions, the Fair Work Commission handed down, in February last year, a 500-page decision and the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like the decision. He doesn't like the decision made by the body he set up. He appointed the commission, and he should accept the decision. He doesn't like it, so he's spat his dummy. The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition—

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you think Work Choices was? You didn't like the old system, so you tore it up.

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

The member for Burt is warned.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

think it's fair that the local hot chicken shop should pay $8 more an hour for their workers than KFC, because the opposition support the big end of town, for all their protestations. The opposition think it's fair that the local mum-and-dad hot food shop should pay $8 an hour more on Sundays for their workers than McDonald's. The opposition think it's fair that the local hardware shop should pay more for their workers than Bunnings, because the opposition don't support hardworking Australians. The coalition government are delivering record economic growth and record jobs. Unlike the opposition, we are the friends of the families and workers of Australia. It is no wonder the tree at Barcaldine died. (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an arrogant and out-of-touch government with all the wrong priorities, and the people of regional and rural Australia have been abandoned by this government and, in particular, by the National Party. As I often say, National Party choices hurt, and their choices—their bad choices—hurt the people in the country time and time again. Whether it's the National Party's cuts to health care, their cuts to education, their cuts to penalty rates, their cuts to pensions or their cuts to child care, the fact is National Party MPs have time and time again come into this House and voted against the interests of regional Australia. That is a fact. The reality is that times are always tougher when the National Party's in government, especially with many of the changes coming into place on 1 July—firstly, the cuts to penalty rates. Nationally, up to 4.5 million workers rely on penalty rates: police officers, firefighters, paramedics, nurses and workers in health care, aged care, retail, hospitality, tourism and many other sectors.

Penalty rates for hospitality, fast-food, retail and pharmacy awards will be cut again this Sunday, 1 July. In regional areas like my electorate, thousands are employed in these industries. The penalty rate cuts will hurt local workers and severely cut their take-home pay but will also be devastating for our local economy and local businesses as less money will be spent. Those opposite don't understand this issue. Cutting penalty rates hurts workers and impacts upon regional economies and local businesses; that is a fact. We believe it's fundamentally unfair to cut the wages of some of Australia's lowest paid workers—people who rely on penalty rates to pay the bills, put food on the table and raise their children. We need to protect those in our community who will be badly affected when these penalty rates are cut.

This government won't do anything to help them, and it shows how wrong its priorities are and how harsh its choices are. The penalty rate cuts will be devastating throughout the nation, but they will hit really hard in regional and rural areas. We know the Prime Minister and his government continue to actively campaign for those cuts to penalty rates and refuse to protect workers who rely on those penalty rates. I call on the government to do the right thing and support our bill to protect penalty rates. Just this week the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill to protect those penalty rates that will be cut this July, next July and the July after that. Our bill would stop those cuts and ensure penalty rates would never be cut again. Stopping those cuts to penalty rates could happen if the Prime Minister and his Liberal-National government joined us to bring this bill on for a vote and voted for it.

This government has had eight opportunities in the parliament to protect penalty rates, and it voted against protecting them eight times. That's eight specific times that National Party members have voted against the interests of people in regional and rural Australia—a shameful record! This is an attack on low-paid workers, who will have those penalty rates cut again this weekend on 1 July. This time the cuts will be even deeper for them. Penalty rates are not a luxury; they put food on the table and pay the bills. It's clear that the only way to protect penalty rates is to elect a Shorten Labor government. That's something that people in regional areas know: only Labor will stand up for them. In the regions and rural parts of Australia The Nationals will be held responsible for their continued cuts to penalty rates and their continued refusal to support workers.

As well as the harsh cuts to penalty rates, the government's unfair changes to child care begin next week. We already know the new system will leave one in four families worse off: over 270,000 families. It's an unfair package from an out-of-touch and arrogant government. The Liberal-National childcare package will hurt those families who can least afford it and reduce access to early education for those kids who need it most. Childcare fees under this government have gone up over $2,000 on average. It's time this out-of-touch and arrogant government understands that families are doing it tough and need assistance. It's not being provided by this government at all.

This government and the National Party have totally abandoned regional and rural Australia. As I say constantly in this House, National Party choices hurt. People in the regions know how harsh the decisions that the National Party make are. In contrast to all of those harsh choices by the National Party, Labor has always fought for the country and for the regions. We have always delivered for regional Australia by investing in health care and schools, building roads and infrastructure, and addressing inequality. Very importantly, Labor supports a fairer tax system, unlike The Nationals, who, shamefully, support tax cuts for multinationals and big business. What a clear contrast and a clear difference! Labor stands up for the country. That's the reality. That's what we do. Only Labor deliver again and again for the people of regional and rural Australia, because we have their backs. We have the backs of people in country Australia, and we will always support them and always stand with them, unlike this government, which prioritises multimillionaires and big business over country people.

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

Talk about leading with your chin! The shadow minister over there really has led with her chin on this MPI. The government's 'unfair cuts'—I suppose the opposition are talking about the tax cuts, are they? Is that what they're talking about, the tax cuts? I don't know. This government has overseen some of the most significant income tax reductions in Australian political history. Ninety-four per cent of Australian workers will be paying 32.5 cents in the dollar. Australians will be getting to keep more of their hard-earned money. This is what it's all about. This is what good government is all about. It's ensuring that Australians get to keep more of their hard-earned money and spend it the way they choose. They can spend it on their family, or if they have their own business they can reinvest it into the business. But those on that side of the House would have no idea what I'm talking about when I talk about reinvesting in their own businesses, because they're all union hacks. That is an absolute fact.

The tax cuts that we passed through the Senate just last week were absolutely the best tax reductions in Australian political history. We're trying to do the same thing with corporate tax. On this side of the House we believe that Australians should pay the least amount of tax that is necessary. Those on the other side believe that paying tax is a privilege. If that's a privilege—I guess it just goes to the mind set and to the difference between us and them.

Let's look at the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission is an independent body. Some of the members opposite are lawyers. Perhaps they may have been decent criminal lawyers in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions but they seem not to understand the concept that the Fair Work Commission has made this decision. They talk about the government making this decision in relation to Sunday penalty rates but they know—at least the lawyers over there should know—that it wasn't the government's decision. It was in fact the independent umpire' decision. It's worth restating the transcript of an interview with Neil Mitchell and the Leader of the Opposition in April 2016:

MITCHELL: … Will you accept their findings given this is an independent body assessing penalty rates for Sunday, if you're Prime Minister?

SHORTEN: Yes.

MITCHELL: You'll accept them?

SHORTEN: Yes.

MITCHELL: Even if they reduce Sunday Penalty rates?

SHORTEN: Well, I said I'd accept the independent tribunal …

Yet, here he is today, surrounded by his Labor colleagues, refusing to accept the decision of the independent umpire. You can't have it both ways. The Fair Work Commission is independent. The Fair Work Commission made a 500-page decision based on almost 6,000 submissions, 143 witnesses and 39 days of hearings. It is the Fair Work Commission that you established and stacked with your own commissioners. But, because they made a decision you're not happy with, you constantly say that this is not fair, that it is not right. It's your people who made that decision, so you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about the Fair Work Commission. Before the penalty rate decision for permanent staff on Sundays, a bed and breakfast had to pay $10 an hour more than a five-star hotel. How can you call that fair? (Time expired)

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

We all know that this Sunday 700,000 workers in hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacy industries will suffer another cut to their penalty rates. For those workers and the 4½ million working Australians across other industries like emergency services—our first responders—nursing, manufacturing and tourism, penalty rates are essential to making ends meet. We know that, and many of us in this place have worked in some of those industries—

Mr Wallace interjecting—

despite what the member for Fisher says. We know how hard these people work and we know how low some of their wages are—

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

Are they being cut under this?

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

But of course the member for Fisher and his leader, the Prime Minister, have probably never had to rely on penalty rates, have you, to get by? Because in all the Prime Minister's arrogance—

Mr Wallace interjecting—

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

The member for Fisher.

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

he just doesn't understand what it's like to need penalty rates. None of them over that side can comprehend that the estimated average cut of $77 that these people will suffer can be the difference between putting food on the table, buying shoes for the kids or keeping the lights on. He's never had to face that difficult question, has he?

When I was younger, like many of us on this side probably, I worked some of these jobs to get by as well. I worked as a cleaner. I worked night shifts in a service station. I worked in retail and hospitality and washed dishes in restaurants. And, yes, I also went to university, because those aspirational Labor policies gave me access to a university education. Those are the policies of Labor governments. I've spoken before in this House about how I grew up in a housing commission. It was Labor policies and those visionary Labor governments that gave me and my family access to affordable housing, universal health care and education. I will forever be grateful for those Labor policies giving me, and millions of other Australians like me, the best possible start in life, despite our postcode. These are the things that Labor governments do.

That's why we on this side of the House will never think it's fair to inflict a pay cut on some of the lowest-paid workers in this country, people who rely on that little bit of extra money to pay the bills and raise their children. And that's why Labor has introduced legislation in this place to protect the penalty rates. But the coalition is content to do nothing to protect these people. In fact, they voted against Labor's attempts to protect penalty rates—eight times in total. They back the big end of town; we know that. And they do it at the expense of the ordinary working and middle-class Australians who rely on penalty rates to get by. For a coalition government to treat a tax handout to millionaires and multinational companies as more important than protecting the most vulnerable in our communities is so bizarre and obscene that I can't understand it. I assume some on the other side are intelligent enough to understand how bizarre that is.

Let's not forget that this government's unfair changes to childcare are also set to begin on 2 July, and we've heard about how this unfair package of cuts will hurt those families who can least afford it. It reduces access to early education for those kids who need it most. One in four families will be worse off because of the government's proposed changes to child care. That's some 279,000 families nationwide, and, in my electorate of Wills, that's 2,225 families that will be negatively impacted. The Turnbull government's unfair childcare package will hurt those families whose can least afford it because it reduces access to early education for those kids who need it most.

While its attack on early childhood education is bad enough, education as a whole is within the sights of the government. Education, let's remember, is the key to opportunity. It was bequeathed to us, regardless of our postcode or our ethnicity, by successive Labor governments, who were committed to the idea of equality of opportunity and access to education. But that's now under siege by this government. This government has cut $2.8 billion from TAFE and about $22 billion from primary and secondary education. In stark contrast, under the previous Labor government, 1,600 people in my electorate of Wills were able to go to university because of the Rudd-Gillard government's policies, and it's projected that, under a future Labor government, under our policies, an additional 1,500 people in my electorate will receive the opportunity of a university education. That's aspiration. That's giving people the opportunity to achieve and progress based on their merit.

But the Liberals want to make Australian students pay $100,000 a degree, and the only reason $100,000 degrees aren't a reality is that Labor and the crossbenchers have blocked the Liberals' plan in the Senate. Australian students now make up the sixth-highest contribution to the cost of university education compared to other economies. (Time expired)

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

With this MPI, you have to hand it to Labor—you've got to give them a bit of credit. They're always misleading, always deceiving, always denying the truth. We just had the member for Wills over there tell us that we've been cutting money out of education—out of secondary and primary school. What is it about record spending that you do not understand? Record spending, by the very name, indicates to us that it is higher than the level that existed before. The Labor Party demonstrate complete amnesia when it comes to their statements in the past on so many issues. Most importantly, there is no baseless scare campaign, however unbelievable or however outrageous, that they will not promote. Apart from having no memory, they seem to have no shame either. I suspect, after their latest commitment to unwind the already legislated tax cuts to small and medium business, they have no brains either.

Labor are conducting a consistent attack on business. The leader, the member for Maribyrnong, said no less in an address to the BCA. They now attack the independent umpire's decision on penalty rates. The Labor Party have a penchant for forgetfulness. They forget Mr Shorten's record. The PM says the member for Maribyrnong is the champion of stripping away penalty rates. Well, he's right. He made a deal with Cleanevent to abolish 50 per cent penalty rates with no compensation for workers, but he hoovered up a secret kickback for the union, which suggests that he is the champion. The shoppies' union have engineered deals with young workers at McDonald's which have made them $5,000 a year worse off than the award. There were special deals for KFC, Woolworths, Big W and Bunnings, all delivering substantially less than the award, while small, struggling businesses have to pay higher rates. For the workers, with friends like those, they sure don't need enemies.

What is plain is that as a result of the unions doing these secret deals with big business for undisclosed reasons, small businesses have been handed a wages sheet which runs at a significant premium to competitors because they lack the ability to do these secret, under-the-table deals. I say to the workers: have a look at what that mob does to you. Have a look at what the Labor Party are doing to you. Have a look at what they want to do. They want to destroy your jobs, take away your personal tax cuts and raid your retirement savings.

The Fair Work Commission was established under Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It was designed by the ALP to protect Australian workers' rights so that Australian workers would never again be exploited, we were told. The member for Maribyrnong personally appointed the commission members that made the decision to reduce the penalty rates. We assume that he appointed people he trusted. We would assume that he appointed people that he considered to be intelligent and trustworthy. He also put in a mechanism dictating that awards would be reviewed every four years, perhaps even suspecting that when that occurred he might no longer be in government.

The commission took 6,000 submissions, saw 143 witnesses and had 39 days of hearings. It was a well-considered decision. Why? It was because they knew that the scale of the penalty rates—particularly those inflicted on the hospitality sector—was destroying jobs. They voted and they ruled in favour of those people who need jobs, the unemployed people. When asked on Neil Mitchell's program if he would accept Fair Work's decision—I know this has been brought up by previous speakers—the member for Maribyrnong answered twice, 'Yes, yes.' A bit like the cock crowing three times, he answered, 'Yes, yes,' and then said, 'I said I would accept the independent tribunal.' Now we know that he won't accept the independent tribunal's decision. Every possible variable was under the opposition's control, and now he sooks that his personally selected people at his government's organisation got it wrong. Perhaps he should consider that maybe he has it wrong. Perhaps he is driven by factors other than workers' interests.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Sunday, penalty rates will be cut again. That means nearly 700,000 Australians will be up to $77 a week worse off. In my electorate of Macquarie, one in six workers are in hospitality and retail, and they can now legally have their pay cut. These workers live locally and service our tourism sector, which, of course, booms at weekends. When the work is done, these same workers spend their money locally, but they'll have less to spend from Sunday. That's $77 a week less to spend on groceries; $77 less to pay for kids' shoes; $77 less towards that ever-growing electricity bill.

The Prime Minister has no problem with these workers losing this money. Penalty rates have never been an important thing to him. He will never understand the reason why young people, older people, low-skilled workers, mums, dads and students opt for weekend and late-night work when they are filling in their availability for shifts. It is not because they don't want to have the same Sunday as everybody else; it's because they don't have a choice. They need the money and they need their penalty rates protected. When wages are stagnant and at record lows, this government is boasting about a $10 a week tax cut. It is sitting back, gloating, while some workers lose $77 a week.

I see that hair and beauty workers are the next to face the threat to their penalty rates for Sunday work. This is one of the lowest paid trades in Australia. We will not sit on the sidelines and watch these workers being forced down the same dead end as their hospitality and retail colleagues. Only Labor will restore and protect workers' penalty rates, and the government should be supporting our bill.

Penalty rates are not the only thing changing as the new financial year clicks over. On Monday, the support parents get towards their childcare costs changes. We know that a quarter of families will be worse off under the new system for a multitude of reasons, and that's 1,300 in my electorate of Macquarie. They don't work enough hours; they don't study or volunteer enough hours; or they earn too much money. One of my childcare centres in the lower Blue Mountains tells me that it has many families with one parent working who will lose benefits, and that means fewer days of child care. Whatever the reason for people losing their subsidy, I object to any child missing out on quality early learning that sets them up to better transition to school and is in the interests of every single child in every classroom. When we fail to invest in early childhood training, we pay a huge price further down the line.

The implementation of this new scheme has been a total shemozzle. One father in my electorate said that he had to take a whole day off work to go into Centrelink, because he couldn't input the information in the online system. He said the whole process was a debacle and the staff at Centrelink felt that they had not been given sufficient training and information needed to help parents. Childcare services are confused. The training and support they've received is inadequate. My childcare suppliers say they've looked at the information given to families and are finding it very difficult to make sense of it. What hope do parents have? There is so much uncertainty, but what is certain is that this government hasn't got it right for the most vulnerable families.

There is another change happening this weekend. It isn't about penalty rates or child care; it is about our children and the world that we leave our children. On 1 July, the Turnbull government's marine park management plans will begin the largest removal of an area from conservation in history. No government anywhere in the world has ever removed this much area from protection on land or sea. Think about that. If you think this means people will now be able to go fishing in more places, you're wrong. The recreational fishers are losing the largest recreation-only fishing area in the world. The only people dominating these waters will be large-scale industrial-fishing and long-lining trawlers, who now have a standing invitation from the Australian government to exploit our marine life for their profit.

The Coral Sea will go from being the jewel in the crown of the Commonwealth marine parks and protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef to now being a haven for long-line fishing and trawling. It is an absolute disgrace. The Prime Minister and this environment minister will now forever have the global reputation of removing more area from conservation than anyone anywhere else, ever. We haven't given up. They should be ashamed, but we haven't given up. The plan to cut marine parks can still be disallowed in the other place, and we will keep fighting. (Time expired)

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying to work out how the government's unfair cuts, including those cuts to child care and penalty rates, have impacts on marine parks and fishing! It's a very broad scope, and I've got to say that for those fishermen who aren't getting their penalty rates, because they've got their children in child care, it's tragic! It's a great stretch, but it clearly shows that when it comes to the depth of this topic, those opposite have got nothing. They couldn't even fill out their MPI time to talk about the topic.

It reminds me a little bit, I've got to say, of: 'promise and not provide, talk and not deliver, deceive, but, worse, disappoint'. That was the example of the opposition when it was formerly in government, when they talked about what is a cut and what isn't a cut. I want to run through this. It reminds me of when I was a good-looking young man and this nice girl was going to come up to me and we were going to go on a date that night. My mate said it was never going to happen. But I was there. I turned up. I had my little rose and I was all psyched up. Do you know what happened? She didn't turn up. I should have known: promise, not provide, talk, don't deliver, deceive, and I was disappointed.

That has been the case when it comes to education, particularly. All of the 118 schools in the electorate of Mallee have got more under our government. Every childcare centre is going to be better off in our area. This is the contrast. We have a package here for child care that actually does deliver. It delivers for vulnerable children. There is a child safety net for families earning under $66,000—they are going to get a little bit of extra assistance. For a person earning $60,000 who has a family and child care costs of $100 a day, they will be subsidised to the extent that it is only going to cost them $15 a day. When it comes to looking after children and families, it actually is the National Party that is delivering. There was a lot of criticism of the National Party by the opposition, who said they represent regional Australia. They don't even come out and visit regional Australia. I can't remember when a Labor MP actually visited my part of the world.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A month ago; I was there!

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a delegation, and that was a nice experience. I will talk about penalty rates for a moment. There is a very interesting argument going on here about who should determine the rates that an employer pays their employees. We go down a very dangerous pathway when we decide that this chamber is going to make that determination. If I was an employee, I would shudder in my boots at that concept. If I was an employer, I would shudder in my boots at that concept. Of course, people losing some working entitlements in penalty rates was not popular in my patch. It wasn't; let's be honest about it. But what also wasn't popular was shops choosing to shut because they couldn't afford to stay open.

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

Shops will shut because people don't have money to spend in them!

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a reason you should come out to my patch. On a Sunday afternoon, shops would be shut in tourist towns like Stawell, Mildura and Swan Hill. Do you know who was missing out? It was the person who was working in that shop—they weren't getting a wage, because the shop was shutting.

Opposition members interjecting—

No, the invite is there. Come and have a look and talk to both the workers and the shop owners and you will know. You will find that the shops were shutting. That's just an example of how you have built an ideology, instead of actually coming and having a chat to the people involved. If those shops are choosing to shut because they can't afford to stay open—the takings aren't enough for those shops in those country towns—the worker misses out, the owner of the business misses out, and, ultimately, the town misses out. Ultimately, what I want is profitable shops. I want profitable shops that employ Australians. Ultimately, I think it's a very, very dangerous precedent to go down a pathway where you allow this chamber to pick people's wages. Just think about that for a moment. There is an independent commission. Governments and oppositions can put forward their points of view, but, ultimately, the commission makes the rulings, and their rulings need to be adhered to. I think this MPI is just tokenism. Be very careful of what you wish for, because it would undermine the welfare of workers right across Australia if Labor had their way.

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

The discussion has concluded.