Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very proud to stand to support the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill, because we on this side of the House understand just how much pressure families are under. Cost-of-living pressures and the cost of rent in my area of Parramatta are dramatically impacting on households' capacity to pay their bills. I know how many families in my area trying to balance their work, family and cost-of-living issues have sorted out ways to get through their lives by working a few extra shifts on the weekend, with maybe one partner working a few extra days. That is incredibly important to the decisions they have made about how they fund their families and pay the bills. And this decision by the Fair Work Commission and the decision by this Turnbull government to enthusiastically support that decision show just how out of touch this government is. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how much pressure households are under from the costs of living and stagnant wage growth, let alone wage cuts. It's also bad economics. It was at the time and it has been proven to be so since it was introduced.

Let's look at the impact on families first. Let's look at who's hit and who suffers the most. Low-paid workers in retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacy have had their penalty rates cut and, when it flows through finally, will be up to $3,273 worse off a year. That's a $70 cut for a Sunday penalty shift. Calculations show that, because of the cuts to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, workers in various industries face cuts to take-home pay up to the following amounts: pharmacy, $3,273; retail, $2,450; hospitality, $1,884; fast food, $1,628; and restaurants, $586. The government can afford to give $7,000 tax cuts to people on $200,000 a year, while taking away penalty rates from the people who can least afford it. In Parramatta, there are 12,300 people or one in six workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries affected by the cuts to penalty rates. That's one in six. In Parramatta, we're seeing up to one in six workers losing up to $77 a week as well as an additional $80 a week on new tolls, rents well over $400 a week and a new Medicare levy coming in for lower income workers. The government, of course, thinks it can compensate people with a $10 a week tax cut for what are substantial decreases in their take-home pay. But it's not just about the families that are affected. These are actually customers. One in six customers in Parramatta have had their take-home pay cut, and these are the lowest paid people in our community who spend every dollar they earn. If you cut the wages of one in six of your customers, what do you think you get? You get less spending for a start. That, to me, is so obvious. When we have been debating this for over a year now, I've been wondering why those on the other side who claim to know so much about business don't get what happens when one in six of your customers get their take-home pay cut, particularly if those customers are the ones that spend all the money.

The figures prove the point. A survey of 1,351 workers by the University of Wollongong and Macquarie University found 'there has been no short-term increase in the number of hours worked by employees'. The government promised that, if they cut penalty rates, there would be more jobs and more hours. There are not. University of Wollongong lecturer Martin O'Brien is reported as saying:

… some workers experienced a drop in the number of penalty-rate hours they worked in the first two months after penalty rates were reduced.

They concluded:

… 15 per cent of all retail workers who were employed on Sundays worked 9 per cent fewer hours, while hospitality workers experienced no change.

So retail workers actually worked fewer hours.

It was also obvious that the cuts would impact on consumer spending. All those penalty rate workers that dropped into the pub on the way home from work before their penalty rates were cut just don't do it now. They just don't do it. They have less money in their pockets to spend in local businesses. The controversial cuts to Sunday and public holiday rates on 1 July were followed by the weakest three months of consumer spending since the global financial crisis. So consumer spending was at zero growth following the cuts to penalty rates.

All the promises about the positive benefits of cuts to penalty rates have not been forthcoming, but damage to the income of households has. We have families increasingly struggling to pay the bills and looking at subsequent penalty rate cuts over the next few years. It's bad policy from the government, and I support this amendment to wind it back.

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

I rise today to continue to discuss the hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to penalty rates. For over 100 years now, rates of pay in this country have been set independent of government. The reason for that was in case you ever had a situation where a populist leader, desperate to do anything to become Prime Minister, turned around and promised a pay increase in an attempt to get votes. Heaven help us that that's exactly where we find ourselves today. The even greater irony is that the independent umpire in its current form was in fact put in place and overseen by the Labor Party and the union movement, post the 2007 election: the Fair Work Commission, which is the independent umpire in all things to do with industrial relations.

The irony doesn't stop and the hypocrisy doesn't stop there. The Leader of the Opposition was one of the key architects of that act, where the four-yearly reviews of modern awards were initiated, the process that came up with the decision that we're debating today. There was hypocrisy again in 2010, when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible, when there was the first decision by the Fair Work Commission to reduce penalty rates in some modern awards. What did we hear from those opposite? Crickets. We heard nothing. Then in 2014, at the end of another four-yearly review, there were more changes to reduce Sunday penalty rates to some restaurant awards. And what did we hear then? We finally heard support for the Fair Work Commission, especially, most loudly, from the member for Gorton, the shadow minister, who stood up and argued that that is how the system works and the Fair Work Commission is the independent umpire, as it should be, as is fit and proper. But the even bigger hypocrisy here, the latest example, is that those opposite today are saying that they will turn around and overrule their own independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission—the one that they constructed.

The bill that we're talking about, the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018, does not include changes to enterprise bargaining agreements. But the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition, in his union career pre politics, did exactly what he is rallying against today. In 2006, in an agreement that he oversaw, 780 BigW workers in North Queensland had their Sunday penalty rates cut from 200 per cent to 150 per cent. In another 2006 agreement, again under his stewardship, 129 Target workers in North Queensland had their penalty rates cut from 200 per cent to 150 per cent.

Before the last election, when the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, was asked by Neil Mitchell on 3AW if he would accept the findings of the independent umpire and the decision about penalty rates that was pending at that stage, he answered yes. Neil Mitchell asked:

You'll accept them?

SHORTEN: Yes

MITCHELL: Even if they reduce Sunday penalty rates?

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

It suited him then; it doesn't suit him now. Why? Because he's in a populist drive for votes. At the same time, as I mentioned, there is the hypocrisy. I ran into a young bloke, Michael, in my electorate working in a major fast-food chain a couple of weekends ago, on a Saturday. I asked him what roster he works. He works six hours on a Saturday and six hours on a Sunday. He is $27 a week worse off because he is employed under an enterprise bargaining agreement that was negotiated by the shop, distributive and allied union, the SDA—the biggest supporter of the Labor Party in terms of both membership and dollars over the last decade—which has actually reduced penalty rates far in excess of what the Fair Work Commission has come up with, after taking hundreds of submissions on the topic across all players in the industry and considering the case on its merits.

Michael is in year 10 in my electorate. You've got predominantly young schoolkids and university students in these major retail chains—multinational in some cases, but national in all cases—that are subject to enterprise bargaining agreements that have deductions that are well in excess of what we are talking about the Fair Work Commission making. It is hypocrisy writ large. Today is just the latest example of that. If the Leader of the Opposition tells you it's raining, I'd advise those in Australia to stick their head outside and have a look.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. Before I do, in the absence of the shadow industrial relations minister, I'd like to pass on my condolences to Brendan and Una on the loss of their fabulous Jodi Dack at this sad time.

I speak on this bill, which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition in June. Sadly, the government's agenda didn't include bringing this bill on for debate before the long winter recess. Clearly, they had other things on their mind, like trying to give an $80 billion tax cut to the big end of town. The take-home pay of working Australians was cut yet again on 1 July, again on this minister's watch, on the Turnbull government's watch. On 1 July, hardworking Australians who make sacrifices to work the hours when most of us are spending time with our families again had their take-home pay slashed. This time the cuts were even deeper.

At a time when workers are suffering the fall-out from wage stagnation and rising cost-of-living pressures, this heartless government has overseen more money leaving workers' pay packets. This mean-spirited government has done everything it can to undermine working Australians. More than 13,000 workers in my electorate of Moreton rely on penalty rates to put food on the table, to put petrol in their cars and to pay their rent—that's one in six workers. Cutting penalty rates means my people will have to work longer hours for less pay. That is why Labor has introduced this bill to protect a principle as old as the Labor Party itself: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

There's nothing fair about the lowest-paid workers having their take-home pay cut. There's nothing fair about women, who already suffer from the gender pay gap, having their take-home pay cut. There's nothing fair about the economic policies that the Turnbull government believes in and continues to inflict on Australian workers—policies that will give corporate giants an $80 billion tax cut while cutting $17 billion from our schools and cutting $440 million from preschool education, which will see 350,000 Australian children miss out on preschool altogether.

The Medicare freeze has effectively already cut $3 billion from Australia's health care. Not protecting the penalty rates of Australian workers and cutting the take-home pay of the most vulnerable workers deepens inequality. On average, a woman earns $25,000 less each year than the average man and spends between five and 14 hours a week doing unpaid housework compared to fewer than five hours for men. Yet women make up the majority of employees in industries that will have their penalty rates cut, such as retail and hospitality. I would hope Minister Cash spoke up and knew about this when this cut came through on 1 July.

Vulnerable, low-paid workers—women and young people especially—are the people who will suffer most from these penalty rate cuts. The young university students who work weekends so they can attend their lectures during the week will be forced to make up extra hours to pay their way through university. Single mothers will have to spend more time away from their children just so they can put food on the table. You have to wonder about the priorities of the Turnbull government, which are prepared to cut the take-home pay of young people who are striving to make a greater contribution to Australia and of mothers who just want to give their children a good start in life—this, while they are zealots about making sure their big corporate mates get a tax cut, including giving the banks $17 billion.

Tragically, cutting the penalty rates of people who earn low wages is also hurting the economy. Workers on low wages usually spend every cent they earn. They now have less to spend, starving the economy of much-needed expenditure; it's especially bad for retail and hospitality. On eight separate occasions in this parliament, this government has voted against protecting the penalty rates of vulnerable, low-paid workers. Eight times it has made it clear that it will not protect the wages of hardworking Australians. Labor will not sit back and do nothing. Labor will protect hardworking Australians, who are just trying to pay their bills. That's why the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, introduced this bill. It's a bill to stop the cuts to penalty rates and ensure that they can never be cut again. The Turnbull government did not bring this bill on for debate before 1 July. Why? Because it wanted Australian workers to get a pay cut.

Penalty rates are not a luxury for the 13,000 workers in my electorate of Moreton. Penalty rates put food on their tables and petrol in their cars and give them a chance in life. The Labor Party will always stand up for such workers. The Labor Party will always do the right thing. The fact is that the opposition leader has always stood up for workers. Despite the comments being made by those opposite, the opposition leader has a long track record of actually working to support working-class and middle-class Australians—those who want to get ahead. Labor will always stand up for those workers, and I will fight for penalty rates as long as I am here.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great pleasure to get up and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018, because it's not often in this place, Mr Speaker, that you see an own goal being provided while it's in action. It's not a hole in one like the member for Shortland's new mini golf course but an own goal, where the opposition get up and move a motion, filled with impassioned speeches concerned about penalty rates so that they can load up onto Facebook and their social media accounts something that simply isn't occurring. Instead, what it does is provide an opportunity for the government to talk honestly about what is actually happening and shine some light onto the dishonest scare campaigns led by the opposition and particularly by the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, who has never shied away from an attempt—and the previous speaker was right—to cut people's penalty rates, to cut their benefits and, even worse, while he takes money from them as a former union leader, to advance his own interests at their expense.

I actually happen to agree with the previous speaker on the point about penalty rates being necessary, particularly in disproportionately being to the benefit of young people who are seeking work, often when they're balancing out multiple workplaces or they're also studying, or women who may want flexibility in their workplace arrangements. But, of course, many Australians want flexibility in their workplace arrangements. These are exactly the people that the opposition leader has a long track record, and the Labor Party has a long track record, of selling out. We have the example in 2006 with the agreement for 780 Big W workers in North Queensland who had their penalty rates cut from 200 per cent under the award to 150 per cent under the wonderful leadership of the opposition leader and the Australian Workers' Union. We had the other 2006 agreement covering 129 Target workers in North Queensland who had their penalty rates cut from 200 per cent under the award to 150 per cent as well. Another example in a long line, a conga line, of secret deals done between the opposition leader as a trade union leader and big business to advance his interests at the expense of workers is the 2006 agreement covering 119 Just Jeans workers, who also had their penalty rates cut from 200 per cent under the award to 150 per cent. The result for all these workers was that they had $53 less pay in their pockets for a Sunday shift. What a proud record the Australian Labor Party has in defending the interests of workers!

There are many examples. The union has a long history of selling out its members and their interests by striking deals with big business to advance the interests of the apparatchiks who operate inside their unions and their political arm, which is, of course, the Australian Labor Party. These same workers have watched their penalty rates disappear under the Australian Workers' Union and are now watching the shallow morals of the Leader of the Opposition spread like a weed throughout the Labor Party. It's a cancerous infection that is now deep at the heart of the opposition, who don't care about workers and won't stand up for them but carry with them the legacy and track record of selling them out.

With this bill, the Leader of the Opposition is essentially asking the Fair Work Commission to act with the same inconsistency he has demonstrated day in, day out in his role as a leader of the union and also as the opposition leader sitting in this parliament. It might come as a surprise, but being opportunistic and untrustworthy are not character traits that should be emulated. Australians expect their leaders to act with integrity and, I might add, some consistency, which the opposition leader can claim no capacity to do. They also don't expect politicians to demoralise independent bodies like the Fair Work Commission purely for their political gain. The Fair Work Commission, as set up by Labor—let us remind ourselves of this—is required to ensure awards are fair and relevant, taking into account the impact on business employment costs and, of course, wanting to increase the number of jobs in the economy. That includes making evidence based adjustments to our award system that may involve corrections to take-home pay. You cannot expect the Fair Work Commission to perform its role if it loses the ability to deal with the different challenges affecting different workplace arrangements. There needs to be some flexibility to grow jobs for those people who are denied them. Both people and beliefs are disposable to the Leader of the Opposition and, as we've come to expect, if his lips are moving, you can't assume it's for anything other than self-opportunism.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just received a contribution from the member for Goldstein which focused for five minutes not on the government's record with respect to looking after low-paid workers but simply on the Leader of the Opposition and his role as a leader of the union movement some time ago. This shows the total lack of policy direction from this government and, in effect, it shows just how out of touch the government is with low-paid workers in Australia at the moment.

I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. It's often said by commentators and indeed in this place that the news cycle, social media and political culture conspire to create a situation where arguments can be run, won and indeed lost in the space of hours, days or weeks on matters that seem to be of prime importance but, for those not engaged in politics, are of little consequence. If politics is the contest of ideas, those ideas should be about the issues that matter to the electorate. One side of politics may seek to promote its vision for Australia. Our responsibility as the opposition is to set up our alternative.

The contrast between the government's priorities and those reflected in this bill is significant. In fact, the contrast could not be more marked. This government has, at least in my view, a one-point plan, because that is all it has left. This one-point plan involves giving a tax cut to the largest corporations in Australia, including the big banks, in order to drive prosperity, championing the economics of trickle-down. Labor says that the revenue forgone through a tax cut for the big end of town could or should be spent on matters that deserve priority—important priorities like our healthcare system, education and supporting the jobs of the future.

It's important to look at the immediate pressures upon Australian families. Australian voters know that this government cannot be trusted when it makes promises like savings on their power bills. Cost pressures are affecting ordinary Australians every day, and they need to see practical relief—not trickle-down economics, not promises that this government's energy policy will see reductions in power bills and not promises of new employment driven by tax cuts but practical relief which is targeted at those who need it most.

The extraordinary thing is that this government, which claims a mantle of fiscal responsibility, should know that giving a tax cut to the largest corporations means that there is less money in the budget to pay for services that are important for ordinary Australians. They should know, because many economic commentators have been expressing their concern for many years that low wage growth is a significant risk for the Australian economy and threatens growth within the Australian economy, including employment growth, which also has the effect of depressing the amount of tax that will be collected from both personal and corporate income tax. In this setting the government needs to take responsibility for cuts to penalty rates—cuts that affect the take-home pay of more than 700,000 Australian people and cuts that materially affect low-paid workers, students and people in the regions, including northern Tasmania, in which my electorate of Bass is based.

This government is quite properly criticised for being out of touch and failing to understand the pressures that have built up over many years due to low wage growth not keeping pace with cost-of-living increases. This government either doesn't care or simply ignores the fact that many low-paid workers will have suffered a reduction in their income, meaning there is less disposable income circulating within many communities. Small business relies upon customers that are able to access either disposable income, savings or borrowing. Any reduction in the disposable income of their customers will in turn affect those small businesses.

We hear no more about the potential for increased employment in hospitality or retail trade as a consequence of the reduction of weekend penalty rates. How many people really believe the promises that reduction in penalty rates would enable the employment of more staff? Even the government's much-vaunted job creation fails to recognise that wages growth overall is depressed, which in turn creates limitations upon economic growth. Underemployment continues to be a significant problem. People who are in insecure or part-time work are sustained by penalty rates. In some instances they organise their lives so that they are able to work on a Sunday so that they can receive extra income to sustain their families.

The spectre of rising inequality is something that should not be ignored by this government. Whilst the Treasurer insists that inequality is not a problem, economic commentators insist that increased inequality is again a restraint on this economy not just affecting those in insecure work and low-paid work but also limiting the opportunities of businesses to expand and the economy as a whole to grow in a more robust and sustainable manner. Only Labor has a plan to address the immediate concerns of workers that their wages will be cut.

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

I have listened to the contributions of other members and wish to make the point that the commercial landscape, particularly in the areas of retail and hospitality services, has changed dramatically over the past decade. Retail trading hours have extended. Consumers demand more choice and flexibility in the hours during which they shop and access services. Competition has increased both domestically and from emerging economies in our region. In an increasingly global economy, costs have risen and margins have narrowed. Socially, we have changed as a nation as our nation has become more multicultural, with a diversity of customs. So, no longer is Sunday the universal day of rest that it once was, with different cultures observe Friday or Saturday as their preferred days of rest or those with busy lifestyles choosing to schedule their work and leisure commitments around study timetables or family commitments.

The contemporary Australian workplace must also adapt to these trends in order to stay relevant and competitive. In my electorate of Moore, retail businesses and those in the hospitality services sector make up a significant proportion of the local economy, with Hillarys marina being a major tourist destination, as well as a golf resort, major shopping centres, a bulk goods retail precinct and a service industrial area. Many businesses in my electorate are small to medium businesses, which are represented by the Joondalup Business Association. Our local business community is experiencing difficult times in the economic downturn and would like to extend trading hours to take advantage of the trend in consumers choosing to shop and dine at their convenience.

As a business owner myself, I have experienced a recent decline in retail turnover and have seen a few tenant vacancies as the economy goes through a rough patch. Trading hours in Western Australia have been extended only relatively recently compared with the eastern states. Our dining and hospitality venues tend to close earlier than in the east, leaving locals, tourists and visitors with unmet demand as many small shops, pharmacies and takeaway shops have found it too expensive to open on Sundays and public holidays.

The independent Fair Work Commission has made a determination on penalty rates after extended hearings and consultation. The recommended reforms are both measured and moderate and will mean that our small business sector will be able to compete on a level playing field with big business, which currently uses enterprise agreements to make deals with unions to reduce Saturday and Sunday penalty rates. For instance, the local takeaway shops and cafes at Hillarys marina will typically have to pay their staff $8 per hour more than McDonald's or KFC, which have negotiated enterprise agreements with the unions. Similarly, a family-owned, speciality gourmet greengrocer shop will typically pay $5 an hour more than Woolworths under its union negotiated enterprise agreement. A family bottle shop is more likely to be subjected to a wage bill of $7 per hour more than Dan Murphy's. A family-owned hardware store is likely to pay $5 per hour more than Bunnings.

In the current economic climate, margins can be less than 10 per cent and penalty rates can be the difference between returning a profit or making a loss. I would much rather see businesses in my electorate opening on Sundays and public holidays, employing people, rather than closing due to excessive costs. Why should small businesses be denied the same conditions as large businesses? The independence and consistency of the Fair Work Commission in making its determination on penalty rates should be respected, as it followed due process and is moderate in nature. It will set a bad precedent to arbitrarily interfere with determinations made by the Fair Work Commission, which are designed to boost the economy and create employment. Wages should be determined by productivity as opposed to the time of work. Inflationary pressures arise when wage growth is not matched by productivity gains. The modern workforce has a great degree of flexibility in choosing when to work. To match the contemporary consumer preferences— (Time expired)

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

I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill. I am constantly surprised and amused by the government's sudden respect for independent umpires, with regards to the Fair Work Commission, when we know that they unilaterally abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which was an independent umpire that would have meant that truck drivers would not have to drive themselves to death under unfair conditions. The government simply show ignorance; they do not know the difference between the bargaining regime and what is a unilateral cut to people's pay by the Fair Work Commission. These are two very different things. Being elected to parliament is a great privilege—one beyond belief—and I intend to use this time, as I come to it very late, to make a difference. That is what we should be doing here. That is why I joined the Labor Party. It was to be in a party that formed governments and has, as its objective, the great challenge laid down by Ben Chifley: to make people's lives better.

We on this side of the House often wonder what the Prime Minister strives to do each day for everyday Australians. Does he ever get out of bed and think, 'Today, I want to make a single mum's life easier. I want to shore up jobs for kids in Townsville. I want to find a way to meet the challenges facing Indigenous families in remote areas. I want to help the homeless and fix the scourge of insecure work'? Does he even worry about people struggling on low incomes? If he does, he doesn't show it. All he shows us is that he is about helping the wealthy stay wealthy and pretending that he believes in trickle-down economics while he watches the IPA froth at the mouth when he talks about tax cuts for incredibly powerful and wealthy corporations. I don't normally harp on about individuals, but today—as hundreds of thousands of workers on low incomes face losing wages—I find it incomprehensible that the Prime Minister and his government refuse to admit that cutting penalty rates will adversely affect people on low incomes. They refuse outright to stop it happening. They could stop this happening, right here, by supporting this bill. I am sorry, but this is inexcusable. We have heard over and over the damage this will do to families, to individuals and to the economy.

Penalty rates have existed for decades—around 70 years, in fact—and the economy has continued to grow and the hospitality and retail sectors continue to employ more and more people. No-one believes jobs will increase dramatically with wage cuts. In fact, the opposite is true. In those depressed economies in the US, raising wages has resulted in stronger, better economic conditions. There are those who will say that when wages are out of control the economy suffers. The only wages out of control are those of CEOs of multinational corporations. Wages growth for ordinary Australians is at an all-time low. In fact, people in this country are working harder and making more profit for companies but their pay is going backwards.

Unlike the Prime Minister, I know the Leader of the Opposition worries every day about those who are struggling to make ends meet. He worries deeply about the effect of cutting already low wages, and that is why he has introduced this bill. He, and those of us on this side of the House, knows that penalty rates make a real difference. The $70 on a Sunday wouldn't be a drop in the ocean for the member for Wentworth, but for so many people it puts food on the table and pays the bills. We on this side of the House want working mums to have time to care and earn a decent part-time, secure wage. Penalty rates are part of that. We want young people away from home combining study and work not to have to couch surf. Penalty rates are part of that. We want low-paid older people to be able to afford to buy their grandkids Christmas presents. Penalty rates are part of that. We want families to afford a simple holiday or pay their energy bills. Penalty rates are part of that.

We respect the contribution of working people. In fact, we honour it. If you work unsociable hours, we actually think that you should be paid something for this—for missing out on those times with your family and friends. This legislation is as real, as practical and as urgent as it gets. I want people to have better lives and, yes, that is everyone from asylum seekers, migrant workers, nurses, hairdressers and cleaners to truck drivers and so on. I want something better for people everywhere. Saving penalty rates is part of that.

Workers in Australia need a pay rise. Everybody is arguing that, from the Reserve Bank of Australia right through to every economist that has written on this issue. Australians need a pay rise, a decent pay rise, but we have a weak and mean-minded, bank-loving, corporate-kowtowing Prime Minister who still wants to cut the lowest-paid people's pay packets. This is a disgrace.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are, the first day back after the winter recess, we're not even an hour into the new parliamentary sessions and yet we have this blinding hypocrisy from the Labor Party. The member for Batman gave the game away when she brought up bringing back the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in this debate. The tribunal was simply about putting sanctions and mandates upon small business operators in the road transport sector but not putting the same sanctions or mandates against the large companies with their unionised employees. This is exactly what we are seeing in this argument over penalty rates.

It would be nice if the Labor Party came in and said that the bill that they were introducing applied to all the cuts that have been made by their friends at the SDA over recent years, but, no, it's not. This is the whole problem, it was those cuts to penalty rates that were made and authorised by the union officials that forced the hand of the commission. Let's just have a look at some of them. At Bunnings the 'shoppies' union, the SDA, and the Leader of the Opposition's former union, the AWU, cut penalty rates for workers at Bunnings from zero on Saturday and down from 100 per cent to 50 per cent on Sunday. Where were all the members of the Labor Party standing up and saying how terrible these cuts to penalty rates were then? We didn't hear a whisper or a murmur from them. All that did was make small business in the hardware sector have to pay more wages than their competitors—their large, big-end-of-town competitors, backed by their union mates—so they were at a competitive disadvantage.

It was the same thing at David Jones. The SDA, with the backing of the Labor Party and all the Labor members that sit over there, cut penalty rates at David Jones. They cut them to zero on a Saturday and down to 50 per cent on a Sunday. That put David Jones, with a unionised workforce, at a competitive advantage against small business that were forced to pay higher wages on a weekend. Where were the complaints from the Labor Party when that happened? Absolutely none.

Another example: the SDA cut the penalty rates for workers at Pizza Hut in Queensland, making them over $13,700 worse off—they actually cut the penalty rates to zero on a Saturday and Sunday! And where was the outrage of the Labor members of parliament over this? When did they come into this place and complain about penalty rates being cut for Pizza Hut workers in Queensland? A deathly silence. But that cut, again, placed a large corporation with a unionised workforce at a competitive advantage over their small-business competitors. And that is what we see this debate is all about.

This debate has nothing to do with penalty rates. It is about more union control, more union dominance, across the workforce. The Labor Party don't care about those workers who had their penalty rates cut, otherwise they would have come in and spoken up about them before. They just wanted to see those small businesses with a non-unionised workforce placed at a competitive disadvantage, and to have those workers have to go over to their big-end-of-town competitors—and, of course, cough up their union fees. That is all this debate is about.

I've heard a few other comments from other members. The member for Bass raised power bills—well, if the member for Bass is so concerned about the cost of electricity in this nation, I hope he will get behind the recommendations made by the ACCC, and reduce the subsidies that are currently flowing and being added onto everyone's electricity bills. If the member for Bass is fair dinkum, he will get behind those recommendations, and he will stand up and say, 'I support every single one of the ACCC's recommendations.' But, Deputy Speaker, five will get you ten that there's not a chance of that.

Then we had the hypocrisy on the corporate rate of tax. We live in an internationally competitive environment. Our companies have to compete around the world for capital and for workers. We currently have a situation where the US have lowered their corporate rate of tax down to 21 per cent. We have France planning to lower their corporate rate of tax from 34 per cent to 25 per cent. We have the UK, 20 to 17 per cent—(Time expired)

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's happening in the Australian economy right now is pretty clear. We need to have more consumption, we need to have a situation where there's a stimulus in the economy, and one way to do that is to ensure that the wages of people whose marginal propensity to consume is pretty high are not cut. It is a no-brainer that the last thing we should be doing right now is cutting the wages of working Australians. It's pretty clearly the case also, when you look at the Wage Price Index—and, as you know, Deputy Speaker, it has been languishing, down at its lowest rates since we started keeping the Wage Price Index in 1997. All of these factors should make it blindingly obvious to this government that it is economic vandalism to allow the commission to be cutting wages at this time for some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. And the government has failed to do anything about this, despite the blindingly obvious nature of the problem that's before us. The government could step in and legislate to ensure that people's penalty rates are not cut. The government could step in and legislate to ensure that the commission does not reduce the take-home pay of working Australians. But the government has not only failed to do this, it is preventing the opposition from having a vote on doing these things, and I think that's deeply reckless.

The government is trying to blame the fact that this cut has happened on the commission. The fact is: of course the commission has an obligation to review awards—of course it does. If the commission doesn't review awards, awards become obsolete, because community standards and industry rates so far exceed the award that it is rendered useless for all except those who really want to completely underpay their workers. So you have to have reviews of awards, and those reviews of awards, of course, have to take into account more than just the base rate of pay; they should take into account penalty rates, allowances, working conditions—all of the things that go into an award. But that's not a reason to say that we should just wash our hands of the decisions that are made in respect of the review of awards when the commission makes a decision that is so obviously wrong for our nation, for our economy, and for the people who depend on those wages. We have the opportunity right now to say to the commission: 'Look, fair enough, you are reviewing awards; you're expected to do that under the legislation. But it is up to this parliament, the sovereign parliament of this nation, to ensure that the laws that are made here are for the peace, order and good governance of this country. That requires us to take a responsible approach to our economy and our society and to the people who live within them.' Once we have taken that approach, we can see quite clearly that there needs to be legislative change to ensure that the commission knows that it is not to be reducing take-home pay of working Australians, and that's what this bill does.

This is an opposition private member's bill. It's a private member's bill to introduce into the workplace relations legislation provisions that would preclude the commission reducing the take-home pay of working Australians. It's a very straightforward piece of legislation. It's only a couple of pages long, but it would introduce amendments to ensure that, in the process of reviewing awards, the commission does not reduce the take-home pay of Australians. Not only would it resolve the penalty rates problem that has been caused by the decision of the commission to reduce penalty rates, but it would be a method of preventing the commission making further decisions in the future that reduce the take home-pay of Australians.

It's pretty rare to see a commission make a decision to reduce the take-home pay of Australians. You will remember that under Work Choices, which of course the government would love to go back to, there was a minimum pay panel, and they increased the minimum wage every year except for 2009, I think. That was one of the years. Deputy Speaker, I'm sure you remember the controversy that surrounded the decision of that panel not to increase wages—which, for what it's worth, I thought was a pretty terrible decision, as we were just coming out of the global financial crisis. But to now be going a step further and have the commission reducing take-home pay—given the economic circumstances at the moment but also, of course, as a general proposition—should be, and is, even more controversial. That's why you're seeing no matter where you go—whether in the Longman by-election or the streets of my suburbs in the electorate of Griffith—you are seeing people raising concerns about the fact that this government is doing nothing to prevent cuts to penalty rates and that under this government's watch the commission has cut penalty rates. This government, by allowing that to stand, is effectively responsible for cutting penalty rates. It has the chance now to fix it, and it should. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that there are no government speakers taking the jump, I thought I would use this opportunity to say a few words about the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 and the importance of maintaining penalty rates. Let's face it: when was the last time you planned your child's birthday party for a Monday morning, went to a christening on a Tuesday, invited friends to your house for a barbecue lunch on a Wednesday or went off to see the AFL Grand Final on a Thursday lunchtime? The fact is weekends exist for a reason. They help workers coordinate socialising time together, which is so vital to the health of the Australian community.

We live in an Australia that has become more disconnected over recent decades. We've seen a decline in the share of Australians attending church or being part of community groups such as the Scouts, the Guides, Rotary and Lions. Surveys that I've helped to have commissioned over the years have shown that the share of Australians who know their neighbours has fallen and the number of close friends that Australians can count has dwindled. So protecting the weekend is absolutely vital to building the strength of social capital in Australia. The strength of the weekend reflects the ability of a society to get together to enjoy life. The purpose of life is not to work. It is terrific when we add to GDP, but GDP is not the sole benchmark of the performance of a society. While we have strong weekends when people can get together with their friends and neighbours, we are healthier as a society. Frankly, things work a lot better in a society with a high degree of social capital and civic connectedness. Playing sport, being part of a union, attending religious services and supporting community life are fundamental to the kind of Australia that many people want to live in.

Yet we've seen attempts from the conservative side of politics to hack into penalty rates. This is the side of politics that often touts its family values credentials and says that it is the party that believes in supporting family values. But what can be more fundamental to family values than the ability of someone to know that they will be able to attend a child's birthday party, take their kids to sport on weekends and not have their weekends treated by their employer like any other day? Those who are working on the weekends ought to be properly remunerated. Those who are working as baristas or waitstaff are workers who are spending time away from their family, and it is appropriate that they are compensated through the system of penalty rates which defend the weekend.

Penalty rates are a bulwark against the attempt of unchecked market forces to take over the weekend and to corporatise the weekend. When baristas and waitstaff spend time away from their friends and family, often the cafe or restaurant will put in place a surcharge for Sundays and public holidays. I don't think anyone in this place begrudges paying that surcharge, because that recognises that you're there enjoying socialising at a time when others are working to literally put the food on your table. The money that goes to penalty rates disproportionately goes to those who are at the lower end of the income spectrum. The weekly minimum wage set by the Restaurant Industry Award is not much over $600, less than half the average median wage. Those getting penalty rates aren't using them to go off and buy yachts; they're putting them into paying the family bills. So penalty rates go back into the economy. I know there are some business leaders who love to have low-paid workers and high-paid customers. Sadly, workers and customers are the same group of people. If you cut the pay of workers, particularly those workers who are spending their whole pay cheque, then you cut the amount of money that goes back into the economy.

To treat Saturday and Sunday as standard days of the working week would mean that shop assistants, petrol station workers, bakers and hundreds of other kinds of workers would lose their penalty rates. Penalty rates have a long and distinguished history, going back to 1947, and they reflect the simple notion that at least three-quarters of Australians support—that penalty rates are an Australian value and an egalitarian value. (Time expired)

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

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting.