Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017, a bill that is co-sponsored by Labor, the Greens and Senator Lambie. The purpose of this bill is to protect the take-home pay of the millions of Australians who this Prime Minister has abandoned. It will ensure that the penalty rates that they rely on are not cut. It is a fair bill that all in this place should support. It clarifies the Fair Work Act to ensure that the spirit of the original bill is upheld—that a relevant and fair minimum safety net is provided through the award, which is relevant to the needs and expectations of the community; and that additional remuneration is provided for employees working outside of normal hours, such as working on weekends, overtime, late nights or very early mornings, as many workers around the country do.

It is without doubt that the spirit of the Fair Work Act was misinterpreted by the Fair Work Commission in its recent decision. As such, it is incumbent upon us all—as we often do in this place—to pass a simple bill that closes the interpretative loophole. In this case, it is to protect the take-home pay of Australian workers by protecting penalty rates for Sundays and public holidays—because the Fair Work Act must never, never be used to cut the pay of workers. I believe in strong penalty rates for overtime, weekends, public holidays, late nights and very early mornings. There is a clear need to better remunerate workers for taking on these unsociable hours that are often essential to a business but mean valuable time away from friends and family. Working these hours when others are relaxing, when others are taking their time of leisure, has clear costs on the individual that must be remedied through improved wages. It is Labor's clear belief that the commission's decision to allow a reduction in pay for low- and middle-income Australians does not maintain a relevant and fair minimum safety net, and is not relevant to community expectations, and that therefore the commission's decision is contrary to the spirit of the Fair Work Act. This bill will right that wrong. It will close that interpretative loophole. It will ensure that the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission which cuts the pay of workers in the hospitality, retail, pharmacy and fast-food industries cannot take effect. It is important to note that the bill maintains the independence of the Fair Work Commission, while guiding its future decisions to ensure that wages cannot be cut.

Paying penalty rates has clear benefits to workers, to employers and to the entire community. This bill gives the Prime Minister and all members of this parliament the opportunity to use their vote to support working Australians and their families. I hope that the crossbench, particularly the Nick Xenophon Team, support this bill. I hope that the government supports this bill. Supporting this bill is right and it is a just thing to do. However, I am not confident that we will get the support of the government—because, for the past year and a half, we have had a Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who is willing at every turn to cut wages and cut government support to low- and middle-income families, while pushing for tax cuts for millionaires. In my time in the Senate, and in my 20-odd years in the union movement before that, we have seen a Liberal-National coalition that is dogged on one thing—that is, the need to cut wages and support for working Australians and divert the benefits of labour to the owners of capital. Some may say it is an old cliche, but it rings very true with this current government.

They do not try to govern for all Australians. They do not even try to govern for 50 per cent of the Australians who voted for them. No, time and time again, the government prioritise the owners of big business at the expense of the Australian community. In this case, they couch cuts to penalty rates in the notion that business needs a fair go on Sundays and public holidays, and they say that cutting wages will lead to more jobs—a total fallacy on both counts. It is a total fallacy that business needs to cut their wages bill, as there has been strong growth over the past few years in the sectors covered by this Fair Work decision. While there are some businesses that do not open on Sundays and public holidays, those that do open—and pay their staff penalty rates while collecting additional revenue from customers—are very likely doing well. As we have pointed out, time and time again, if Sundays and public holidays are sacred to the head offices of business, then they should be sacred to the working people of this country as well. I say that when the head office of a major business is closed on Sundays and public holidays but their workers are working on those days, they should be paid such penalty rates as to compensate them for the lost time with family and friends—and that rate should never decrease. The second fallacy is that cutting penalty rates will lead to more jobs, and therefore make society better off overall. It is common sense that if a business is going to offer additional hours just on Sundays and public holidays, those hours are going to be offered first to those workers who are suffering a cut in their wages. So workers will have longer working hours to try and scrape together the same take-home pay, seeing their families and friends even less. And they will receive nothing extra for working on those days, when compared to before the Fair Work decision.

Then we have Senator Xenophon's position, which is similar to a recent thought bubble from Senator Abetz—the bizarre idea that, by cutting the wages of new employees only, existing workers will not be worse off. How do these senators propose to regulate such a move to ensure that no existing Sunday employee loses shifts to new employees? That is the question for them. It will not be just a cut of 25 or 50 basis points to their penalty rates; their Sunday pay is likely to drop to zero as they are priced out by new entrants. And what if an employee moves jobs once, twice, three times, which is quite often the case? At what point is their take-home pay no longer protected? No, we should not phase in this decision for new employees only; we should not phase in this decision at all. The best way to stop this decision from taking effect is to give full support to this bill. The position put forward in this bill is the simplest, it is the fairest and it is the only option that can be supported, going forward.

What is often forgotten in all of this by those opposite is that $30 or $70 a week might not seem like much, but, for people who rely on penalty rates, for families on low and middle incomes, a cut of between $30 or $70 a week is the difference between scraping by to make ends meet and keeping your head above water. In the case of working Sundays and public holidays, it is also about compensation for missing the most precious occasions with your family and friends. For low- and middle-income Australians who rely on penalty rates, the extra cash they get for working on the weekend is necessary, but many would give it back for memories shared with loved ones on weekends.

Coupled with the government's continual cuts to family payments and welfare measures, this move by the government to cut penalty rates will drive more people below the poverty line. It is mean, it is nasty and it is unnecessary. It will not create jobs. It will not improve the lives of low- and middle-income Australians. It will simply deliver greater returns to business owners.

For thousands of people across the country, particularly those in outer suburbs, small towns and the regions, like people in my home region of the north-west and west coast of Tasmania, penalty rates are vital for their families. In north-west Tasmania, around one-third of families are experiencing rental stress. In comparison, in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where the Prime Minister lives, only around one in 10 families are experiencing rental stress, despite the high rents in Sydney. Many of the families experiencing rental stress in north-west Tasmania rely on family tax benefits and penalty rates to make ends meet. This cut to penalty rates, coupled with the low wages growth over the past few years and this government's cuts to family payments, will only make this stress more pointed.

This cut to penalty rates will severely impact regional communities right across the country. Workers who rely on penalty rates typically spend all or most of their income within their community's economy. They buy hardware, clothes, food and fuel. A cut of around $70 a week is $70 less that each worker will have to spend in their local shops. Add that up across a community where 500 people are set to have their Sunday penalty rates cut, and that is tens of thousands of dollars a year less going to local shops. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for workers. So what is the purpose of this decision?

When this decision was handed down, my local newspaper, the Burnie Advocate ran an editorial in favour of the decision. They used the headline 'Penalty rates winners must not be sidelined'. The editorial attempted to argue that the unemployed and underemployed, as well as those who want cafes and shops open on a Sunday, were the winners from the decision. As I have argued and will continue to argue, at best the so-called benefits to the unemployed and underemployed are theoretical; at worst they come at the expense of existing workers. In regards to cafes and shops opening on a Sunday, the author of the editorial would have done well to read the decision: the relevant award for cafes was not amended by the Fair Work Commission, so how could it be relevant? And, in retail, some shops may open on a Sunday, but, with most people spending time out of our CBDs on weekends, who knows if the wage cut will matter anyway? I would have thought the major driver would be that the turnover on a Sunday would not justify opening for many smaller shops. The cut to penalty rates of 25 to 50 percentage points will mean a lot to the worker who is currently working, but will it really be enough to encourage the shop owner to open or to extend their hours?

The comments on TheAdvocate's Facebook page after the editorial were quite insightful as to the community's view of this proposed cut to the take-home pay of workers. I hope Senator Duniam in particular, whose office is located on the north-west coast of Tasmania, paid attention to the comments. The article was on 24 February, if anyone cares to take a look. I do not recall any comments being in support of the editorial. If there were, they were drowned out significantly by people talking about their personal circumstances in relying on penalty rates, or talking about the flaws in the logic that the journalist attempted to employ. The overwhelming majority did not believe that the decision would create jobs or make it easier for people who are working on a weekend. The clear majority told it as I see it: people will either lose take-home pay or have to work longer hours to make ends meet. A more appropriate headline for the story would have been 'Penalty rate losers must not be forgotten'.

The day after the article ran, the member for Braddon, Justine Keay, and I were joined by 32 union and Labor Party members from across the north-west coast at the Beach Hotel in Burnie. We went to the Beach Hotel because their licensee, Ben, has made the brave decision to not pass on the cut to the award wages of his staff—and I commend Ben for his leadership. Thank you to chefs Di and Jess from the Beach, who joined Justine and me for a story in the newspaper. Di said that she felt for young workers who need that Sunday rate. 'It helps them live,' she said. Jess said that a cut to rates will affect staff morale at other businesses. She said, 'Why should we give up our weekends if it's not worth it?'

It is really important to note that the retail, fast-food, pharmacy and hospitality industries are staffed mostly by women. The gender wage gap in this country is still at 18 per cent. Yet instead of boosting the wages of low-paid working women, instead of seeking to reduce that wage gap, this government is going to stand by and let women's wages be cut. Well, there is no way Labor is going to stand by and let that happen. This bill will protect women working in those industries by ensuring that they can provide the basics for their families after working all weekend and missing birthdays, sports matches and other special events.

The facts are that inequality is at a 75-year high, wages growth is at a 20-year low and almost 5,000 full-time jobs have been lost in Tasmania over the last year, yet we have Prime Minister Turnbull and Premier Will Hodgman cheering this wage cut. The performances of the Premier and the Prime Minister in this debate have been shameful. In Tasmania, we already have severe skills shortages across a number of the industries affected by this decision. What we need is for our Prime Minister and our Premier, Will Hodgman, to have plans to improve skills and jobs, not a plan to cut those wages. What we need is better support for our TAFEs and our apprentices. What we need is a proper fibre National Broadband Network to connect every community in the nation. What we do not need are cuts to the take-home pay of working Australians.

This bill seeks to draw a line in the sand on workers' take-home pay. If the commission can cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates in the hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacy awards then there is every chance that nurses, firefighters, aged-care workers and others can expect the Prime Minister to support their wages being slashed as well. It is why we need all parties to get behind working Australians and support this bill. We need all parties to put behind them past comments and votes and to vote to ensure that the take-home pay of Australian workers is not cut.

It will be interesting to see where the Nick Xenophon Team land on this bill, for on Monday afternoon this week they were missing in action. The motion on Monday afternoon is an indication that the Xenophon team are, again, the deciding vote. Senators Xenophon, Kakoschke-Moore and Griff were notably absent on Monday. Where were they? As a result of their absence, Senator Cameron's motion was lost. This bill gives the Xenophon team a great opportunity to right that wrong. I hope that the Xenophon team senators move on from their attempt to have it both ways on penalty rates and get behind not only South Australian workers but all other workers around the nation.

I am firmly of the belief that workers should never face a cut to their pay and conditions. It is a basic principle of our workplace relations system that, as productivity increases and as our economy grows, workers should receive wage increases that reflect their invaluable contribution to their employer and the ever-increasing costs they face to buy goods and services. Never should a worker face a wage cut.

What is particularly galling is that wages are currently flatlining in this country. Wages rose less than two per cent over the past year, and underemployment is already at 8½ per cent, one of the highest levels in recent years. This underemployment is already placing pressure on wage growth as competition for work reduces workers' bargaining power. This reduction in penalty rates will be the double whammy on working Australians of slow overall wages growth coupled with cuts to penalty rates, so the cuts to penalty rates are even more savage than they might have been at a time of moderate or high wage growth.

Also, this week the government did a secret, grubby deal with the self-styled workers' and battlers' friends Senator Hanson, Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon, a deal that will make workers, students and battlers worse off. I hope that Senators Hanson, Hinch and Xenophon have a long, hard think about that grubby deal. I hope that Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch think about why they were part of the same sneaky deal as Senator Hanson and One Nation, because, after that grubby deal, how can any of those senators have any credibility whatsoever when they say that they care about workers and battlers? They do not care at all.

With this bill, they can come into this place and right that wrong. They can come into this place and vote for this bill instead of voting to cut, cut and cut. Instead of supporting a government that is hell-bent on making the lives of working Australians even harder, they can vote to ensure that the Fair Work Commission does not have the capacity to cut the take-home pay of Australian workers.

This bill represents clearly the two competing visions between the Labor and Liberal parties, the alternate governments of this country. On one side, we have the Labor vision that, if you look after the working and middle class; if governments provide a strong safety net, including proper family payments and through decent wages, including penalty rates and a strong minimum wage; if governments give our children the best chance at school through targeted, needs based funding; and if there is a healthy, well-funded Medicare, it does not matter how rich you are or how rich your parents are, because this Australian society is about a fair go for all, where hard work is rewarded. And, if you fall on hard times, you are not persecuted as being weak but supported to bounce back, bigger and even better.

On the other hand, there is the flawed trickle-down economics of the Liberal-National-One Nation coalition, an idea that, if you take from the poorest and the middle and give tax cuts and handouts to business, somehow the magic pudding will trickle down into the bowls of the poor and the middle class and keep them full at night. It is a flawed approach that has failed in Australia. It has failed in America. It has failed in Great Britain. Cutting wages of workers will not deliver a better standard of living, and it will not create jobs.

In that, I support the bill, and I urge all in this place to support the bill.