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

It is without doubt that this is a matter of urgency. It is without doubt that this Prime Minister has displayed an absolute lack of empathy for Australian workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet—we know that. It is without doubt that the Prime Minister must be condemned for his comments, his actions and his total disregard for low-paid Australian workers.

What we have seen in this place and out in the community is a Prime Minister whose priorities are quite simple: he wants a tax cut for large corporations and a pay cut for low-paid workers. What we have seen is a Prime Minister who says he wants the Fair Work Commission to phase in penalty-rate cuts over time, but he has been unable to say what this will mean for the take-home pay of low-paid workers. What we have is a Prime Minister who will not say if it will be a sudden cut or one that is phased in over a number of years. Worse than this, we have a Prime Minister who is not prepared to stand up, defend the low-paid workers of this country and amend the Fair Work Commission's remit so that their take-home pay will not be cut. We have a Prime Minister who says he supports a cut to penalty rates but he will not explain what it means for workers. He has brushed it off as a decision—and we have heard this time and time again—of the independent umpire, but he fails to recognise the issues with the commission's argument, and, worse, he is failing to do anything about it. There is no compassion, no empathy and no action. He is just completely out of touch with the daily difficulties faced by workers and their families.

Then we have his representative here in the Senate, Senator Brandis, who has been running a protection racket for the Prime Minister since he made the clear-cut statement that he supports wage cuts for low-paid workers. Time after time, Senator Brandis comes into this place and completely disregards the fair and honest questions from Labor senators. He accuses Labor senators of everything under the sun but fails to confirm the basic fact: the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, supports wage cuts for low-paid workers and has shown blatant disregard for the plight of these workers. What the Prime Minister fails to address with his cute language about the phasing in of wage cuts is that a wage freeze is a real wage cut. That is what it is. The Prime Minister knows this. He is trying to be clever, but he is coming across as callous. Maybe he is trying to display some compassion, but Australians are not stupid and they are seeing through the rhetoric because his words are empty. His words do not support that he cares about the take-home pay of workers. He does not care about their weekly budgets, he does not care about the small businesses that they shop at and he does not care about them making ends meet, paying their bills on time and having something left over for a small treat for their kids. For the Prime Minister, it is clear that wage earners are dispensable.

Well, they are listening, and they are not happy. They are not happy about the callous disregard the Prime Minister has shown for their take-home pay, and other wage earners across the economy are watching this Prime Minister's words more closely. They can see that he is not backing workers in the retail, pharmacy, hospitality and fast-food industries. They can see that he is failing to back hairdressers in their new battle, and they are worried that he is not going to back them if the time comes for penalty rates to be reviewed in their award. However, there remains time for the Prime Minister. He has a clear choice before him: continue down this path, where the take-home pay of low-paid workers is cut, or support Labor's bill that will correct the error in the Fair Work Act and protect the penalty rates of low-paid workers.

What do the cuts mean? The cuts have a double hit on low-paid workers. The most obvious is the impact on their weekly budgets, but there is also the impact on their morale and on their sense of purpose. Workers that I have spoken to about the penalty-rate cut say that the cut to their take-home pay will be devastating. Rhetoric from the government is meant to strike a balance in different situations and support those who are doing it tough—that is what a government is meant to do—but the rhetoric from this government is that these jobs do not even matter and that they are totally dispensable. One worker who I spoke to said that a cut to rates will affect staff morale. She said, 'Why should we give up our weekends if it's not worth it?' She continued that it will not motivate people to come to work. It is clear that words said in this place matter. People out there do listen. The words of this Prime Minister and the lack of action from him are extremely hurtful.

It is really important to note that the retail, fast-food, pharmacy and hospitality industries are staffed mostly by women. The wage gap in this country between men's and women's wages is still at 18 per cent—women get 18 per cent less than men in this country. Yet, instead of boosting the wages of low-paid working women and instead of seeking to reduce the wage gap, this government is going to stand by and let women's wages get cut. Well, there is no way that Labor is going to stand by and let this happen. The bill that Labor introduced will protect working women and women working in these industries to ensure that they can provide the basics for their families after working all weekend and missing birthdays, sports matches and other special events; to ensure there is no wage cut of $77 a week for working women; and to ensure that they hear loud and clear that their work is valued.

In conclusion, 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 unsociable hours that are often essential to a business but that mean valuable time away from friends and family. Working those hours when others are relaxing and taking their time of leisure has clear costs on an individual. This must be remedied through improved wages. Never, never, must these workers ever face a wage cut. The Prime Minister must heed this call. He must change his tack, support workers' penalty rates and stop his callous rhetoric that this pay cut is a good thing. We have heard continually, time and time again, from the other side that this is a good thing. Well, those opposite should go and talk to the workers out there who are facing this. For mothers trying to work overtime, penalty rates make a difference. Those who are working on weekends in industries where they will face this cut are doing it because they need to work. They are doing it to put food on the table, to buy things for their kids, to ensure that they get a fair go—and this is not a fair go. They want to make sure there is enough money in their wallet when they reach the check-out counter at the supermarket. They want to ensure that their bills are paid on time. These things matter to people out in the community, but I do not think anyone on the other side understands that. They do not understand how workers, particularly women workers, rely on penalty rates to get by and make ends meet.