Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senator Cash to questions asked by opposition senators today relating to employment.

Isn't it amazing that we have already had a correction of the record from yesterday? What we are seeing now from Senator Cash is backflipping, backtracking, correcting the record and the different use of language around the jobs that are to be created under the various free trade agreements.

Today she started off with 'I was advised,' and gone was the banging of the table and the absolutely categorical statement that thousands of millions will be created. We heard today that there 'can be'—she used the words 'can be'—jobs on offer from China. So gone was 'will be' and it was 'can be' today—and today it was based on 'sound modelling'. But we of course did not get any reference to the sound monitoring, and I am just wondering if, when she said that today, she meant the sound modelling she was referring to yesterday—and she has just stood up and corrected the record on that. So perhaps tomorrow she will come in and correct the record once again on whatever the sound modelling was that she was relying on today that, according to Senator Cash, says that thousands of jobs will be created. What are we to believe? No longer is it categorical. No longer is it absolutely determined. We hear words like she was 'advised' and many jobs 'can be' created and 'sound modelling', and at the end of question time, oopsy daisy, she corrects the record and the term is now back to 'many thousands of jobs'.

Last night, in relation to the Fair Work Bill, Senator Cameron asked time and time again, 'Where's the proof; where's the evidence?' According to what she says, Senator Cash likes to have an evidence based framework. She is on the public record as saying that. Senator Cameron asked, 'Where is the evidence that greenfields negotiations are being dragged out for longer than six months?' I think Senator Cameron asked that three or four times—certainly in the time that I was in the chamber. Senator Cash's response was that that was what employers had told her. So, again, we get Senator Cash relying on this 'sound evidence' and then not being able to produce the sound evidence or the sound modelling and then we get the backtracking and correcting of the record. That is all that we are hearing from Senator Cash in her new position as Minister for Employment.

Today Senator Bullock asked her directly whether the government was going to cut penalty rates, and Senator Cash said a number of times, 'Penalty rates are determined by the Fair Work Commission.' But just a couple of weeks ago, on 30 September, she said that 'any proposal by the government to reduce Sunday penalty rates will be taken to the next election'. So what are we to believe? She stands in here today and says, 'No, that is the job of the Fair Work Commission,' and a couple of weeks ago she said, 'Well, if we are going to cut penalty rates'—which is all they have been talking about—'we will do that at the next election; we will take a package to the next election.'

So what are we to believe? What is the truth here? The truth is that they do not have a clue. But they have a very clear mandate on cutting penalties. There has been enough said about it, particularly by Senator Cash. And she could try to backtrack and say that it is up to the Fair Work Commission at question time today, but in an interview on 30 September she said that the government would determine the package.

The other thing she likes to say is that somehow the Productivity Commission has come up with this idea to create a two-tiered Sunday penalty system all by itself. Well, who put the reference to the Productivity Commission? It was the poor old former Treasurer under the old management, Mr Hockey. So that link between the terms of reference and what the government wants to do in terms of penalty rates is very clearly established. There is no mystery here: the terms of reference given to the Productivity Commission give the Productivity Commission plenty of room to deliver the response right to them that the government can change penalty rates. That was very clearly demonstrated when on 30 September Senator Cash said in a radio interview, 'If we are going to cut penalty rates we will take it to the next election.'

She did not mention the Fair Work Commission in that interview, just like today when she had to correct the record on her modelling of yesterday. Let's see what tomorrow brings!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to contribute to the debate on the answers to questions by Senator Cash. Senator Cash is right when she says that when it comes to penalty rates, the sorts of standards that are set out there are set by the Fair Work Commission. It is as simple as that. As I said in a speech here just recently—I think it was on Senator Leyonhjelm's private member's bill or a general business discussion on a Thursday—they are set by the Fair Work Commission, and that is the end of the story.

Now, if there are going to be changes at the Fair Work Commission then Fair Work Australia are going to have to do their job to make changes if they wish to, without any arguments for it. I said in that speech that I have a problem with some of the penalty rates. Let me explain why. Come a public holiday, anyone working who is 21 years old or over gets paid at least $47 an hour, plus workers comp plus superannuation. It costs employers about $57 an hour. So here is my problem: if you go out to a country hotel in a small community on, say, Easter Monday and walk into the pub and see who is working at the bar, it is the publican—the male publican and his wife. Or, if the licensee is a female, it is the publican who is the wife and her husband or family who are running the pub. Guess what? No-one is getting any casual work or penalty rates in that pub on that weekend. Why? Because they cannot take enough money to pay the extra costs. So what do we have? Everyone missing out!

I have been on both sides of the fence. I have been an employer and an employee. I have said that whatever comes to be in this place, that life is about fairness—a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and vice versa: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If you are working weekends or odd times then you should be paid more. Imagine the nurses, male and female—perhaps I might be game enough to say that most of them are female—working night shifts. They must be paid more for the inconvenience—the odd hours and the long hours that they have to work. They are very tiring hours.

There are our ambos and our police officers—those people working through the night. Many of them are called into hospitals—doctors and specialists—and of course they have to be paid more for the inconvenience and extra work. Every worker for the public must be treated in the same way and be paid extra for those difficult hours and especially for times like public holidays. Most people are at the dam, perhaps having a barbecue with their friends, or watching sport or whatever, and these people are going to work.

I make the point again that business does the employing. I am sure there are many coffee shops in Sydney that simply do not open on those days. So how many people get penalty rates on those days? None. It comes back to the owner or manager of the business making the decisions. We can regulate what we want in this place and make whatever we want but it comes back to the business owners to say, 'Well, I'm sorry, we're not opening the doors because our costs are so high that we cannot make a profit. We're losing money.' Businesses are not charities; they are not out there to open their doors to lose money, even though many over many years—probably all my life and longer—have opened their doors and lost money in difficult times.

It was amazing during question time today, the debate about jobs. I cannot believe those opposite—and the Greens especially—when it comes to the free trade agreements. I am very fortunate enough to live in a town where we have an abattoir—Bindaree Beef. It is a family owned business, with great people doing a great job and employing 850 people. But demand for beef is huge. The prices have come off a bit of late because of the hot, dry weather, but in general the beef market is doing very well—the best ever in my lifetime and that of anyone else in the beef industry.

Those abattoirs are increasing their work and the number of their employees. They are looking for workers. Unfortunately, they do not get them all in Australia. Many people in Australia do not want to work in an abattoir. They would rather stay on the unemployment benefits and have the workers brought in from overseas. But with these trade agreements and with the lower Australian dollar, we are getting more exports and more value. These businesses are growing and there are more jobs. Yet I cannot believe that the Greens are saying that these trade agreements are no good. They want to keep the tariffs on; they want to curb our businesses, especially agriculture and the beef, lamb and mutton industries. And there are the wine and dairy industries—these are industries which bring so much wealth to our nation. The better we can do as far that as trade agreements go and remove those barriers then the more people will be employed and businesses will grow.

Thank goodness, businesses grow! Every big business started as a small business, and when they grow they employ more people. We should encourage that. This whole building here, both houses, should encourage more growth, more employment, more jobs and a better living standard for all. But instead, we have some opposite just being cynical about the trade agreements that Andrew Robb, the trade minister, has done a magnificent job on over the time he has had that portfolio.

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers by Senator Cash. I should say at the outset that there is a lot to like about Senator Cash. Firstly, she is a West Australian and that naturally is an enormous advantage!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear to that!

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Secondly, and I say this as a former secretary of the Western Australian Hairdressers and Wigmakers Union, Senator Cash is to be congratulated for consistent and ongoing support for our industry! Thirdly, there is her renowned theatricality: her demonstrative hand gestures and her propensity in pursuit of emphasis to overstate her case. She could, for example, lay the blame for the downfall of civilisation on a combination of the incompetence and malignant intent of 'those opposite'—a sentiment with which I could have some sympathy, albeit from the different perspective of this side of the chamber!

It is, however, this practice of overstatement—more so even than her cruelty to vowels—which opens the senator to well-deserved criticism. Take for example, her answer to the question as to how many new jobs would be created by the China, Japan and Korea free trade agreements. Undoubtedly swept away by her enthusiasm for FTAs, she advised the Senate yesterday—it was slightly corrected today—that up to 178,000 jobs would be created by the time the agreements came fully into force in 2035. I am reminded of a song by Frank Sinatra extolling the virtue of having high hopes, but high hopes are no substitute for the facts.

I have here a report by the Centre for International Economics, prepared for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the economic benefits of Australia's North Asian FTAs, dated 12 June this year. On page 35 it sets out the employment impact for Australia of the North Asian FTAs, year by year, for every year from 2016 till 2035. I have added up all of the figures on this page for all of the years, and they come to 178,568—just like Senator Cash said. Unfortunately for Senator Cash, I can read as well as add up, and the introduction to the table at the top of the page helpfully explains how to interpret it. It says:

This table should be interpreted in the same manner as the other results in this report … For example, we expect there to be 7925 more people employed in 2016 if the FTAs are implemented compared to if they aren’t implemented. Similarly, in 2020 there would be 14,566 more jobs if the FTAs are implemented compared to what would be the case in 2020 if the FTAs were not implemented.

So there it is. The figures set out against each year indicate the total number of new jobs expected to have been created from the inception of the FTAs until that year—not in that year. So, when this report states that there will be 5,434 jobs, next to the year 2035, it means that 5,434 jobs will be created by 2035—not in 2035. Five thousand four hundred and thirty-four new jobs is a far cry from 178,568 new jobs. One hundred and seventy-eight thousand is a wild exaggeration of the employment impact of the FTAs. The Senate is not assisted by wild exaggerations by Senator Cash in answering questions. It is this propensity for wild exaggerations which led one of my colleagues to suggest to me this morning that Senator Cash was loose with the truth. I might not use such colourful language myself, but Australia deserves a minister in the critically important Employment portfolio who can be trusted to stick to the facts and is not prone to wild exaggeration.

The practice of presenting a vision of the world as she wishes it might be, rather than as it actually is, was evident once again in the controversy over the $12 million in cuts to the budget of community legal services nationally. These cuts are very clear to everyone in the sector, including Ms Liana Buchanan, who 'was surprised and appalled to hear a government minister providing such false information to the public'. The false information was Senator Cash's insistence that the $12 million in cuts was simply a false and misleading campaign by legal centres. Given that $12 million in cuts can be transformed into merely a 'false and misleading campaign', and 5,434 jobs— (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to have the opportunity to respond to the Labor Party. In listening to the contributions so far, it is hard to know who to give the bigger own-goal question to—whether it is the Labor Party asking about penalty rates, given Bill Shorten's record, or whether it is Senator Lambie with questions around Chinese money donations, given how the Palmer campaign was funded at the last federal election.

I want to focus on penalty rates but also on free trade, because we in the coalition—unlike those opposite, it would appear; increasingly, the Labor Party are walking away from free trade—believe passionately in free trade, in opening up markets and in the transformative potential that this has for the Australian economy and for Australian jobs. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, who has done an outstanding job representing Australia's interests, negotiating these difficult and complex trade agreements—most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership but also the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the free trade agreements with Korea and Japan. These present a massive opportunity for the Australian economy, a massive opportunity for working Australians, because we know that the way you provide jobs is to grow the economy. One of the great ways of growing the economy is through trade with other nations. The TPP opens up more and freer trade with some of our biggest trading partners in the region and builds on the fantastic free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. We are now entering into an era of much freer trade, where Australian exporters—be they exporters of services or agricultural or other goods—can get access to these markets. But, as we break down these trade barriers and get rid of some of these remaining tariffs, it is good for Australian consumers as well. It is good for Australian consumers as they can buy goods more cheaply. We should be very proud of what this government has achieved.

The Labor Party are walking away from the Hawke-Keating years, where there appeared to be a commitment to growing the economy, where there appeared to be a commitment to freer trade. The Labor Party are trashing those free trade credentials in attacking the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. You wonder why. I was contemplating why they would be doing it. To get the answer you only have to go to the former head of the ACTU, Martin Ferguson. Martin Ferguson tells us how the modern Labor Party creates its policy and how it comes to the conclusions that it comes to. I will quote from Martin Ferguson, because I think he has put it very well. He says:

Too many of that Shadow Ministry and the Caucus are almost as if they're prisoners of the union movement. It's the union movement now who funds individual candidates. They wait for the phone call from the trade union heavy to tell them what to do.

And haven't we seen that on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement: they wait for the trade union heavy to give them the call to tell them what to do. But, of course, when we hear from the Labor Party about jobs we know, including from Martin Ferguson, that it is often about their own jobs. Martin Ferguson goes on to tell us how the Labor Party look after jobs. It is not about the jobs of the workers; it is about the jobs of union officials. This is from Martin Ferguson:

… there's always been a very strong union involvement. And I must say, I think back. In the history of the Labor Party we always allowed, ah, the unions to put a few people in our state upper houses.

There was always a retirement, ah, pasture for those who had done a good job. Or some of them worked on the basis: if you can't put them in the Industrial Commission, you put the duds in the Senate or the … Upper Houses.

That is pretty harsh from Martin Ferguson. They are his words, pretty harsh, and I do not want to cast aspersions on some of my fellow senators, but if that is the attitude of the modern union movement—that they use the Senate as a retirement pasture for some of their lower performing union members or union delegates—then that is not a good reflection of the union movement's commitment to growing jobs and growing the economy. On the other hand, the coalition is committed to growing the economy and growing jobs, as demonstrated by the recent free trade agreements. (Time expired)

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

So we have learnt today that Minister Cash continues to fabricate figures, rewrite history and deny the indisputable. She has misrepresented the effects of free trade agreements on job creation by a factor of more than 30. In doing so, the minister ran perilously close to misleading the Senate. She has today, I note, corrected the record on this misinformation that she provided to the Senate. So what are we to believe now?

She has tried to hoodwink the Australian people into thinking that savage cuts to community legal services are nothing but a scare campaign. Today I would like to focus on this. The Abbott-Turnbull government's deplorable cuts to legal services have had devastating consequences for Australian women who are seeking to find a way to escape family violence. As Minister for Women, Senator Cash has again tried to misrepresent reality and pretend that the cuts are a figment of Labor's imagination. Tragically, one woman dies every week at the hands of a current or former partner. Domestic violence is a national tragedy, and it has gone on too long. The Abbott government sat on its hands. I am not going to argue that the new government has done nothing to address domestic violence. In fact, I congratulate those opposite on the commitments that have been made in recent weeks. It has been a long time coming, but there are some commendable actions. But it is simply not enough. It is estimated that Australian police deal with 657 domestic violence matters every day; that is one every two minutes. This is a crisis, and there is absolutely no justification for a government that says it is committed to addressing the scourge of domestic violence to maintain short-sighted and damaging cuts to community legal services.

Labor recognises and applauds the recent decision to return the $15 million to legal assistance services to help women experiencing domestic violence, but the Liberals' record on this is clear: those opposite have cut $24 million from community legal centres, those opposite have slashed $15 million from legal aid commissions, those opposite have hacked $13 million from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, and those opposite have forced family violence prevention legal services to retender for their funding after they were axed from the Attorney-General's Department. We know how these cuts have impacted in Australian communities. We have seen programs cancelled. Women in need are turned away at the door, and staff have been laid off. While we acknowledge that the government has been forced to walk away from some of these cuts, not all have been reversed. The reality is that its new national partnership agreement locks in future cuts to community legal centres, which will lose almost a third of their funding from 2017-18. This is not acceptable, and the minister has not been truthful about how hard these cuts will hit.

But you do not need to take my word for it. Just listen to the voices of people who will have to deal with the fallout—people like ARC Justice Executive Officer Peter Noble, who told it like it is when he said that arguments over semantics of cuts or non-renewed funding do not change the reality on the ground:

Whichever way you look at it, it will hit community legal centres nationally.

National Association of Community Legal Centres Chair Michael Smith confirmed that the deal locks in a national 30 per cent funding cut from 2017-18 and has seen immediate cutbacks in some areas. Mr Smith pointed out the clear disconnect between the government's words and its actions when he said:

This is at odds with the government's rhetoric on … family violence across Australia.

Community legal centres provide some of our most important front-line protections and services to enable women to escape family violence. Australian Legal Assistance Forum Chair Mark Woods brought the issue home clearly when he said:

Lack of legal assistance can be a major barrier to victims escaping violence or putting their lives—and their children's lives—back together.

If women are going to be able to do this, they absolutely need appropriate advice and support. As Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said recently, these cuts must be reversed, or we will not even have got to where we were before the 2013 election. If the government is truly committed to ending the scourge of domestic violence, this funding must be restored. If Minister Cash wants to salvage any credibility, she needs to fight for these cuts to be reversed and start being honest with the Australian people. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.