Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Moore and Cameron today relating to penalty rates.

Senator Brandis was his usual self today. His mind was not on the job. We all know he wants to head off somewhere else, whether that is London or Washington, on some job that the Prime Minister gives him. He will not deal with the real issue here. The real issue is that thousands upon thousands of workers in this country will have their pay cut as a result of the penalty rate decision by the Fair Work Commission and the refusal of this government to stand with Labor and ensure that those workers' pay rates are maintained.

Senator Brandis immediately moved to the class-war issue when I raised the question of the lowest paid workers in this country having their take-home pay reduced. I am one of the few—there would be others—blue-collar workers in this place who have actually had to rely on penalty rates in my working life. I did not rely on penalty rates to get myself through university; I relied on penalty rates to feed my family. That is what my penalty rates did. It was not about saving the family trust fund from paying out a bit for the BMW to get me off to university; it was about putting food on the table, getting the kids off to school and putting shoes on their feet. That is what penalty rates did for me and my family, and that is why penalty rates are so important.

The commission has got it so wrong. The commission recognises that this will create hardship for Australian workers. This will create hardship for up to 700,000 Australian workers who stand to lose $77 a week. This is at the same time when this government is prepared to hand over $50 billion to its mates in the big end of town. Tax cuts for the big end of town; wage cuts for ordinary workers—that is what this mob are about. They have got no idea. They are an absolute rabble. They are too busy looking at theoretical arguments on anything other than the issues that are important for Australian workers.

One of the graphs I saw in the fair work decision shows the financial hardship percentage for workers in the fast-food industry. It says 41.5 per cent of workers in the fast-food industry, who stand to lose $77 a week, cannot pay their rent. Some 41½ per cent cannot pay their rent now and yet they are going to get their penalty rates cut. That is absolutely outrageous. It says that 15.6 per cent find difficulty in raising $3,000 in an emergency and 17.6 per cent could not raise $3,000. This is simply a statistic for this lot over here. The same as deaths on building sites are statistics. All they think about is simply a statistic. They do not look at what is behind it. This is another statistic.

They going to run the argument that, if you simply give business more money, they will create more jobs. That trickle-down effect has never worked. You know what is going to happen here? Business profits will increase off the back of the poorest people in the country and they will not employ more people. Workers will only get longer hours at lower rates. This is an outrageous attack by the Fair Work Commission on ordinary workers. It is a bad decision and this mob should be supporting Labor in turning it around.

This is some of the lowest paid, most insecure and most vulnerable workers in Australia having almost 10 per cent of their wages cut. If it were 10 per cent of the wages of a backbencher over there, they would soon be whingeing and screaming about it but, if it is a poor worker, they do not give a damn. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You always know when Senator Cameron has got nothing to say—he attacks the person. Sure enough, true to form, who was he attacking today because of the emptiness of his argument? Senator Brandis. I look back to the Golden Slipper on the weekend when She Will Reign burst out and had a win and Winx had its 16th win. If the Fair Work Commission were a racehorse, who would we be pinning it home on? Who owns the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party. Who trained the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party. Who rode the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party. And who was the Chairman of Stewards and the appeal committee of the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party. It is the creation of the Labor Party under the prime ministership of Ms Gillard. Indeed, the hands-on trainer was none other than the masterful trainer Mr Bill Shorten. They created the Fair Work Commission and stacked it with their own from top to bottom, but the story gets even better.

Mr President and those in the public gallery, do you know what the then minister Mr Shorten did after he had brought in the Fair Work Commission with Ms Gillard? He actually caused it to be amended. He caused the Fair Work Act, Senator Paterson, to be amended. Do you know what he wanted the Fair Work Commission to do? He wanted the commission to incorporate penalty rates because they did not previously exist. He wandered into the stable. He did not want to just win this race; he wanted to make it a one-horse race, and even then it fell at the turn and he was not able to get it across the line because specifically he directed, in that amendment to the Fair Work Act, that Chief Commissioner Iain Ross and three others of the ACTU be appointed to incorporate specifically penalty rates into the Fair Work Act.

What do we see today? We see the results of the masterful Shorten performance. The only problem was he trained the horse as a sprinter, not as a stayer.

At the end of a 500-plus page report—a whole ream of typewritten paper—what did Commissioner Ross and his fellow commissioners conclude? They concluded that it was in order to reduce the Sunday penalty rates down to those of Saturday's penalty rates—not to remove them altogether but to bring them back to Saturday rates. What sort of an own goal was it originally for Ms Gillard, for Mr Shorten and now for the Labor opposition in this place? It is the simple fact, as we know, that it is not governments who create jobs; it is employers who create jobs. It is this side of the chamber, it is the coalition, who will champion and continue to champion business, especially small business.

Mr President, you might have to declare a conflict of interest, because you may once have had one of the burgers from the Hobart Burger King franchise of which I was the proud manager. For the information of those on the other side, the vast majority of the 65 staff members who were in my Burger King business were (a) young people, (b) people who otherwise would not have been employed or (c) people who were underemployed.

As the Attorney-General, our leader in the chamber, eloquently spoke of today when he mentioned KFC and McDonald's—and he probably could have included other fast food businesses—it is not those who work full-time all week who are affected with regard to the changes have been made. We know very well it is those who are otherwise underemployed or unemployed who are the beneficiaries of this circumstance.

Again, this is an own goal for the Labor Party. They created the Fair Work Commission. They asked the Fair Work Commission to include penalty rates. The Fair Work Commission included penalty rates. It came up with its conclusion, and this mob have backed the wrong horse.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I learnt two very unfortunate things in today's discussion. One was that the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not follow the Townsville Bulletin when he is travelling overseas, which was quite concerning! I also learnt that if Senator Back puts a metaphor or a simile into the discussion, he will work very hard on it, as he did in that contribution around racing. I was going to look particularly at the impact of these penalty rate cuts on women workers. If I were to fall into your trap, Senator Back, I would be inclined to say 'fillies', but I will not go there!

There has been considerable discussion around the range of workers who will be impacted by the decision of the Fair Work Commission. I would have hoped that the Office for Women was doing the work to look particularly at what is happening to women workers. But so far, as I found out during Senate estimates, that work has not been done by the Office for Women. But it has been done by a number of organisations, who have looked clearly at who is reliant on penalty rates. It is truly concerning for all of us who are all too aware of the impact of gender on wages in this country. When we strive to ensure that we do have gender equity, we are not striving to see who can have the greatest cuts to their penalty rates. What we are talking about is take-home pay and reliance on full take-home pay to be able to meet those standard cost-of-living expenses with which we all struggle. The data indicates that the deepest cuts and the deepest impacts of these reductions determined by the Fair Work Commission are on women workers.

We know for a fact that the industries that are subject to this first round of cuts are dominated by women workers. Retail and hospitality workers are more likely to receive minimum award wages, and are then more likely to rely on receiving penalty rates on weekends to make sure that they are going to have an effective take-home pay. As other costs increase each week, each month and each year, when people who are on a basic award rate are balancing their budgets they find out that penalty rates are what they rely on to be able to make decisions that will impact on their status of living.

It is not wrong to say that, under the hospitality award, the accommodation award and fast food award, 54 per cent of current workers in those industries are women. Under the retail award, one that was particularly noted in the decision that was brought down, 55 per cent are women. Under the pharmacy award, one that we have talked a lot about in some of the discussions in a number of committees, 77 per cent of the workers who are impacted by the Fair Work Commission decision are women. Now we know that there is going to be an ongoing review of other award areas. One of the first that have been identified is the hair and beauty industry award. Eighty-seven per cent of the workers in that industry are women. So there is no doubt that a disproportionate impact of this decision will fall on workers who are women, and that should be acknowledged. In fact, the Fair Work decision has already acknowledged that this will have an impact on all workers.

My argument today is particularly about women workers, and that should be understood by the people who are supporting this decision. I am particularly concerned that this has not been an issue about which the Minister for Employment, who is also the Minister for Women, has been speaking. She supported the decision, as the leader of the government in this place has done, saying that it is a step in the right direction—backing up Senator Macdonald's comment to the Townsville Bulletin, which I am sure you are going to follow up now, Senator Brandis. This is a real impact on workers in our country that, particularly on the data that we have seen, disproportionally falls on women workers.

The Fair Work decision has been made. The government supports that. It is an independent commission—no-one argues with that. But what we say is that in this case we do not agree with this decision. We have indications that workers will be harmed. In fact, the Fair Work Commission has said that workers will be impacted by this decision. What they have not been able to do is say how they are going to mitigate this impact, and how they are going to work with workers to ensure that they will not suffer the kinds of consequences that these cuts will have. This is important and it will affect women.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to begin my contribution to this debate by pointing out that the real authors and owners of the Sunday penalty rates decision are those opposite, because of course it was under their legislation, by their hand-picked commissioners, that this decision was made. But, once again, Senator Back has outdone me. I could not possibly match his elaborate metaphor, a simile, as Senator Moore pointed out, so I will not go there. But I do note for the record that the decision was made entirely under legislation authored by those opposite. It was made by people predominantly appointed by those opposite and particularly by the Leader of the Opposition.

I will focus on why the Labor Party has walked away from their support for the independent umpire, when it comes to setting wages. As Senator Moore said in her contribution, they respect the independent umpire, just not when it makes decisions like this, when it makes decisions they disagree with. It occurred to me that that was very similar to an argument that was made in the media last week by another person associated with this debate, the new head of the ACTU, Sally McManus. She said we should abide by the law unless of course we do not agree with the law. Laws should be abided by as long as we agree with them, but if we disagree with them, if we think they are unjust, we should not abide by them. That is the modern union movement. That is the modern Labor Party: 'We will abide by decisions of the independent umpire if we agree by them. We will abide by the law if we agree with it. But if we do not we will go and do our own thing.' Take that into account the next time you hear that they support the independent umpire.

I am looking forward to further contributions in this debate, because one thing I have not heard yet from those opposite is why they think a Sunday is more special than a Saturday. I agree, people who are working on a weekend should be paid more. That is a fair and reasonable thing, and this decision will preserve that. But what is special about a Sunday that differentiates it from a Saturday? Of course, the historical reason that Sundays and Saturdays were treated differently is because Sunday is the Sabbath. Many people of religious faith believe that it is not moral to work on the Sabbath and that it should be prevented, and if it cannot be prevented it should at least be penalised and discouraged, as penalty rates do. Surely, the modern Labor Party in 21st century, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multireligious Australia is not seriously saying that people who have no special religious observance on a Sunday should be penalised if they want to open their small business or if they want to employ someone? I look forward to hearing from them why a Sunday is so special compared to a Saturday.

The Labor Party are not opposed to cutting penalty rates full-stop; they are only opposed to penalty rates being cut when that is being done by the Fair Work Commission. If it is done by a union in negotiation with a business they could actually be quite happy about that. In fact, you will rarely hear them come here and talk about the union deals with big business that trade away penalty rates. As we have seen in the media today, and as Senator Brandis and Senator Cash pointed out in their answers to questions today, there are union negotiated EBAs which do not just cut Sunday penalty rates a little bit—do not just temper them a little bit or bring them into line with Saturday rates—but actually cut them quite radically. The KFC EBA reduces it from $29.16 an hour, which is what is required under the award, to only $21.19—that is an $8-an-hour cut. The McDonald's EBA similarly reduces it from $29.16 an hour to $21.08 an hour—a very significant cut.

I have not yet heard any of those opposite criticise the unions that negotiated those deals. Perhaps that says something, because a modern union leader cares much more about the number of members the union has and the amount of money it has then what its members are paid, because what really matters for a modern union leader is the influence that comes from having more members and more money. It gives you more votes in internal Labor Party forums. It gives you more money to spend on campaigns to ensure your mates are elected to federal parliament and to ensure that perhaps you yourself one day will leave the union and enter federal parliament. So they are willing to do deals with big business that cut workers pay in exchange for—sometimes, that we have heard, in the case of Clean Event and Chiquita Mushrooms—financial payments from those unions or, perhaps, in other cases, in other industries, cosy relationships with big businesses like Woolworths, Coles, McDonald's and KFC, who are very happy to have a cosy relationship with the union that helps facilitate union membership and encourages their employees to join unions in exchange for a favourable deal that allows them to pay those workers less. I do not know why a union that really had at heart the best interests of its members would agree to such a deal. The only reason it would do that is if there was a benefit to them as union officials rather than to their union members. That brings me very neatly to the reforms proposed by Senator Cash today. I commend them in the future to this chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

George Orwell would be very proud of that contribution from Senator James Paterson. It was an extraordinary distortion of the facts and the truth. Here we have a situation where, all of a sudden, it is the Labor Party's position, that it was the Labor Party's intention to do this. I say to Senator Paterson, Mr President, that he will have an opportunity to vote against these cuts when they come before the Senate. If he actually believes that we wanted the penalty rate cuts and those on the other side of the chamber did not want them, he will have an opportunity to vote against them, to oppose them. If he also says that employers and unions should not be able to jointly negotiate overall wages and salaries that pass the better-off-overall test, that pass the independent umpire, I would be very happy to see an amendment from senator Paterson that actually outlaws that. I would be happy to support an amendment enshrining penalty rates when the bill comes before the Senate. If he wants to attach an amendment to that bill to say that you cannot trade penalty rates in any form, absorb them into overall rates, annualise salaries or even-out those salaries over a period of time, I would be more than happy to support it. Let us take penalty rates completely out. If that is what he is saying to business, that we do not want the opportunity to be able to do that, that is fine. Let him say that. But let him actually say that in the form of an amendment, not by just mouthing it over there. Let him actually move an amendment. I would be happy to support that and I would encourage my party to support that 100 per cent. That would actually clean up some of that.

What he misses completely is that no-one in this place relies on penalty rates. The people who rely on penalty rates are some of the people who are doing it the toughest in our community. They are people who often are not full-time people. They are people on casual rates, people on part-time rates, people who in many instances want more work but are not given that opportunity. Instead, they have to rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. We are talking about people who the commission itself identified as suffering hardship from their decision. That is what was missing from that debate. When I heard Senator Paterson and Senator Back talk about these issues I noticed they missed the point. Senator Paterson says, 'Well, why is Sunday any different from Saturday?' Well, let us support a proposition where penalty rates are moved to the Sunday level. That would alleviate some of the hardship that is going to be applied to the people who rely on penalty rates. It is no hardship for me, and it is no hardship for the people on the other side of the chamber. We do not get paid penalty rates. We certainly do not rely on penalty rates and we do not need those rates to put food on the table, to send our kids on excursions, to pay the electricity and gas bill and to pay our rent—let alone a mortgage. People in those circumstances rarely have mortgages as well. This is the other Orwellian proposition that Senator Paterson made and that I will just touch on. Senator Paterson talked about how it was, in fact, the Labor Party's Fair Work Commission and how it was stacked with all our people. He then went on to criticise us for not supporting the independent commission's decision. Well, of course, he cannot have it both ways in that respect either.

It took the Prime Minister three weeks of flipping and flopping around, wanting to work out where public opinion was going to land, before he would decide whether he wanted to say that, yes, he and his government supported the penalty rates cut, or, no, they did not. He wanted to hide behind the independent commission's decision. It took him three weeks to work it out. And remember that they never abide by independent tribunals' decisions, unless it suits them. When the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal handed down a decision they did not like, not only did they immediately overturn the decision but they also abolished the tribunal. That was their response to the independent tribunal: to abolish it.

Let us ask Professor Triggs how she gets treated as a statutory officer when some decisions come out which they do not like. They 'lose confidence' in the professor and they 'lose confidence' in the commission. We have seen the actions of some senators in Senate estimates in respect to that—absolutely appalling behaviour. This is a terrible decision by the commission and it needs to be overturned. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.