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 Cameron and Urquhart today relating to penalty rates.

For anyone listening in, if you want to know the difference between a party that cares for ordinary families and workers in this country and a party who has absolutely no concern for ordinary families, look at Labor and the coalition. The coalition do not care about families that will lose penalty rates. The coalition do not care about families that rely on social security. The coalition do not have a bone in their body that worries about the implications of the ideological decisions on ordinary working families in this country. The coalition have an opportunity this week to support Labor's bill in this place to overcome the wrong decision by the Fair Work Commission that will take away from some of the poorest workers in this country—not just some of them but 700,000—and yet Senator Brandis today even tried to deny that they support the decision and that the Prime Minister supports the decision of the Fair Work Commission.

Senator Brandis says that the Prime Minister has never supported a cut to penalty rates. But I say that Senator Brandis should go and listen to the interview between the Prime Minister and Neil Mitchell on 3AWon 17 March 2017, when the Prime Minister said, 'Well, we do support it, Neil, and I've been very clear about that.' That is what the Prime Minister said, and Senator Brandis was just wrong. Senator Brandis is someone who is not unused to trying to mislead the Senate on a number of issues, but this is another misleading of the Senate. The Prime Minister was clear, and he went on later to say, 'The Fair Work Commission decided to back small business and we back small business.' So that is the position of this mob over here. They want to cut the wages of the lowest paid workers in this country.

When you see industrial groups like the AiG, the Australian Industry Group, going to the commission and arguing for cuts to penalty rates then you have to wonder who is next, because the Australian Industry Group are predominantly in metals and manufacturing. They have argued that penalty rates should be cut. As a former blue-collar worker in the manufacturing industry I know how important it is for manufacturing workers to have access to their penalty rates to be able to take home a decent rate of pay to make sure that their kids have a meal on the table, they can have a holiday once in a blue moon and they can take their kids on an excursion or let them go on a school excursion.

These are the battles that normal families have that that lot over there have not got a clue about. Most of them have lived in comfort and many of them have lived in luxury all of their lives. They do not know what it is like to front up at the Woollies check-out and wonder whether you have enough money on your MasterCard to pay the bill. They do not understand that and yet they would cut welfare for ordinary Australians and they would cut penalty rates for the poorest Australians. They do not have a caring bone in their body.

At the same time they say they will give $50 billion in tax cuts to big business. So it is penalty rate cuts for the poorest in the country and $50 billion in tax cuts for business in this country, including the four big banks, which are going to get about $8 billion in tax cuts. What is fair and reasonable about that? Absolutely nothing. Labor have said in our submission that this decision should be set aside. If you compare our submission that looks after ordinary families and working people with the submission that this rabble of a government have put in, you will see that they are chalk and cheese. We stand up for workers; they put them down. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the great Australian attributes is to accept the umpire's decision whether you like it or not. Senator Cameron quoted the Prime Minister on the Neil Mitchell program. Allow me to remind him of what his leader said on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April 2016. He was asked: 'Would you accept the Fair Work Commission decision in relation to penalty rates if it were to reduce them?' In response Mr Shorten said yes, not once or twice but three separate times. So before the election he supported the right of the independent umpire to make the determination and then after the election he seeks to repudiate that promise to the Australian people.

Let us be clear. Why did the Fair Work Commission make this decision? This is a bench of five individuals, all of whom were appointed by the previous Labor government, headed up by a former assistant secretary of the ACTU. You could not have gotten a more favourable bench to the trade union movement. So why did they come to this decision? They were mugged by the reality that these penalty rates were hurting the really underprivileged within our community—the unemployed and the underemployed. They were also restricting benefits to the Australian consumer and the small business sector.

Allow me to briefly explain. You see what occurred was the trade union movement, big unions, with big government traded away penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays. That is why big business does not mind the current award system where, for example, a small independent hamburger place run by mum and dad has to pay on a Sunday about $8 an hour more than the multinational McDonald's up the road. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the justice in paying workers less courtesy of a union agreement to the benefit of a multinational and help put the independent out of business?

We do support the decision of the independent umpire set up under Mr Shorten and Ms Gillard's own legislation. That legislation was specifically amended by Mr Shorten to consider penalty rates. That review was undertaken by the Labor Party appointed officials, including a former assistant secretary of the ACTU, and came to a determination which will assist the unemployed and the underemployed to get onto the ladder of employment.

Will they be relatively low wages? Yes, they will be, but that is as was determined by the umpire. Right, wrong or indifferent, when you live in a society based on the rule of law, you have to accept the umpire's decision. In those circumstances I ask myself: is it better that somebody be on a low wage or on welfare? The evidence is overwhelming. The mental health, physical health, self-esteem and social interaction not only of the individual but of their whole household is enhanced if they are in gainful employment. So there is the individual benefit, the social benefit and the economic benefit, which makes this decision of overwhelming good for the Australian people. That is something that needs to be embraced.

In all of Senator Cameron's offerings in this place you never hear him talk about the plight of those who never get the opportunity of employment or those who are desperately underemployed. This decision seeks to assist those people in that category. They are never spoken about by those on the opposition benches. We on this side say in all these debates that we as a Liberal Party were formed for the forgotten people in these various debates. In this debate the forgotten people are the unemployed, the underemployed, the consumers of Australia, and small business. I invite the Australian Labor Party to put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to deal with paragraph 3.5 of the Fair Work Commission's decision. I am on the record supporting grandfathering. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet again we are in this chamber having untruths spoken from those on the other side. Every day that we come into this chamber I am gobsmacked by the arrogance and how out of touch this government really is. When it comes to the lowest paid workers in this country, they have no empathy at all. It is as if they do not exist. I am not sure that they have ever met anyone who actually works in retail, other than being served by them. I do not think they understand the struggle that is facing so many of our fellow Australians, particularly those on low wages that rely on penalty rates.

The untruth that is spoken, yet again, in this chamber is that all of a sudden cutting penalty rates is going to create jobs. What a lot of nonsense! I do not believe that if you are to go out to your local cafe on a Sunday afternoon, after these penalty rates come into effect, your coffee or your lunch is going to cost any less. I do not believe that jobs will be created.

In my home state of Tasmania so many people rely on penalty rates. Under this government, who promised jobs and growth, there were going to be all these new jobs. There have not been new jobs. What we have is a vast amount of Australians, and particularly Tasmanians, who are underemployed.

The Attorney-General, the leader of the government in this place, who represents the Prime Minister, comes in here and tries to back away at 100 miles an hour, saying that the Prime Minister did not say he supported the cuts to penalty rates when, quite frankly, he did.

We should be talking about the facts of the situation. When unions go out and negotiate an EBA, they do that in good faith that they are going to improve the take-home pay and conditions of those workers that they represent. It is not like the minister, Senator Michaelia Cash, who comes into this place and cherry-picks what happens on a Sunday. The reality is that we know there are going to be too many Australians—700,000 Australians—who are absolutely going to be worse off.

When the government finally did put in a submission, last Friday, to the Fair Work Commission, they did nothing to mitigate the circumstances for those low-paid workers that are going to be affected by this cut.

Then we had the Attorney-General today trying to suggest that hairdressers and beauticians will not be caught up in this penalty rate cut. Once again, this is misleading and false. Next you will be trying to tell me that those people who work in the aged-care sector—where we are scrambling to try and get enough people to come and work in that sector as it is, because of the challenges in and the lack of remuneration for the very important work that they do for some of the most vulnerable people in this country—will not be affected. You may come in here and say that, but I can tell you that when you actually go out and meet people—I am sure I speak to more everyday Australians than you do, Senator Brandis—they do not believe you.

I am glad that we are yet again debating penalty rates and that you have yet again failed to address or answer the questions that we have asked of you in this place today, because one thing Australians understand is that this Prime Minister promised so much and has delivered nothing. He has been a complete disappointment. He is a dud. He is a fizzer.

We have heard from Senator Abetz, from my home state of Tasmania, in this debate. I cannot wait for him to tell the 40,000 Tasmanians that are going to lose on average $77 a week out of their pay packet. He has no idea what it means not to have enough money in your purse at the end of the week to pay for your kid's school excursion. He does not know what it is like not to have enough money in your pay packet to buy that last carton of milk before your next pay. The people on that side of the chamber are so out of touch. They are so arrogant. They will not even listen to the community.

I see Senator Bushby there, and I can imagine we will hear just more tripe coming out of the government side in this debate. The reality is if you have not walked in the shoes of those people who struggle, if you have not had to live on benefits from this government and if you have not had to go out and work on Saturday and Sunday while you are missing out on family time then you have no understanding of the real value of these penalty rates to everyday Australians— (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Senator Polley stood up, I was pleased to hear that she was going to focus on the facts. In this postmodern era I suspect that the facts and the truth are pretty unpopular, but I continue to be a fan of the truth and of facts, and I was pleased to hear that Senator Polley also appeared to be. However, then she went on to spend the next five minutes just repeating the Labor Party spin and scare—trying to represent things as happening when they are not happening, and talking about threats to other industries when it has been made clear by the Fair Work Commission that those threats do not exist.

Then, as proof that she is right, proof that she is talking about the facts, she says that people do not believe us. The fact that people do not believe us does not prove anything other than the fact that you are good at spin, not what the facts are.

Let us have a look at some facts. Let us see what the facts are around this decision. The changes will affect around three to four per cent of Australia's total workforce. There are about 1.1 million workers in retail, accommodation and food services who are not on an enterprise agreement. It is estimated by the FWC that between 25 to 40 per cent of them work on Sundays, and not all of those would work every Sunday. So what we are talking about here is maybe 250,000 to 400,00 people who might be impacted.

Under the decision, Sunday penalty rates are being reduced in four industries only, and those industries are retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy—four out of 122 awards. Public holiday rates are proposed to be reduced from 250 per cent to 225 per cent for permanent workers and from 275 per cent to 250 per cent for casual workers in five industries: retail, hospitality, fast food, pharmacy and restaurants—that is a subcategory.

This decision reflects modern shopping trends, where many more customers want to shop and more people want to work on Sundays, especially young Australians. Those are facts. They are trends that are apparent and are happening. Workers in industries covered by enterprise agreements, such as those working in the major supermarket and fast food chains are not directly affected. I will get to that a little bit more if I have time. No other industries are affected. The commission specifically said in its decision that it sets no precedent for other workers who work on weekends, such as nurses or emergency workers. Affected workers will still get weekend penalty rates—that is another fact that has been misrepresented—but Sunday rates will now be closer to Saturday rates, which remain unchanged. I suspect there are people out there who, as a result of the spin and the scare campaign that has been run by the Labor Party and the unions, think they are going to lose all their weekend penalty rates. That is simply not true. For example, instead of getting double time on Sundays, casuals on the retail award will now get time and three-quarters, while permanent staff will get time and a half.

As I mentioned, this applies only to small businesses, not businesses that are dealt with under an EBA. The fact is that most large businesses have done a deal with the unions and have put in place a bargaining agreement under which penalty rates have on the whole already been reduced. Thousands of small businesses have been competing on an uneven playing field against those big businesses that have negotiated a highly advantageous bargaining agreement with unions. That means they already avoid paying high penalty rates on Sundays. Once again, let us focus on the facts, not on spin. For example, for permanent full-time and part-time staff on Sundays, a bed and breakfast must pay a worker $10 more an hour than a five-star hotel would pay an equivalent worker; a family chicken shop down the street, a family owned small business, must pay $8 more an hour to employees than its competitors KFC; a family owned takeaway must pay $8 more an hour than McDonald's; a family owned green grocer must pay $5 more an hour than the local Woolworths; a family pizza takeaway must pay $8 more an hour than Pizza Hut; a boutique clothes shop must pay $7 more an hour than David Jones; a family owned bookshop must pay $8 more an hour than Target; a family owned newsagent must pay $7 more an hour than Officeworks; a family owned bottle shop must pay $7 more an hour than Dan Murphy's; and a family owned hardware store, there are not too many of them left these days, and this is probably part of the reason why, must pay $5 more an hour than an equivalent worker in Bunnings. The Fair Work Commission decision will help small businesses open their doors and compete on a level playing field with these large businesses and create more jobs. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot believe what I have just heard from that guy over there. He spoke for five minutes, and he could not even speak about one of the biggest topics to hit the Australian community this year without reading his speech. My goodness me, the Libs must be so proud of your effort.

I want to correct some of the nonsense mentioned by Senator Bushby. I am going to defend the unions, because in my previous life, I, as you probably did too, Madam Deputy President, spent many, many hours, days, nights, and weekends negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements with workers. The government comes out with this nonsense, asking why someone in a small family owned chicken shop is not paying the same as a bigger business. I will tell you why, Senator Bushby. I will make it very easy for you. Enterprise bargaining has been taking place since 1996. The first EBA I ever did was after I came off the road as a long-distance truckie in 1991. We traded off a number of clauses within the award, all ticked off through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, because we wanted to give employees the opportunity for a pay rise but also give some flexibility in the workplace for the employers. Remember those days, Madam Deputy President? Senator Bushby, you talk about the family hardware store having to pay $7 more an hour on weekends than Bunnings. Did it ever occur to you that the hourly rate of pay in those big stores for the normal Monday to Friday, for the 7.6-hour spread of hours, is a significantly higher rate? Did it ever occur to you that that significantly higher rate goes onto overtime during the week, it goes to superannuation, it is calculated in annual leave, it is calculated on 10 public holidays a year? Did that ever enter your brain, Senator Bushby, through you, Madam Deputy President?

People on this side have done the hard yards. We have consulted with workers. Whether you on that side like it or not, there are a number of employees, not just the lowest paid but mums who may work on the weekend, while dad is at home looking after the kids, who enjoy that higher hourly rate of pay when they are serving food and drink to you and me. I must say this so that the people in the public gallery can understand: the lowest paid senator in this place is on $195,000 a year, yet there are 30 of them on the other side who cannot wait to stand proudly to drop the rate of pay on a Sunday for some hospitality workers, some pharmacy workers, some fast food workers, some restaurant workers and some bar workers. You are proud of that, Senator Bushby? What really annoys me is that you sit there and you boast about it. To listen, through you, madam Deputy President, to some of the nonsense that comes from over there: 'How dare these workers want to be paid at a higher rate of pay on a Sunday?' It is because that is what they have got.

Senator Abetz said that Labor wants to drive people out of business. What about those businesses that now open on Sundays and pay their workers the current rate of pay? This is what your mates are going to do, Senator Bushby. You may have a restaurant or you may have a cafe or you may have a bar that opens on a Sunday, does its trade and is happy to pay the rates of pay to its workers, the majority of whom may be students. Through your stupidity you are going to give businesses that have not operated on Sundays the opportunity to open their doors on a Sunday, yes, while offering a significantly lower rate of pay than the business who was already doing it. What will happen next is that that restaurateur or that bar owner is going to have to go to their workers and say, 'You know, I was paying double time and I was happy to do it, but now I have these other seven, eight, nine or 10 shops opening in a shopping centre or somewhere around here I can no longer afford it.' He or she is going to say to their workers, 'We've got two options. We're losing business because they are on the Liberals' new rates of pay for Sundays, so we are going to have to either drop your rate of pay,'—and what employer wants to do that? What decent employer wants to go to their loyal employees, who have given up their Sundays to work—and the employer has been happy to pay that rate—and face them and say, 'I've got three options. I drop your rate, I do not open on Sunday or I employ someone else who does.' You know how it works, Madam Deputy President, the majority of these bar workers and restaurant and cafe workers on Sundays are casuals. A lot of them are kids. A lot of them are students working through university. You must feel so proud of your contribution, Senator Bushby. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.