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

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today 16 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Cameron:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to condemn the Prime Minister's lack of empathy for Australian workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

It just scarcely gets there. I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to condemn the Prime Minister's lack of empathy for Australian workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet.

I rise to speak in support of Senator Cameron's urgency motion. I will read it again. He said:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to condemn the Prime Minister's lack of empathy for Australian workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet.

It almost needs no explanation, but I shall go to the matter. You have heard the term 'fake news', I am sure. I thought it was an American concept, connected with the last presidential election, the Donald Trump election, but I have to say that I think it has now infiltrated Australia and we are now finding this concept of 'fake news' becoming insidious in Australia. I would like to particularly refer to some remarks that Senator Seselja made to this Senate last Thursday. I am reluctant to repeat his comments, because they are so wrong as I will go on to explain, but I will read you what he said last Thursday in speaking on the very sensible piece of legislation that Senator Wong has introduced to reverse a decision of the Fair Work Commission in respect of reducing penalty rates in the retail and hospitality area. Senator Seselja said:

They sold me out on penalty rates. I think we got time and a half in the nineties on a Sunday. I was young. I was 19 and I joined the SDA in good faith, hoping they would do me a good deal. It turned out like so many others in the union movement and like Mr Shorten: they sold me and thousands of other workers out as well.

I did not think this sounded right, because I have some familiarity with that union, the shop assistants union, the SDA. It is a great union, full of great officials. So I rang one of these officials—Athol Williams was his name; he has been around for a long time in the ACT—and I said: 'This statement has been made by Senator Zed Seselja. Can we get this checked out?'—because the last thing I would want to happen is for Senator Seselja to mislead this parliament, particularly the Senate. 'Is it right that Senator Seselja was sold out?' I know Senator Seselja has had his problems. He lost to Senator Gallagher a couple of years ago. He got pushed out of the ACT by Jerry Hanson. So I thought perhaps I should feel sorry for him.

So I got this information checked out. And what did I discover when I checked out this fake news? Fake news seems to be where you say something that is untrue and then, to a certain portion of the electorate or the community, it suddenly becomes truth. Was Senator Seselja 'sold out' by this fantastic union? Let's look at the facts. My mum used to say a little knowledge is sometimes dangerous. Of course, that is the case in Senator Seselja's speech. What he seems to assert is that the penalty rate that he received on a Sunday, being time and a half, was a sell-out provision. Unfortunately for Senator Seselja the circumstances back in the 1990s, when he was working for Woolworths as a 19-year-old, was that there was an award that covered the Australian Capital Territory, the relevant shop award—every state and territory had a slightly different penalty rate; it was not like it is now—and the penalty rate in the ACT followed the penalty rates in New South Wales, which was time and a half.

So Senator Seselja was receiving time and a half. We checked out the agreement he was under. He was receiving time and a half, but he was also receiving higher wages and conditions. I am not sure whether he was casual or part time; it does not really matter; the calculations are the same. If he was a part-timer, then he was about 5.5 per cent better off than if he had been under the award. If he was a casual—and you have to make a few assumptions here—he was anywhere between 7.8 and 11 per cent better off. So this senator who got up in this place with fake news claiming he had been sold out by the union was in fact better off than if he had been under the award.

The reality is that Senator Seselja misunderstood his terms and conditions. Thank God he had a union like the SDA, which did not misunderstand the situation! They got him an increase, they got him a pay rise, and— (Time expired)

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

What a delight it is to be able to follow Senator Farrell in this debate. The decision by the Fair Work Commission in relation to penalty rates for shop assistants is 150 per cent, exactly what he claims Senator Seselja was on as a young man—and he says, 'What a great deal the union had organised for him'! You see, what has happened is that, since the days of Senator Seselja, the penalty rate has increased by 150 per cent to 200 per cent, determined by the independent Fair Work Commission established by Labor under Labor's Fair Work Act. All five appointees of this review panel were appointed by Labor and it was headed up by the former assistant secretary of the ACTU—you could not get it more Labor than that—and it determined that that 200 per cent penalty rate should be brought back to that which Senator Farrell just praised as being the appropriate level, namely 150 per cent. So isn't that an interesting observation by a former SDA official.

But the real crux of this debate is that the Fair Work Commission, an independent body as it is, which has to make a determination every four years and review penalty rates, has come to the conclusion that the current rate for shop assistants mitigates against the unemployed and the underemployed gaining employment opportunities. That is a matter that needs to be taken account of, especially when we know that there are over 1,088,000 underemployed Australians and about 700,000 unemployed Australians, of whom about 300,000 are young people. So the Fair Work Commission determined that this is an opportunity to get more people onto the ladder of employment.

Anybody who understands anything about employment knows that if somebody is in gainful employment their mental health, their physical health, their self-esteem and their social interaction are all improved—and not only those individuals but everyone else in their household. Study after study has shown that. That is why it is such an important good for the individual, socially and economically, to get as many people into employment as possible.

What we have in this country, and we have had it from day one, is a commission that determines what is a fair thing and you balance up. So the Fair Work Commission, having determined a penalty rate of 200 per cent, has now realised that that penalty rate is too high and mitigates employment opportunities, and has therefore reduced it back to 150 per cent, which it was, as confirmed by Senator Farrell, the mover of this motion himself.

Another thing that the Labor Party contributors to this debate will never tell you about are the enterprise bargaining agreements union officials do away from the modern awards where they have traded away penalty rates. That is the truth of the matter.

Mr Shorten was a master at it, when he dudded to the Chiquita mushroom workers, when he dudded the Cleanevent workers and when he dudded the Unibilt workers with the Australian Workers' Union. And, sure, in getting rid of some of those things he also just happened, on the side, to negotiate a $75,000 deal for a campaign manager for himself from Unibilt, and things of that nature—all revealed by the royal commission—there, black on white, for all to see.

The important thing to understand with this penalty rate regime is that the Fair Work Commission has now determined that, when you put that aside, the vast majority of people are not employed under award conditions but under enterprise bargaining arrangements negotiated by the union movement and the employers.

Let us have a look at what big unions and big business negotiate in relation to wages for a Sunday. If my family were to operate a bed and breakfast, I would have to pay my staff on a Sunday $10 an hour more than staff employed at a five-star hotel negotiated by a trade union. Can you see why Labor always loves big unions and big business?

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

We know why you want to give $50 billion to the big end of town, big businesses!

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

Because big business can put the family company out of business and the big unions love it because they have a more fertile ground in getting union members out of big businesses, because the close relationship that exists between worker and employee in a small business is such that the union movement basically cannot penetrate that market. And so, if I were to run a family bed and breakfast on a Sunday, I would have to pay my staff $10 more than the five-star hotel in the city.

If I were to run a family chicken shop, I would have to pay my staff $8 an hour more than the multinational KFC down the road. How do the union officials over there justify that wage disparity? Why do they not come in here with motions condemning the union deals done with multinationals like KFC? And KFC is not the only one. If I had a family owned hamburger shop, I would have to pay workers $8 an hour more than the multinational McDonald's.

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

You're just cherrypicking! Why don't you tell the real truth?

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

Where is the ranting and raving of Senator Polley about the poor McDonald's workers in the City of Launceston that are being denied this extra $8?

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

Why don't you explain why you want to give $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town?

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

Or, indeed, if I were a family greengrocer, I would have to pay my staff $5 an hour more than the local Woolworths down the road. Or, if I were to run a family pizza business, I would have to pay my workers $8 an hour more on a Sunday than the multinational Pizza Hut. Or, if I were to run a clothes shop—

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

Senator Abetz, resume your seat for a moment. Senator Polley, I notice you are on the list to speak, and you will have the opportunity. I assure you that you will be heard with respect and quietly. Please resume, Senator Abetz.

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

Thank you for that protection, Mr Acting Deputy President Back. You see, the Australian Labor Party do not like hearing the undisputed facts. Can they dispute these wage rates where workers on union-organised enterprise agreements are being paid less in the big businesses in town as opposed to the small businesses? I will not be dissuaded from pursuing this issue.

An independently run clothes shop open on a Sunday has to pay their worker $7 an hour more than David Jones. A family bookshop has to pay their worker $8 an hour more than Target. A family newsagent has to pay $7 an hour more than Officeworks. A family bottle shop has to pay their worker $7 an hour more than Dan Murphy's. A family hardware store has to pay their worker $5 an hour more than Bunnings—and so the list goes on.

The union officials that make up the benches of the Australian Labor Party have spent their lives trading away penalty rates. They have spent their lives setting up the Fair Work Act. They have spent their lives stacking out the Fair Work Commission with Labor appointees. Now they have the audacity to turn around to the Australian people and say that somehow the Turnbull Liberal-National Party government is denying people their just wages.

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

They are! You are!

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

Senator Polley foolishly interjects and says, 'You are.' Well, since day one from the formation of Australia, we have had an independent industrial commission—and so it ought to be independent. Indeed, when Mr Shorten, the man that traded away penalty rates for his workers on a number of occasions, was asked on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April 2016 if he would abide by the decision of the Fair Work Commission if they were to reduce penalty rates. He answered, 'Yes'—not once, not twice but three times. Three times he said he would accept the decision—a decision which now puts penalty rates back to where they were a few years ago when Senator Seselja was a young man. It is a penalty rate regime that Senator Farrell embraces. So basically what has occurred is that the penalty rates went up from 150 per cent to 200 per cent. On reflection the Fair Work Commission said: 'This is cutting too many people out of an employment opportunity. We should reduce it back to 150 per cent.'

When you have an independent industrial umpire, it stands to reason that sometimes you will agree with their decision and other times you will not agree with their decision, but you have to protect the integrity of the umpire. When they determined that the penalty rate should be 200 per cent, did you have the sort of outrage from the small-business community? They said, 'We don't agree with the decision, but, you know what, it's the umpire's decision and we will pay accordingly.' But now we have a leadership of the Australian Labor Party and of the ACTU that is willing to say to the Australian people, 'If you don't like a law, you can break it.' That is what the new ACTU secretary said in recent times: 'If you don't like a law, just go and break it.'

The Labor senators in this place were given the opportunity to vote on a motion supporting the rule of law in this country, and they denied leave. They denied, with the Greens and others in this place, a proper debate on this issue. So when you come to industrial relations and the Australian Labor Party, you see that they speak with forked tongue. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. They will say that penalty rates have to be protected, but then busily negotiate away the rates for their own deals. And then they have their own convoluted deals, where money somehow finds its way into union pockets.

This is a very important debate for our nation to have. Do we want the unemployed, the underemployed, the consumers of Australia to have greater opportunities? We on this side say yes, and we accept the umpire's decision. What is more, this will also alleviate the burden on some small business people who are either unable to open their businesses on weekends and compete with the multinationals because of the union wage deals, or they do work on a weekend and ensure that they and their family are all embracing the business on the weekend because they cannot afford to pay people. This decision will enable them to employ the unemployed and the underemployed, and that will be a huge social good for each and every one of them. In relation to police, nurses, firemen: their penalty rates are, of course, protected. Penalty rates are not being abolished; they are simply, by this decision, being adjusted by Labor's own independent umpire.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Tasmanian Liberal senators and members were to take time out of their busy schedules or bother to come over to the northwest coast of Tasmania and consult small businesses about penalty rates then they would know what I do: that the cuts to penalty rates would not be enough for them to open on a Sunday. It would not be enough for them to put on more staff. However, for those businesses that do pay penalty rates, the workers are going out into the community and spending every cent at their local stores.

Cutting penalty rates does not help rural and regional communities; it does not support small businesses. This is their bread and butter. You are cutting the money they spend on their power, their insurance or clothes for their children. If the Liberal government want to spark jobs growth, they would be better off using COAG for something that is productive and axe payroll tax, which is a tax on jobs and a direct barrier to business growth—especially in Tasmania.

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

We have had, once again, part of the truth being spoken in this chamber by Senator Abetz. We know that when a union goes to negotiate, it does not just look at the Sunday and Saturday rates that workers get; it negotiates better terms and conditions for its members who work for the entire week. It is just cherry picking for those on the other side to come into this chamber, day after day, and rearrange the truth about what is happening with unions when they go out and negotiate.

What I have asked, and what we asked in question time today, is: what is the modelling? Put the modelling on the table that the government has done that will prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that there will be more jobs in these sectors where it is now cutting the penalty rates. I guarantee you there will not be any further jobs in Tasmania, as Senator Lambie said. I guarantee you, when you go out for lunch on a Sunday you will not be paying any less for your meal. You will certainly not be paying any less for your coffee.

It is all right for those on the other side to say, 'We have to support the Fair Work Commission because they're independent.' Of course they are independent. But if the decision is wrong, then we have every right on this side of the chamber to stand up for the most vulnerable in our community, the lowest paid workers. It is just a coincidence that this is the same government that has failed to have proper representation of women on its frontbench. And here it is now attacking hairdressers and attacking beauticians; it is going after pharmacists, it is going after hospitality, it is going after retail—which are all dominated by women. We also know that it is talking about essential services being protected. When it comes to registered nurses who work in the aged-care sector, they will not be protected. The emergency services it is talking about only go to the nurses and doctors who work in a general hospital, not those in aged care.

We know that the government is very happy to give the big end of town, big business, a $50 billion tax cut at the very same time that it is now attacking the lowest paid workers in this country. They are saying: 'Yes, we need to cut these penalty rates because it's costing small business. They will not be able to open their businesses because it costs them too much.' I can tell you there are not a lot of restaurants in Launceston that are not doing very well. You always have to make a booking to try to get in. I am not sure if Senator Whish-Wilson has experienced the same thing when he has wanted to go out in his local community. It is very hard to get in.

The reality is penalty rate cuts are not going to bring about any more jobs. If they were, then they would have done modelling. But the Australia Institute has shown that in fact the financial pain that will be caused by cutting the penalty rates will have a negative impact on the economy and it will absolutely worsen the deficit. And there will not be any new jobs created. So to come in here and say, 'We're going to talk about the facts, we're going to put on the table the reality about these big bad unions and the way they negotiate enterprise bargaining agreements'—I have never been a union official, but I can assure you that through all my working life I have always belonged to a union. I believe that they are there to serve the best interests of their members. Those opposite can come in here and try to muddy the waters and make assertions about the Leader of the Opposition, but, at the end of the day, everywhere I go throughout this country this is the topic of conversation.

I spoke to registered nurses from the aged-care sector that came to parliament today. They know, as I do, that the topic of conversation around every dinner table and at every worksite is about penalty rates and what that is going to mean. I had to sit in a room this morning and hear the struggle that aged-care nurses and people working in aged care have to go through in trying to get a mortgage. A lady was telling me that she had to re-establish a mortgage after her relationship broke down. She was crying. She said: 'Without those penalty rates, I would not have been able to have a mortgage. If they cut these penalty rates, I will lose my house.'

This Prime Minister and this government have no empathy whatsoever because they come from the big end of town. It is in their DNA. Whatever they have to do to make sure that low-paid workers are kept down where they belong is what this government will do, day after day. People on this side of the chamber and the crossbenchers will stand up for those workers, today, tomorrow and every day to protect their rights. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the matter of urgency submitted to the Senate by Senator Cameron. The government opposes this motion and in fact denies the basic premise of this motion. The coalition respects the independence of the Fair Work Commission, and it was their decision to modify Sunday penalty rates in retail, pharmacy, fast-food and hospitality awards. It will help small businesses to open their doors and to compete on a level playing field, and it will help create more jobs.

It was Bill Shorten who, as workplace minister, established this review of penalty rates. It was Mr Shorten who called for the review. It was Mr Shorten who set the rules. It was Mr Shorten who appointed the independent umpire. And it was Mr Shorten who said he would accept that independent umpire's decision.

Labor is so hypocritical on the issue of penalty rates. As a union boss, it was Mr Shorten who was happy to make the deals that cut penalty rates to low-income workers. It was Labor that was happy for big businesses and big unions to lower Sunday penalty rates through the enterprise agreements. Labor is only now opposed to lowering penalty rates when an independent umpire is the one that modifies them for small businesses.

It is empathy for small businesses that seems to have been forgotten in this debate. There are over two million small businesses in Australia that turn over less than $2 million. Many of these are family businesses, either working for themselves on Sundays and public holidays, or not opening at all due to the cost of wages. Consumers are increasingly demanding that those businesses, large and small, operate seven days a week. By amending the Sunday and public holiday wage settings in the retail, hospitality and fast-food sectors, more of those small businesses will be able to meet consumer expectations, by staying open longer. In doing so, they offer their existing employees more hours—or they might take on additional staff, including some of the 259,000 young Australians currently struggling to enter the workforce.

This lowering of penalty rates on Sundays creates a more level playing field for small businesses. Thousands and thousands of small businesses have been competing on this uneven playing field against big businesses that have negotiated with unions through enterprise agreements that mean that they avoid paying those high penalty rates on Sundays. Let me give you a couple of examples. For permanent full-time and part-time staff on Sundays, a bed and breakfast, for instance, must pay $10 an hour more than a 5-star hotel. A family chicken shop must pay $8 an hour more than KFC. A family-owned takeaway must pay $8 an hour more than McDonald's, and a family greengrocer must pay $5 an hour more than Woolworths. The Fair Work Commission's decision will help small businesses open their doors and help them compete on a level playing field and create more jobs. The Liberal and National Parties will stand up for these small businesses who want to get ahead, and for the unemployed and underemployed who want to work.

Mr Shorten's hypocrisy on penalty rates knows no bounds. Mr Shorten was happy to make deals, cutting penalty rates to low-paid workers. He has always been happy for big businesses and big unions to have deals that cut penalty rates. He is only opposed to penalty rates when the modifications are made by the Fair Work Commission, the independent umpire, and when those modifications are done in favour of small businesses. Can I point out that the Fair Work Commission was in fact established by the Labor government in 2009. The commission was tasked by Labor to review all awards every four years. This is part of the four-yearly review of modern awards established by the Labor government in 2009. As workplace relations minister in 2013, Mr Shorten amended the Fair Work Act to specifically require the commission to consider penalty rates as part of that process. Labor appointed all the members of the commission who made the penalty rates decision. Mr Shorten owns this decision. He set the rules. He appointed the umpires. He has repeatedly said that he would respect the commission's decision.

In fact on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April last year, when asked by Mr Mitchell whether he would accept the finding—given that it was an independent body assessing penalty rates for Sundays—if he was Prime Minister, Bill Shorten answered, 'Yes.' Neil Mitchell repeated the question: 'You will accept them?' And Bill Shorten said, 'Yes.' Neil Mitchell said once more, 'Even if the independent umpire reduces Sunday penalty rates?' And Mr Shorten said: 'Well, I said I would accept the independent tribunal.' Mr Shorten said he would accept this decision. But for him now not to accept the results is sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.

When he was leader of the AWU, Mr Shorten reduced or removed penalty rates for some of Australia's lowest paid workers. Workers at Cleanevent were stripped of all penalty rates, with no compensation at all, under a 2006 agreement for which Mr Shorten was responsible as the national secretary of the AWU. The Melbourne & Olympic Parks Trust agreement, approved also by Mr Shorten in 2001 and 2003, stripped workers of all penalty rates and overtime, except 125 per cent penalty rates for work performed between 1 am and 6 am.

Since Mr Shorten became leader, the unions have donated more than $25 million to the Australian Labor Party. Last year, they not only donated nearly $10 million to the ALP; they also spent another $16 million on their own campaign to make Bill Shorten Prime Minister. Mr Shorten has made it clear that he will return that favour, and in the last year he has taken the side of union bosses ahead of the 35,000 owner-operator truck drivers, ahead of the 60,000 CFA volunteer firefighters, and ahead of the 300,000 small building businesses in the construction industry. And now he is putting their interests ahead of the small businesses yet again. When it comes to standing up to union bosses, Mr Shorten is proving himself to be the weakest Labor leader in a generation.

However, by contrast, the coalition understands that governments do not create jobs—employers create jobs. We stand side by side with the hardworking small business men and women who drive this country. We recognise that the decision to modify Sunday penalty rates will help small businesses open their doors, compete on a level playing field with large businesses and create more jobs. Many small shops, small pharmacies, takeaways and hotels have found it simply too expensive to open on Sundays.

This is also an independent decision. Just as interest rates decisions are made independently by the Reserve Bank to remove any suggestion of political interference, decisions about employment awards and conditions are made independently by the Fair Work Commission. And it is done this way to ensure that outcomes are evidence based and not political. The Fair Work Commission spent years studying the evidence, including evidence from 5,900 submissions and 143 witnesses. It carefully considered union and employer reviews and expert advice. This is the decision that the Fair Work Commission has made.

Senator Polley mentioned the impact on women—

Senator Polley interjecting—

and this is something that I would like to pursue a little bit further, because the Fair Work Commission—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Polley, expressly considered whether reducing Sunday penalty rates for hospitality and retail workers would impact on the gender pay gap, and it noted—

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

Order! Senator Hume, resume your seat. Senator Hinch, on a point of order?

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard Senator Polley. She has made her speech. Now surely she should let Senator Hume make hers.

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

Thank you, Senator Hinch. I cannot disagree with you. Senator Polley was heard in silence, and Senator Hume will be heard in silence.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. The Fair Work Commission expressly considered whether reducing Sunday penalty rates for the hospitality and retail workers would impact on the gender pay gap, and it noted that the evidence did not support this. In fact, when it comes to underemployment in the retail and hospitality industries, women are overrepresented. In other words, women are more likely to want more shifts in the retail and hospitality sectors. They stand to benefit from more jobs. Also, many women own small businesses—small businesses that will benefit from this decision.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More hours away from their family for less money.

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

Senator Chisholm, you will have your chance to speak. Senator Hume, please resume.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I also touch on issues that are pertinent to my own state of Victoria. During the Fair Work Commission's deliberations on this particular issue, they received a number of submissions from Victorian businesses, and I would like to repeat some of the quotes in those submissions.

Mr Williams, the owner and manager of the San Remo hotel in Victoria, who has 24 employees, said that, by reducing the number of hours that he works, there would be more hours available for staff—a positive benefit to small businesses if Sunday penalty rates were reduced. Ms Usher, who is the owner and manager of the Fitzroy Beer Garden in Fitzroy in Victoria, has 12 employees, and she said that she expects that the six-hour shifts currently worked by either herself or her husband would be taken by one of the existing casuals.

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

They've just got speaking notes and they just go through them over and over.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not going to complain about that, surely?

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

Order on my right and my left! Senator Hume, please resume.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are negative impacts from Sunday penalty rates on small business if the penalty rates are not reduced. They were emphasised by Mr Ryan, who is the owner of the Gippsland Hotel in Sale. He has 23 employees. He works on public holidays with his wife and managers, and does not roster any casual staff at all. Mr Bilston, the general manager of the Amora Hotel Riverwalk Melbourne in Victoria has 89 employees. He said that skeleton staff are utilised in the restaurant on Sundays to reduce the cost of wages due to penalty rates. As you can see, business owners can hire more staff and have more working on Sundays. It suits customers. It suits staff. It suits business owners.

This is an independent decision by an independent umpire. Mr Shorten and the Australian Labor Party would do well to abide by the rules of the independent umpire. (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it was the independent Fair Work Commission that came down with the finding, but I do not know why they came to that finding. They did an investigation into it, and that was the finding they came down to, but workers are doing it tough; there is no question about it. From the increased cost of living, they are doing it exceptionally tough.

But let us have a look at the other side. Businesses are also doing it tough. They need a helping hand. I have spoken out because I have come from a small business background, and I think I am one of the very few in this house that has actually employed staff, over a long period of time, as you have, Mr Acting Deputy President Back. So you have to have one if you are going to have the other. You have to have people go out and invest to open a small business. Let me make it quite clear: there were over 260,000 small businesses that actually shut down in this last year. So they exited out of being in business.

I have heard, from people coming through my office, that the Australian people do not want the penalty rates cut. I will support what the people want. Over 75 per cent do not want the penalty rates cut, and I support that.

That is why One Nation is actually supporting the tax cuts to businesses: to help out businesses as well. But if Labor are going to complain about this, let me just make it quite clear about the workers of Australia. Under Labor, there were over 100,000 457-visa-holders. There have been 400,000 ABNs handed out in the last year to non-Australian residents, and we have got 400,000 foreign students in Australia who can actually work. So what are you doing for those workers in Australia looking for jobs? Where is Labor now? (Time expired)

Senator Polley interjecting—

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

You are interrupting your own colleague, Senator Polley.

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

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is something rotten in Turnbull's Australia. When a company like Harvey Norman can pocket $900,000 in workers' wages because of a decision by the Fair Work Commission, there is something deeply wrong. It is really sick and deeply shocking. As the Fair Work Commission's decision covers the retail sector, hospitality and fast food, there will be many corporations pocketing workers' wages. Let's not mince words; that is the outcome here. There is no proof that more jobs will be created. There is no proof that society is going to be improved. Workers are going to be ripped off, and particularly those who are already doing it tough. We know that women dominate in the industries that have been targeted by the Fair Work Commission. In many of those sectors—hospitality, retail—about 55 per cent of workers are women, who depend on their penalty rates to make ends meet.

What we also know is that it does not have to be like this. I congratulate my colleague Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne and the Greens' industrial relations spokesperson, who has brought forward a very neat way to handle this which would allow the Fair Work Commission to continue to set rates but would put in place a floor below which rates could not go so that workers' wages could not go backwards. How reasonable that is! Mr Bandt announced that last May. At the time, Labor said 'no way'. Going into the election there was actually a unity ticket between Labor and the Liberals on accepting the Fair Work Commission's decision straight out. I acknowledge that Labor now are working with the Greens and Jacqui Lambie and that we have combined legislation we are all supporting. It is really excellent that it has got to that point.

Where do we go from here? We must now look at how we are going to get the numbers, because it is so urgent that this protection be put in place. Today's debate, and also what is going on in the community, where there is an increasing outcry to protect penalty rates, sends a clear message to Senator Hinch, the Nick Xenophon Team and One Nation to stand up for penalty rates. Do not do the Canberra shuffle, where out in the community you say, 'Yes, I'm really concerned; you shouldn't be done over; you should get your penalty rates,' but then come in here and do deals that result in the wrong thing being done. This is the time to stand up for the public good. That is clearly where we should be now.

It would be deeply wrong to allow penalty rates to be thrown out. Surely, when we come into this place our commitment should be to work to improve the lot of all Australians, not to allow the clock to be turned back. But that is what will happen if penalty rates are cut in the way proposed. We should not be allowing any of our forebears' achievements, which have improved the lives of the majority of people, to be overturned. Why did we win penalty rates? To allow people to spend more time with their families and communities, in recognition that they were losing valuable recreational time. But we now know that those protections and penalties should still be in place because so many people—40 per cent of young people—depend on penalty rates for survival, just to make ends meet. For them, penalty rates are absolutely essential.

We need to see this debate in the context of increasing attacks on the rights of unions and workers to organise collectively. And you hear it so clearly every time somebody from the government gets up to speak on the matter. The President of the ACTU, Ged Kearney, recently spoke about the prolonged, concerted attack on unions and how corporations are becoming emboldened by the anti-union government that the Turnbull government is. The Turnbull government, if it is allowed to proceed with this, will be driving further inequality in our society. In this place we need to recognise that public opinion is on the side of the public good. The public are standing up for penalty rates, and we in this place, through our work, need to lock-in legal protection for penalty rates. We can do that, and it surely should be our top priority.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity to put on record—echoing, I am sure, many other senators in this chamber—that my thoughts and prayers are with those people in Queensland affected by Tropical Cyclone Debbie. I hope that all those affected stay safe and I wish them a speedy recovery.

I rise today to speak on this important motion put forward by Senator Cameron, who has been a powerful advocate for workers, both in this chamber and over a long career in the union movement. I am also proud to stand in solidarity with Bill Shorten, the federal Labor leader, in opposing these cuts to penalty rates. It is something I am really passionate about.

It is not surprising that Senator Hanson made a poor contribution to this debate; I was expecting that. But for her to backflip on something that, so many times, she has been on the record as supporting and then come in here and fail to defend herself was astonishing. I was also astonished by the performance of Senator Hume, who tried to defend the impact this decision will have on female workers basically by saying they will just have to work longer. That is absolutely the wrong attitude and it shows the lack of empathy those opposite have in looking at these penalty rate cuts and the impact they will have in the community. You need no clearer evidence of that than what we have heard in the debate over the last hour.

It also adds to how out of touch this government is. On a day when it is pursuing changes to 18C to make it easier for people to be racist and discriminate against people, it also has on the agenda for later this week cuts to company tax. This is the agenda it is pursuing. It shut down the opportunity to have a debate on our legislation in this place earlier today. So that is all you need to know about this government: it wants to have tax cuts for multinational companies, and it also wants to support a pay cut for those in society who can least afford it.

Who does this impact? It impacts 700,000 Australians and, particularly from my point of view, 150,000 Queenslanders. This will have a significant impact on the Queensland economy, particularly on those in regional areas. I think six out of the 10 electorates most severely impacted by the penalty rate cuts are in Queensland. I would like to point out that electorates like Leichhardt and Dawson, in regional Queensland, are particularly going to be impacted by it.

I had the opportunity last week to ask a question of Senator Nash, the minister responsible for regional development, who basically admitted that they have done nothing to buttress the impact that this is going to have on regional Queensland. When you already see the struggling local economies in those places and add to that a looming penalty rates cut, that is only going to have a dire impact on those places, especially on those who can least afford it. Once upon a time you could probably expect the Nats in this chamber to speak up proudly about something like this, but now we hear nothing. They are in bed with the Liberals supporting a cut to those people who can least afford it.

Let me come back to Senator Hanson. It really is tough to keep up with her sometimes. Let us look back at what she has said on the record on this issue over a number of years. This was pre getting elected to the Senate, on Sunrise in 2014. When asked about penalty rates she said: 'You can't survive in today's climate paying penalty rates. Years ago it used to be sacred, a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday, now it's not anymore.' There you have Senator Hanson, prior to getting elected, saying that penalty rates were out of date. Then, in the infamous Insiders interview only a couple of weeks ago, on 5 March, when asked if she supported penalty rates, she said, 'I think, in principle, yes, I do, because we have to.' So there you go: twice in recent times we have had Senator Hanson on the record supporting penalty rates. But then last night, apparently, on Senator Hanson's Facebook page she claimed she has listened to people and no longer supports penalty rate cuts. What can you actually believe from Senator Hanson? She comes in here and does not give a proper account of what she is doing on penalty rates. She did not commit to support Labor's legislation. Again, we see flip-flopping and a lack of consistency from Senator Hanson that really goes to show what her motives are all about, and they are not standing up for those people who are going to be impacted by these penalty rate cuts and those most vulnerable Queenslanders.

What we know from a Queensland point of view is that we have high underemployment and an increase in casualisation, so increasingly people are relying on penalty rates to keep their heads above water. We also have record low wage growth. This is what we are seeing across Australia and in Queensland. On top of that, it is a priority for this government to make that situation worse by introducing penalty rate cuts that are going to have such a devastating impact on so many people throughout Queensland and Australia.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ever since the FWC decision on penalty rate cuts came, the attacks on the government and supporters of those cuts have been relentless, especially from the unions and the Labor opposition—even though the FWC was set up by Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten and even though the opposition leader said on 3AW three times during last year's election that he would abide by the umpire's decision. Labor has run a very clever campaign pinning the penalty rate cuts on the government, and that has washed off on senators who want to respect the commission's independence. The emails and the insulting tweets have not stopped: 'What would you bleepers with your snouts in the trough know about doing it tough? What would you silver spoons and nobs know about the workers and about being broke?' Et cetera et cetera et cetera, as Yul Brynner would say.

My personal position on Sunday penalty rates has been very public since my radio days. I believe they should be the same as Saturday rates. I know a lot of small business owners would agree. But in my maiden speech I promised I would listen. On this, I supported the umpire's decision. I have decided now to go to the third umpire, the review umpire, you the people—the Sunday workers, the single mothers and the university students who study all week and only work on Sundays. On my Senate salary an extra few bucks does not mean much. Losing a few would not matter, but I remember the days, believe it or not, when it did. This is not about my personal circumstances, or even my personal opinion, it is about what is best for the community and what is best for some of our lowest paid workers.

There are emails like this one that say things like: 'Everyday Australians rely on this income to make ends meet. We sacrifice our family time on weekends.' Another one: 'What justice is there by decreasing wages of the most vulnerable? My wife works Sundays cleaning at a shopping centre.' So I have consulted the third umpire, and the third umpire's decision is that cuts to Sunday penalty rates are O-U-T out!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the need for the Senate to condemn the Prime Minister's lack of empathy for Australian workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet is a matter of urgency.