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 answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Polley today relating to workplace relations.

It might be Senator Brandis's birthday today, but it certainly will not be a birthday present for any of the 700,000 low-paid workers who will lose penalty rates over the next few years as a result of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the coalition—the rabble of a government over there—refusing to stand up for penalty rates for Australian workers. They are an absolute disgrace. They simply do not understand how important it is for workers in this country to have access to penalty rates, to put food on the table, to put shoes on their kids' feet, to pay the bills, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to engage in society. They do not have a clue. They are a clueless mob, and all they have is this argument amount trickle-down economics. According to this mob, you can give $65 billion of tax cuts to business and that will create jobs.

Well, no-one around the world who has looked at what tax cuts have done in the UK or in the USA believes that absolute nonsense. This is a mob who are going to give $16,400 of tax cuts to millionaires but stay silent when it comes to the penalty rates of workers in this country. I have to say, at least George Christensen, the member for Dawson down in the other place, actually understands how important it is to protect penalty rates.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald can laugh and giggle all he likes. After many, many years in the Senate, he would never have had to worry about penalty rates. He would never have had to worry about putting food on the table. He has lived off the public purse for decades. Yet workers on penalty rates are not supported by Senator Macdonald, not supported by the Nationals party.

And I will tell you where the workers will be most affected: it will be in rural and regional Australia; it will be in areas where Senator Canavan lives; it will be in areas where Senator McKenzie lives; it will be up in New England, with Senator Williams. I wonder whether Senator Williams in New England has told the workers up there why he is supporting cuts to penalty rates, when he had an opportunity, when Labor moved protection of penalty rates in this place—why he voted against it. We know penalty rates are so important to the working poor in this country, yet this mob over here, on their $200,000 base salaries, do not have a clue about how important it is for workers to have access to penalty rates.

Even Senator Hanson, after her initial opposition to penalty rates, was forced to capitulate and support the Labor Party on that issue. If Senator Hanson can understand that, why can't the Nationals? If George Christensen can understand it, why can't the Nationals? I mean, One Nation are not the protectors of working class families in this country—far from it—but even Senator Hanson, with all her loopy ideas, with all her divided ideas, with all her hatred for some groups in this country, understood how important it was—eventually—to protect penalty rates. And she only did it for pure political purposes, because she does not really support penalty rates in this country. It is about time those opposite understood the difficulties for ordinary families, for the working poor, to put food on the table and to look after their families. For you lot on a basic salary of 200 grand a year to cut penalty rates is outrageous. (Time expired)

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

I am glad to respond to Senator Cameron. Talk about who has been on the pay! You say it is Senator Macdonald, with his years in the Senate. What about the free ride you have had all of your life from workers paying your union job?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams, resume your seat. I remind you to direct your comments to the chair and not refer directly to other senators.

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

That is a very good point. I am sorry I overlooked it, but Senator Cameron sometimes winds me up, because of the hypocrisy of those on the other side. They will not pay attention to or respect an umpire. I will tell you why. Go back to 1983 and the 'wide comb dispute' with shearers. I am probably the only shearer in this chamber. I say to those over there: the shearers started your party. But none of them could bend their backs and knock the wool off a sheep. There are only two shearers out of 226 parliamentarians in this building, and we are both Nationals: Andrew Broad MP and me. When the umpire made the decision in 1983 that we could use wide combs, what happened? Ernie Ecob and former senator Michael Forshaw said: 'Go on strike. Don't listen to the umpire's decision. Umpires are bad.' Those over there set up an umpire, Fair Work Australia, and they appointed the commissioners. The commissioners were appointed by the Labor Party. Then, when then the commissioners made an independent umpire's decision, those over there would not abide by the umpire's decision. Nothing has changed in the Australian Labor Party since 1983.

Let's have a good look at who is getting ripped off. Mr Bill Shorten stripped penalty rates from lowly paid cleaners with no compensation while accepting payments to his union, the Australian Workers' Union, from the company Cleanevent. Are they proud of that history? I bet—for sure! For years the unions and big business have been making agreements to cut Sunday penalty rates and even under the Labor Party we had two lots of penalty rates cuts when they were in government. Let's look at the classic examples. A bed and breakfast small business pays $10 an hour more for labour than a five-star hotel on penalty rates, a family chicken shop must pay $8 an hour more than KFC and a family owned takeaway—Senator Hanson will know about this because she comes from a small business—must pay $8 an hour more than McDonald's. Why do they stick up for McDonald's but not care about small business? Why will they not let the umpire give small business a break and employ more people? A family pizza takeaway must pay $8 an hour more than Pizza Hut and—this is the best of all—a family greengrocer must pay $5 an hour more than Woolworths. Why are they in love with big business? Why do they hate small businesses, who are the biggest employers in our country?

So we got the umpire's decision, from the umpire established by the Australian Labor Party. I remember the jubilation when I was in opposition when the legislation establishing Fair Work Australia went through the chamber. Those opposite appointed the commissioners, and they asked them to review penalty rates in four years. The commission did the review they requested when they were in government, and they do not like the answer. If they ever went to court and the judge made a decision, they would never accept the judge's decision. They would put up some stupid argument about why they were found guilty or innocent. It is unbelievable. As I said, it goes back a long time to 1983 with those opposite.

Senator Cameron is talking about 'those wealthy ones over there', such as Senator Macdonald. I remember that before I came to this place I was on $25,000 a year and living in a caravan. And we are the wealthy ones on this side? Give us a break! As I said, we are the workers on this side. You do not find shearers over on their side, despite the fact that shearers started the Australian Labor Party under the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine. No, no—they are just specialists at selling union tickets. They get the free ride. When the shearers were not getting paid any money back in 1983 because they had to go on strike, the union reps still got paid every week. They got the free ride. The Senator Camerons know when those situations are on. It is just amazing!

We had a situation where the Australian Labor Party set up the Fair Work Commission umpire. I want to make sure that Senator Sterle gets this message from me clearly. I am worried that he has not got it yet. They set up the umpire. Imagine if they were playing football. If the umpire gave a free kick to someone, they would walk off the field. They would not obey the umpire's decision. Well, they set up the umpires. The umpires have made a decision, and those opposite do not like it. They even appointed the umpires—the commissioners. They said to them to review the awards. Then when the decision came down against them they put on a sook, blaming us, blaming the government for their work. (Time expired)

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

When we talked about 1 July, we talked about birthdays in this place. It is the birthday of one of my brothers on 1 July, and I can tell you that he is not looking for any cuts to the penalty rates for his workforce and his colleagues there. What we know about those on the other side is that they are so out of touch. They talk about independent umpires, but they did not even make a submission on behalf of Australian workers. You did not even make a submission. What we have always said is that there needs to be protection for the lowest-paid workers in this country. If they are giving up their time to serve us on a Sunday in hospitality or in retail, they should be compensated for being away from their families. I do not know anyone who goes out for lunch on a Sunday afternoon who is resentful of paying a little bit more. I do not know anyone who is prepared to complain about that.

But what I do know is that, on 1 July, in my home state of Tasmania, there are some 40,000 Tasmanians who will be worse off. We already know that because we talk about it in this place all the time. Senator Duniam is here. He understands the economic difficulties that we have in Tasmania. We have a very low paid workforce. That workforce cannot afford to lose that $77 a week.

Those on the other side talk about small business and how they are the champions of small business. They lecture us all the time. The reality of life is that small businesses rely on everyday Australians to keep their businesses turning over. But I can assure you that those people who work in hospitality or retail, or as hairdressers or aged-care workers expend all of their weekly salary. They have to do that. They do not have money to put away. They need those penalty rates to ensure that they can pay their bills, meet their mortgage payments or pay their rent, and go to the doctor. That is the reality. I can assure you that I very much look forward to being in this place in the coming months, when we come back to this chamber after the break, because I guarantee that I will be vindicated for saying that there will not be any further increase in jobs in small businesses in Tasmania. That is because there will not be. They will be pocketing that money—that is what they will be doing—and there will not be any flow-on effect to the Tasmanian economy.

We have spoken time and time again about 1 July and what is going to happen with these penalty rate cuts. Let's not forget that this government had ample opportunity to support the bill that we introduced into the House of Representatives that was supporting the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017. The government have refused to support it. Today is the last day of sittings—maybe we will sit tomorrow; that remains to be seen—and this government can still act to support that legislation to protect some of the lowest-paid workers in this country.

Why is it that the government, when they come in here and lecture us about the big end of town and the great saviours that they are of small business, are then giving the millionaires of this country $16,400 on 1 July?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The millionaires!

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

Senator Duniam is saying, 'Hear, hear!'

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually said, 'The millionaires!' Don't verbal me.

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

Do you know what is really interesting? And the Liberal Senate team from Tasmania are very good at it. They pretend that they are lions when they are down in Tasmania and that they are going to stand up for Tasmanians; but when they come in here to this place, they are pussycats. They do it in just the same way that the member for Dawson, George Christensen, espoused in his electorate that he supports penalty rates. Yes, he crossed the floor, but he did that knowing full well that it would not change the outcome of that vote. They are crocodile tears. He is like every other person who sits on that side of the chamber and on that side in the other place who supports these cuts to penalty rates: they are so out of touch and they are so arrogant.

I remember making these same comments in relation to the Howard government—how out of touch and arrogant they were. This government, under Malcolm Turnbull, could not be any further out of touch or more arrogant than they have already demonstrated they are in this place all week, when they would not even condemn Senator Hanson for her outrageous— (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure, and it seems to be a regular occurrence, that I get to follow my colleague Senator Polley on various debates in this chamber. I am pleased to once again have that opportunity and to contribute to the motion to take note of the answer given by Senator Brandis on the issue of penalty rates. I think most of the points that Senator Williams made are absolutely salient to this debate. The facts are that Labor created the Fair Work Commission, Labor appointed the commissioners and, indeed, Labor said they would abide by the decision. It was a point that was made by the Attorney in his answer today. We can all recall that radio interview by the opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten. When quizzed repeatedly as to whether or not the Labor Party would accept the outcome, the final decision, of the Fair Work Commission when it came to penalty rates, repeatedly he said yes. But now we find ourselves in a situation where that is not the case. You have to remember that when we consider this issue and the points that have been made by those opposite.

I think it is important, though, to talk about what actually creates jobs, improves employment conditions and increases people's earning capacity. We have talked about small business in this debate a lot. Senator Polley made a couple of comments during question time today, by way of interjection, in relation to small businesses. Senator Polley referred to those people who will be the recipients of the benefits of the enterprise tax plan as 'millionaires'. I would not make the argument that people who run small businesses are millionaires. I would not argue either, as Senator Polley did, that those people will keep the benefits of the enterprise tax plan for themselves and just pocket them. I do not agree with that. That is what Senator Polley thinks they will do, but I do not agree.

I would love to take Senator Polley down to a small business. We could go together to one of those nice cafes in Evandale and talk about penalty rates. In fact I might extend an invitation to her next week when we are down in town. We can talk to the proprietor of that cafe about how penalty rates affect their business and how they might close because people do not want to pay the surcharge. That was the point that the proprietor of a cafe in Evandale made to me when I was recently there. Indeed, Senator Polley made the point that people are happy to pay that little bit extra to cover the cost of penalty rates on a Sunday or Monday, but then in the same debate Senator Polley said, 'Those people who are working in aged care, those people who are on penalty rates, they have no money.' You cannot have it both ways. Either people have money to spend or they do not. I think that contradiction highlights just how political this is, and that it is not a substantial debate about real issues.

The other point that Senator Williams made in his contribution was about the difference in employee pay conditions that small businesses face against those that big businesses face. To highlight the hypocrisy there, again we go through that list. Look at the family newsagent, the small business, that has to pay an employee a Sunday rate of $37.05 per hour, the award penalty rate for 2014-15, as opposed to the Officeworks Sunday rate of $30.05 an hour under the union agreement. The family greengrocer pays $37.05 per hour under the award penalty rate; Woolworths, the big multinational, pays a Sunday rate of $31.79 an hour under the union agreement. It goes on and on. Senator Williams mentioned McDonald's, comparing that to the family owned takeaway: $29.16 per hour under the award penalty rate; $21.08 per hour under the union agreement at McDonald's. We have to look at those facts. We have to take all of these things into account.

You cannot come in here and scream about the things that you have screamed about—injustices against workers in this country—when union agreements are delivering less for the people who are covered by them than the penalty rates that apply to those in small businesses, which cannot absorb massive increases in costs; are largely, as Senator Cameron pointed out, based in rural and regional communities; and do not have multiple outlets that can cross-subsidise one another. These are the things we have to remember when it comes to regional employment, which is something we talk about a lot in these debates. Burnie is different to Sydney. We need to protect small businesses, which create jobs in these small communities. The rates they face—those I read out—compared to those of multinationals and other large businesses demonstrate that it is all hypocrisy, froth and bubble. It is not actually about protecting jobs and supporting businesses. (Time expired)

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

I want to put a different angle on this debate as I rise to contribute to taking note of questions to ministers. I just want make it very clear to those poor devils stuck in here listening to some of the nonsense here: I actually am a former small businessman. I come from a trucking background, with three generations of truckies. I had the privilege of being a rank-and-file employee, where I learnt my skills as a furniture removalist, going into long distance trucking to buy my own. I had to actually put the family house on the line. My wife and I had no idea how we were going to pay off our debt of $100,000 or so back in 1980 when the truck was about $30,000.

I want to talk from the heart—and I know what it means—when we start talking about union collective agreements. Senator Duniam, who is on his way out of the chamber, had a crack at union agreements. These collective agreements under the enterprise bargaining structure are where the employer speaks to the employees and they may come to an arrangement where there is an increase in base pay for the normal 38 hours. It will mean an increase in their superannuation. It will be an increase that affects their holiday pay, their sick leave and all sorts of stuff. If they have traded off a higher penalty rate for the weekend then it is because it has been picked up in the ordinary hours. That is how that happens. But those opposite forget to say that.

But I want to talk about penalty rates. When I was cutting my teeth in furniture removals with an old company called Ansett, which is no longer with us, unfortunately, the cream on the cake at the end of the week was our penalty rates. After moving furniture back then for eight hours a day—it was not 7.6 hours and RDOs—we had the opportunity, because the boss came out and said, 'We need you to keep working because we have to start loading the truck for Darwin and the truck the Sydney. Will you stay back?' You jumped at the opportunity and you did so purely for the reason that not only were you going to get more pay but you got an extra rate. That was the cream on the cake—the icing on the cake. And then if you had the opportunity on the weekend to do bush runs as an offsider or as an offsider on office removals, guess what? The first two hours were time and a half and then double time. For that I had to give up my footy career. I was a state schoolboy footballer. I did not have to, but I wanted to, because I wanted to carve out a living. I wanted to take that step forward to buy that block of land so my girlfriend, who I am still married to 35 years later, and I could afford to build a house on it. I have no fear with people making a good dollar. But I understand that it can get tough for employers. Because of penalty rates they have to make the decision, if they are paying the penalty rates, to not open the doors. I get that. But when we start talking about penalty rate cuts we are not talking about phasing it in over the next 10 years in a grandfathering clause. We are talking about the true possibility or probability that 700,000 Australians will cop a pay cut from 1 July.

Who are those 700,000? I have no idea. But what I do know, and I think I am pretty close on this, is that the majority of them will be youngsters. The majority will be either kids at school who have a part-time job on the weekend at Red Rooster, Hungry Jacks, Woolworths, Coles, at the local delicatessen, or wherever it may be. I also know that they will probably be paying their way through university. There are probably university students who study like heck all week and, then, while the rest of us are enjoying the football or going out to family functions, they are working in a pub, or a restaurant, or a nightclub or whatever it may be. So please tell me this: if we are going to have a balanced argument, how is it fair when you consider what all of us in here had previously. And I don't think I am the only one who had to rely on penalty rates so I could live my Australian dream and buy my block of land. And how proud was I to get my first EJ station wagon, having wondered where the hell am was going to get 280 bucks for a car, but we managed to do it. Then I progressed to my Monaro, and that made me even happier. But I still for the life of me cannot see how it is fair for us sitting in this chamber and in the other chamber to say—to coin a phrase—now we are okay. We have our homes and probably most of us own our homes and have put our kids through university—or, in my fortunate position, my son followed in my footsteps as a truckie. But is it all right for us to get there now and pull the trapdoor up behind us, and say, 'It is all right for us, but you, the next generation, are not getting it'?

I really struggle with this argument. For the life of me I cannot understand the ridiculous argument where greed is okay if it is us. But all of a sudden we have gone to, 'We have it, so why should the next generation? Those employers really need a lift up.' If you want to give the employers a lift up, why don't you get fair dinkum? You tax the living bejesus out of them at every opportunity. From the time they wake up to the time they close their eyes at night they are battling red tape. They are battling taxes. This is just fairy floss. You can put as many hundreds and thousands on that sandwich, but it is still a you-know-what sandwich. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.