Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Defence Industry (Senator Reynolds) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Neill today relating to employment.

As the last cab off the rank to be promoted, Senator Reynolds, took just 16 seconds to contradict herself during a train wreck interview on Sky News on 10 March 2019. It might have been the fastest backflip in political history. One second Senator Reynolds was disagreeing with her colleague Senator Cormann's comments about wage flexibility being a 'deliberate feature' of the government's policies. She wrongly claimed that it was a suggestion by Bill Shorten. Having learnt that it was a comment from her finance minister, Senator Cormann, she performed a two-step, double-pike backflip. Two contradictory answers in 16 seconds is a record. I think we can agree that in this train wreck interview it was Senator Reynolds's fundamental lack of understanding of economics that was on full display. And to demonstrate that she still hasn't learnt anything, she couldn't even admit that she had mucked up in question time here today. Instead of talking about what her government is doing for wages, Senator Reynolds drove the train further off the tracks by saying:

Really when he's talking about wages, what is Bill Shorten actually talking about? He's talking about the politics of envy.

The only envy I see is from those opposite in their obsession over what Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are doing. No matter how many Liberal ministers humiliate themselves on television, their policy message to Australians is clear: they want to continue to have wages stagnate, they want your wages to be low; it's a deliberate strategy of their government.

Wages growth is the lowest on record, and the Prime Minister isn't doing anything about it. The Prime Minister's only idea is to pretend to deal with low wages by offering a tax cut to Australians. However, this tax cut is fundamentally lower than Labor's bigger, better and fairer tax plan. This is a divided, chaotic and completely out-of-touch government with no plan for Australia's future. Under this government, everything is going up except for wages. Wage rates haven't moved in years, and families are struggling to get ahead. Families in this country are struggling to make their own family budgets. Households and many families are having to dip into their savings to pay for essentials like groceries, petrol, power prices and their rent or mortgage.

As Treasurer, and now as Australia's Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison has presided over the lowest wage growth since records began, yet he wants to further cut the wages of hardworking Australians by getting rid of penalty rates. This is how out of touch this government is, and I believe that the Australian people see this government for what it truly is. They're heartless, they're hard, they have no compassion and they have no understanding of what's happening in their own community. All Australians need a pay rise, particularly those on low wages, but this government is not providing any leadership whatsoever on that.

Contrast that to what Labor have already announced as far as our policies are concerned. The only way to see wages increase, to have a living wage, is to elect a Labor Shorten government and to kick this government out of office. Labor will do what those opposite wouldn't do. The minimum wage shouldn't leave families in poverty. We shouldn't have workers having to work two or three jobs to try to meet their family budget commitments. We will fix the law to make sure that the minimum wage is a living wage. A Shorten Labor government will reverse the cuts to penalty rates, take steps to close the gender pay gap, and crack down on sham contracting, wage theft, and the exploitation of Australian workers. This is all that is needed. We have put our policies out there. This government has failed the Australian community and Australian workers. The only way to put more money in your pockets to help our local economies is to elect a Shorten Labor government at the election, which we expect to be announced in a matter of days. (Time expired)

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say, for the benefit of those who are perhaps new to this chamber, that we just heard a paid political advertisement about what Labor might do after the election. That's fair enough, except that I can talk about what the government has done over the last six years to bring about over a million new jobs. We've brought about an unemployment rate which is hovering around five per cent. We've brought a lot more people into the labour market. More women than ever are participating in the labour market. We can talk about what happens to incomes. Incomes are a multiple of wages and jobs, and jobs have been going up all this time. Fuelling those jobs is the fruit of 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, something that we have a challenge to continue.

What we will be doing at the election, if we want to talk about elections, is talking to the Australian people about the fact that it is a referendum on whether they want the policies which have produced over these six years of economic growth, employment, rising incomes for Australians and rising living standards through more people being in work, reducing the levels of welfare dependency, or whether they want put in place a whole series of programs which seek to raise taxes—allegedly to increase spending—and raise costs whether that be through environmental policies or increased regulation across other sectors of the economy. That's what regulation does: it increases costs. Nothing is costless.

The opposition put out an environment policy yesterday without a single model or costing. There was no indication, industry sector by industry sector, of what they would have to contribute in the abatement tasks that were set under the climate change policy and what that might mean in output and jobs. That's a mere detail, allegedly, which will be left until after the election, and that is the worry. We're being sold a pig in a poke. We're being told: 'Trust me. Just worry about the high-level aspirations behind our policies and the detail—the concrete detail—will be done after the election.' Well, this government has spent six years dealing with the concrete detail, putting in place the detailed policies that, tonight, will lead to the first surplus since the last Howard government, and that is important.

Setting up the place for surpluses, not as an end in themselves, will allow us—through the economic cycle—to raise money when times are good so that, when times go bad, we have an insurance policy to fall back on. We got through the global financial crisis because we had an insurance policy. We had no net debt because the Howard government, in its early days, had taken the hard decisions to rein in spending and find appropriate revenue bases. That's what it took. It took those hard decisions, and it's taken hard decisions over six years—firm expenditure restraint, the greatest expenditure restraint in 50 years, coupled with the recovery in revenue that is going on in the economy—for us to be on the trajectory to surpluses, which could mean, by the end of the decade, that we may have no net debt. The importance of that is, for the next time there's a national downturn or we're subject to an adverse external shock, we will have the shock absorbers in our budget to deal with it. That's what that's about. It's going to be a great legacy to our children and grandchildren. And going with that will be a legacy of a record $75 billion infrastructure package, which is going to be an investment in the productive capacity of the economy. Yes, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can have a better budget and you can spend on essential services and priorities, and that's what this government will be doing in the budget tonight.

Let's just finish on this point about Labor's policies. Labor says, 'We're being economically responsible. We're going to spend more, but we're going to tax more. We're going to have higher surpluses than the government.' The only problem with that is—as the economy now is delicately poised—if we run through $200 billion worth of more taxes and if we create bigger surpluses than the government is projecting—if that's what Labor want to do—that will actually be a break on the economy at a time when we need a steady economic policy which will see us through the potentially choppy times ahead.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly want to take note of the answer by Senator Linda Reynolds to our questioner, Senator O'Neill. I actually happened to be sitting down in front of Sky News the day it happened and I thought, 'Oh, my goodness, this is probably worth watching a couple of times,' because the two-step, double-pike performance was extraordinary. But it made me cast my mind back to something that the Hon. Peter Costello said way back in 2015:

Then there were the ambitious members of the Government, woodchucks desperate for advancement. They repeat everything, real or imagined—

in an effort to please the minister or the Prime Minister. There we had it, in my view. Instead of just saying, 'Oh my goodness, I think I've stuffed that one up,' and answering the question like a normal person would in the street, we had a minister who attempted to act as if nothing had happened. It was abundantly clear to the interviewer and to the TV audience that it was not a very good performance. It's been variously described as 'untidy', 'a train wreck', 'catastrophic' and the like. But it goes right to the heart of the difference between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. We actually do believe people are entitled to be paid more than the minimum wage, and people are entitled to, I believe, an increase in Newstart and an increase in the minimum wage.

There are many employers, reputable people, starting a business who simply ring up a government instrumentality and say: 'What is the minimum wage? I want to be legal, honest and above board. What's the minimum wage? I'll pay that.' If that is not reflective of what people need to have as a reasonable standard of living to pay their increases in their utility bills or their outgoings in education and health, then we, as a country, need to do something about that. This government has spent most of its time trying to drive down worker representation rights so they can't actually achieve a decent wage outcome through, dare I say it, a union. At the same time, they've tried to put the parameters of the economy such that it's extremely hard for increases to come through the system. We need to change that.

Senator Reynolds went from decrying the statement of her senior minister, Minister Cormann, to agreeing with it in the space of 25 or 30 seconds. That's quite an extraordinary achievement, really. It's more reflective of the chaos that's been this government—the 45th Parliament. We're in the shadows of it. We're probably not going to see it go on too much longer than the weekend. And we know this: there have been a number of changes in the prime ministerial position. More importantly, in my view, there have been an inordinate number of changes in the ministerial positions right down to the last reshuffle. It has not been good for this country or for any government to cope with that number of changes.

I'll place it firmly on the record here that I think Senator Reynolds is a hardworking, conscientious senator from Western Australia but, I believe—this is only my view, and I'm not shy about this—has perhaps been promoted a little bit in front of her capabilities or level of experience. That's what came through to me in that interview. She did not listen carefully. She wasn't aware of what the whole interview was about and she made a pretty fundamental mistake. It's not career-ending. It's not career-limiting, but you've got to be grown-up enough to just own up to it. Face up to it and say: 'There was a stuff-up. I made a goose of myself.' Own up to that and then move on. Learn from it. To observe, 'Nothing to see here,' and, 'I didn't do anything,' is really not the way. Hopefully, if our side of the chamber is correct, they'll have a reasonably long period in opposition to contemplate how they'll do things better next time. And I wish Senator Reynolds well in her future endeavours in the chamber. I've worked with her over a number of committees and I think she's a very conscientious and valuable member of the Senate. Hopefully, she won't have the opportunity of repeating the mistakes she made on that catastrophic, untidy TV interview with David Speers—who, coincidently, must be the most underrated journalist around because he keeps getting people to make elementary mistakes in full view of the camera.

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

I rise to take note of questions and answers from the opposition to Senator Reynolds. I have to admit, I agree with my colleague from across the chamber, Senator Gallacher, on one issue and one issue alone—that is, I have extraordinary admiration for Senator Linda Reynolds, now the Minister for Defence Industry and the seventh woman in the coalition's cabinet in the Morrison government. I think that's an extraordinary achievement. She is a highly qualified and a highly capable minister. I tip my hat to her. I find it, however, terribly disappointing to see, in one of the last question times before the end of the life of this parliament, that the opposition could go so low and be so devoid of ideas that their question time was devoted entirely to issues about Senator Reynolds and about preferences. Surely there are bigger fish to fry. Surely today, of all days, there are more issues to talk about.

Now, I understand that budget day is not a day for the opposition. In fact, really, whatever their message is today is entirely drowned out by the very good news that will be delivered by the Treasurer tonight. We will be delivering a budget surplus—a budget surplus that will be the first that we've been able to deliver in a decade, after the mismanagement of previous Labor governments. We are not just delivering a budget surplus but demonstrating that you can deliver a budget surplus while decreasing taxes, not increasing taxes—that it can be done without $200 billion in new taxes, it can be done without damaging the economy and it can be done without causing property prices to crash and rents to soar by imposing housing taxes. It can be done without punishing self-funded retirees. It can be done without punishing investors. It can be done without punishing businesses. And it can be done while delivering the essential services that a prosperous country like Australia deserves. There is record investment in schools; there is record investment in the PBS, with new drug listings on the PBS that will treat things like melanoma and breast cancer; and there is record investment in health that will fund the NDIS fully and will fund aged care—the essential services that Australians deserve.

The only reason that the coalition can deliver those essential services is that we have a strong economy. And, indeed, the only way to lift wages is to maintain that strong economy, because a strong economy means more jobs. You simply cannot get a pay rise if you don't have a job. Under the coalition, 1.2 million new jobs have been created over the life of this government, over the last 5½ years, in fact. One point two million more people have a job than when we were elected in 2013. Under Labor, however, the unemployment queues increased. A stronger economy means higher wages. Indeed, under this government, real minimum wages have been rising faster than they did under Labor, and they've been rising faster than wages in the rest of the economy.

Don't get me wrong; there is certainly more work to do. But a living wage is not the answer. A living wage is Sally McManus's answer. I might add that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, can't actually tell us what a 'living wage' is; no-one has been able to define what a 'living wage' is. He has, as we've seen, kowtowed to the wishes of the ACTU before—over and over again, in fact. Sally McManus's definition of a 'living wage' is 60 per cent of the average wage—with all her extensive experience in running businesses and her extensive understanding of economics! She's manning the puppet. She's pulling the strings. Poor old opposition leader Bill Shorten is simply the marionette. Sadly, though, he has form on this. He has a record of failure on wages. It was Mr Shorten who as a union leader stripped low-paid workers of their pay in exchange for benefits for him and for his union. In government, he did absolutely nothing when real minimum wages decreased and, in fact, wrote the Fair Work Act but never included the words 'living wage'. As I said, now he can't even describe exactly what a 'living wage' is. Certainly, Labor's $200 billion in higher taxes will cost jobs and will push wages down. (Time expired)

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of Minister Reynolds' responses in question time today to questions asked by Senator O'Neill. You'd think a policy as straightforward as a living wage would be something that the government could wrap their heads around. But, to listen to members opposite, it's really quite difficult. A living wage is, by definition, the minimum income a worker needs to meet their basic needs—to pay for food, housing, clothing and other essentials.

Under this government and its turnstile of prime ministers, wage growth has stagnated. We are seeing growth in the working poor. Australians are working harder and better, but, under this government, they aren't being fairly rewarded for their efforts. The record-low wages growth isn't something to be proud of. Making working families scrimp and forcing them into making decisions such as choosing whether to turn on the heater in winter because they may not be able to afford the power bill should not be a deliberate by-product of government policy. But this is something that confuses this government. We've had a senior government minister—the Minister for Finance and the Public Service no less—stating that record-low wages are a deliberate design feature, suggesting that keeping wages low is part of their economic strategy. It's no wonder that his colleague the Minister for Defence Industry is confused.

As we heard today, Senator Reynolds's initial reaction to the question about whether she agrees with her finance minister's assessment was telling. She ridiculed his statement, saying it showed a 'fundamental lack of understanding about economics'. But do you know what? She's absolutely right. Keeping wages low makes no economic sense. In the last five years, out-of-pocket costs to see a GP have gone up 24 per cent. Private health insurance premiums are up 30 per cent, electricity prices are up 15 per cent and long-day childcare costs are up 24 per cent. But, in the past year, company profits have grown five times faster than wages. So, when Senator Reynolds said that keeping wages low shows a 'fundamental lack of understanding about economics', no doubt she was thinking about how boosting wages is actually good for the economy and how stagnant wages have held back spending and put a handbrake on economic growth.

While the government seem confused about their economic policy and what it means for Australians, it's pretty clear to everyone else. Under this government the economy isn't working for everyday Australians. Everything is going up in Australia except people's wages. People are finding it harder to get ahead. Households are saving less, and families are being forced to dip further into their pockets to pay for essentials. Families are finding it harder to make ends meet. I'm sure we will see more of these stuff-ups and confusion in the Liberal policies tonight—tax cuts for big business and a few throwaways to the workers doing it tough.

In contrast, I can proudly say I fully support Labor's policies to reverse cuts to penalty rates, boost wages for workers and ensure that the minimum wage is a living wage. A fair go for Australia means a fair wage for working people. Labor's living-wage policy will directly benefit around 1.2 million Australians, or one in 10 workers. When low-paid workers get a pay rise, they spend it in the local shops; they spend it in cities like Darwin, communities like Wadeye and Borroloola, and towns like Alice Springs. It helps small businesses in Palmerston, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy.

As well as reversing the cuts to penalty rates to boost people's pay, Labor will make sure the minimum wage delivers a decent standard of living for families. Labor wants the Fair Work Commission to have the tools to determine what wage is required to provide a decent standard of living for low-paid workers. A living wage should ensure people earn enough to make ends meet and be informed by what it costs to live in Australia today—to pay for housing, food, utilities and a basic phone and data plan. It's not that hard to support.

Question agreed to.