Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The government’s attack on the living standards of Australian families by legislating away hard won conditions of employment and, as a consequence, reducing their take-home pay is conclusively proved by the Spotlight AWA.

John Howard’s 2c an hour race to the bottom has begun. The government, in this matter, are guilty as charged. The Spotlight AWA has sprung them, and what is now in the spotlight is the government’s race to the bottom. For the princely sum of 2c an hour, we now know that all those conditions and entitlements that Australian working families have come to rely upon to make up an important part of their take-home pay and to enable them to pay their mortgages are now gone for the princely sum of 2c an hour. Knowing John Howard as I do, if he had the chance he would try to round the 2c an hour down.

We have had two days in question time on the Spotlight AWA, and what do we know? Firstly we know that Spotlight is Australia’s largest fabric, craft and home decorating superstore. This is no fly-by-night, walk-in, walk-out employer in a corner store. This is a major employer, with revenue exceeding $600 million, nearly 90 stores operating in Australia and nearly 100 across the region, three million square feet of floor space and 5,000 to 6,000 employees.

If you look at the conduct of Spotlight, although we might be very, very angry about the outcome, it is true to say that they have conducted themselves appropriately and in accordance with the law that the government has set for the nation. I made the point yesterday that if you go to Spotlight’s web site you will find that there is a capacity for people to apply for a job with Spotlight online. Also on that website you will find that attached to the application for employment is advice from the Australian government’s Office of Employment Advocate, which details the government’s so-called minimum conditions and standards. So Spotlight have made it crystal clear that, if you apply for an AWA and a job with Spotlight, there are five minimum standards: a minimum wage, four weeks paid annual leave, 10 days paid personal carer’s leave, 52 weeks unpaid parental leave and maximum ordinary hours of work of 38 hours per week.

So Spotlight have made it crystal clear that their AWA is consistent with those minimum standards. They then proceed to do what the government’s legislation points them in the direction of—to knock off all the other conditions and entitlements for the princely sum of 2c an hour, which is precisely what John Howard wants them to do. It is not as though John Howard has wanted them to do this only since 27 March this year. John Howard has wanted employers to do that since the 1990s. This is precisely the policy approach that he, as the Liberal Party’s shadow minister for industrial relations, took to the 1993 federal election under the guise of Jobsback. Just as the Australian community threw out Fightback on that occasion, it also threw out Jobsback. Chastened by that experience, it is little wonder that, on this occasion, we heard nothing about this in the run-up to the last election.

That, I think, is a very appropriate starting point, because it has been interesting to see the responses in the media today to the Spotlight AWA, to which we drew attention in the parliament yesterday. Annette Harris, the 57-year-old Coffs Harbour employee who was presented with the AWA, said:

I thought it was an insult; absolutely disgusting. I voted Liberal all my life, but there’s no way I’d sign up to this.

She voted Liberal all her life. Did John Howard tell her anything about these matters in the run-up to the last election? No, on the contrary: at the Liberal Party’s policy launch of its industrial relations policy in Brisbane in the course of the 2004 campaign, John Howard was expressly asked whether he was proposing to reduce the number of allowable matters, and he said no. The Prime Minister was asked in that election campaign, ‘Are you proposing to reduce the number of allowable matters?’ and he said no. That was a disingenuous misleading of the Australian people—then and now.

We find the General Manager Marketing of Spotlight making it clear that Spotlight are conducting themselves in the way in which the government’s legislation points them. The General Manager Marketing is reported today as saying:

We are doing what we were told to do by the legislators.

…         …         …

We are just doing whatever we are required to do to meet the minimum conditions set out by the Australian Fair Pay Commission.

They got that wrong, but they know that they are required to meet minimum conditions. He was further reported as saying:

Our AWA obviously meets all of the Work Choices requirements ... which includes all those five minimum conditions ...

…     …         …

We’ve been very careful to make sure it complies with everything. We are not the ones writing the laws. Like any other legislation we fall under, we follow it.

So we are just doing what the legislation of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations tells us to do. When I put to the Prime Minister today, ‘Isn’t this just the start of your 2c an hour race to the bottom?’ he said, ‘No, none of that.’ Why, then, do we find Mr McKendry, Chief Executive of the National Retail Association, the formal industry organisation for retailers, say this in respect of the Spotlight AWA:

Far from being defensive about it, the National Retail Association applauds it because we think a lot of other retailers will follow Spotlight’s lead.

…            …            …

We think it’s pretty ... smart ...

…            …            …

We think a lot of other retailers will follow Spotlight’s lead.

That is the Prime Minister’s, the Liberal Party’s and the National Party’s 2c an hour race to the bottom—the shifting of part of the economy from the wages section of the economy to the profit section of the economy, encouraged by the government’s legislation. That is the Liberal Party’s and the National Party’s individual, joint and several, collective 2c an hour race to the bottom.

Let us very clearly understand what the Spotlight AWA is all about. Today the Prime Minister was asked by both me and the Leader of the Opposition: ‘Isn’t it the case that, consistent with the legislation, the AWA offered by Spotlight gives 2c an hour for losing penalty rates, overtime payments, rest breaks, incentive based payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings and public holidays?’ The Prime Minister said, ‘I made that clear when the legislation was going through the House.’ What the Prime Minister always made clear when the legislation was going through the House was that his defence mechanism was always that, in the absence of explicit provisions to the contrary, there is a default provision in the new policy which will guarantee the penalty rates and loadings in the award. Time after time I would say publicly, ‘All that can go with a one-line stroke of a pen,’ but on more than one occasion the Prime Minister and the minister said, ‘No, that’s not the case.’ So what do we find now in clause 20 of Spotlight’s AWA? A one-line throwaway stroke of the pen which sells down the river rest breaks, incentive based payments and bonuses, annual leave loadings, public holidays, loadings for overtime or shiftwork and penalty rates, including for work on public holidays. They are all sold down the river for the princely sum of 2c an hour at the stroke of a pen.

When he knows he is in trouble the Prime Minister likes to say, ‘Oh, I wouldn’t take that quotation at its face value.’ But in August last year, when public concern about the government’s proposals was at the height of interest and concern, the Prime Minister went on one of his favourite radio stations and said to Alan Jones:

... it would be absurd and unfair and unreasonable if somebody has to work on a public holiday that that person isn’t compensated by being paid whatever it is, the double time or the time and a half ...

Not even the Prime Minister would be able to find wriggle room to get out of that one. Do you know what the compensation is now? It is 2c an hour. That is what you would get under the Spotlight AWA—and the Prime Minister says it would be absurd, unfair and unreasonable if someone had to work on a public holiday if they were not compensated properly.

Currently, under the New South Wales award, if you work on a public holiday you get double time and a half, or $35.70 per hour. Under the Spotlight AWA you get $14.30 an hour. So much for John Howard’s hand-on-heart commitment to Alan Jones and the Australian people that it would be ‘absurd, unfair and unreasonable to not compensate someone properly for working on a public holiday’. That is just one example. Let us look at what the Spotlight AWA means. To Annette Harris it meant that, for the princely sum of 2c an hour, she lost $90 a week. That is what it meant to her. The Prime Minister’s defence of that at question time was to say that the ultimate test of a change in industrial relations legislation is its effect on the economy. Are we now suggesting that to knock off Annette Harris’s wage by $90 a week is somehow essential for the good of the economy?

When this legislation was adopted, the Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box and said, ‘The mere passage of this legislation will automatically see an increase in employment.’ Therefore, it is interesting to observe in the budget papers that the budget figures of the Treasurer, who has been Acting Prime Minister this week, show a decline in employment growth over the outlay years. The Prime Minister’s ultimate defence of these measures is to say that the ultimate test is whether it is good for the economy. Thank you very much. He can now go and tell Mrs Harris and the other 10 million Australian employees that, for the benefit of the ultimate good of the Australian economy, they will have $90 a week knocked off their wages.

What happens under the Spotlight AWA? The base rate of pay under the award is $14.28 per hour; under the Spotlight AWA it is $14.30 per hour. The Saturday penalty rate is $17.85 per hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Under the award the Sunday penalty rate is $21.42 per hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Under the award the public holiday penalty rate is $35.70 an hour; under the AWA it is $14.30. Then there is overtime. Under the award it is time and a half for the first two hours, $21.42, and double time for all other hours, $28.56. Under the AWA there is no overtime, just $14.30 per hour. As for rest breaks—a toilet break question was asked at question time today—under the award there is a paid 10-minute break; under the AWA there is no paid rest break. Ordinary hours are set out as being 7 am to 6 pm Monday to Wednesday, 7 am to 9 pm Thursday to Friday, 7 am to 6 pm Saturday and 8 am to 5 pm Sunday. Under the AWA all hours worked are ordinary hours at $14.30 per hour. Under the award there is annual leave loading of 17.5 per cent; under the AWA there is no leave loading. It goes on and on.

I will give a couple of scenarios and not just Mrs Harris’s, who drew this matter to attention. A full-time adult employee working shifts of Thursday night, Saturday night and Sunday—and I do not know a Spotlight store that is not open on Thursday night or Saturday—under the award gets $634.75; under the AWA they get $543.40. That represents $91.35 a week down the gurgler. For full-time employees who are rostered on a public holiday, under the AWA the value of the public holiday loss is $53.96. In New South Wales, there are 10 or 11 public holidays per year, which equates to $500 down the gurgler.

Why are we doing this? Because the only way the government can see to improve our economy is by cutting the wages of Australian employees and workers. That is its ultimate justification. We are going to cut wages because it will improve our economy—as though somehow cutting wages to New Zealand levels, which a couple of months ago is what the industry minister said we should do, would enable people in Sydney to pay their mortgages. However, if this means New Zealand wages tomorrow, the cutting of wages to benefit our economy approach can only mean Indian, Indonesian and Chinese wages next week. That is not the way to improve our economy. That is not the way to ensure that Australia is a productive economy. That is not the way to ensure that we continue to be a prosperous nation.

The way to ensure that we continue to be a prosperous nation is to ensure that we make an investment in the productive activity of our society and our economy. That means an investment in education and training, an investment in skills, an investment in research and development, an investment in infrastructure—all of which this government has complacently ignored and neglected in the course of its 10 years in office. In addition to the creation of wealth by being a prosperous and productive economy, we need to ensure that all Australians have the chance to share fairly in the proceeds of that productive economy and productive society. That is at the heart of the public policy evil of the government’s legislation—not allowing Australian working families and middle Australia to share fairly in a prosperous economy and a prosperous society. The Spotlight AWA has sprung the government. The government is intent only on reducing the living standards, wages and take-home pay of Australian employees. When we come to office, things like the Spotlight AWA will be torn up and thrown away.

See this speech in context