Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I dearly want to think Manager of Opposition Business for bringing this forward today, because the extraordinary thing isn't that the government listens to various voices among trade unions; the extraordinary thing is that for 10 years those opposite wanted to shut out those voices completely.

Let's not forget what happened when the pandemic hit. When the pandemic hit, all of a sudden their normal motivation of just driving wages down wasn't the only motivation. All of a sudden they realised that we needed to get changes through every workplace in the country. So what did they suddenly do in the crisis? For the first time since we lost power, they picked up the phone to the ACTU and said, 'Can you help us?' And the ACTU said, 'Yes.' We had a completely constructive relationship, and at this very dispatch box one of the former leaders of the house—not the one who is now the Leader of the Opposition but the former Leader of the House who also held my portfolio—stood here praising and thanking the ACTU for the cooperation that allowed the changes to go through, that made sure that every workplace could function as best it possibly could.

With all of that cooperation during the pandemic, the moment the shutdown period of the pandemic was over, they went back to type and said, 'Oh, you can't talk to any of these organisations.' And what's the reason?

The reason is simple: the only motivation they have, now that they're not dealing with lockdowns, is wanting to keep wages low—that's the motivation. For 10 years, keeping wages low was a deliberate design feature of the economic strategy of the people who ran this country. And now it's not. Now a deliberate design feature of how we manage the economy is: we want to get wages moving.

So I am amused that, at a summit of 143 people, they found one they objected to and that was the reason that they couldn't come. The other thing I'm amazed by is this. And maybe I've missed this point, because we'd made a bit of a fuss over the fact that the Leader of the Opposition decided to cut himself out of any of the conversation about the future. But maybe that's the reason the summit worked. Maybe it was because the Leader of the Opposition wasn't there. Maybe it was because, when you take the wreckers out of the equation, the rest of Australia actually gets along reasonably well. When you take out of the equation the people who are determined that everything is about pushing people into their corners and finding as much division as possible, you actually get a situation where you do find levels of agreement. You find levels of agreement, for example, which really made those opposite angry. We saw the reports in the paper about how angry they were that COSBOA stood up for the interests of small businesses. They got really upset that the small business organisation said that, if small businesses want to be able to negotiate together, they should be allowed to. But that wrecked the narrative of those over there, of wanting to say, 'No, no! We want people in their corners.'

What this government is about is not more disputes. We want more agreements. The reason the BCA forged an agreement with the ACTU that went into the summit was that they want more agreements. The reason COSBOA forged an agreement with the ACTU that went forward to the summit was that they want more agreements.

With those opposite, what it comes down to is that they don't want people agreeing. And what's the key? Objection. Why would they have a problem with workers and businesses reaching agreement? It's really simple: those agreements put upward pressure on wages. Those agreements are part of getting wages moving.

There's the example I gave today with respect to the Victorian childcare centres. Those workers ended up 16 per cent above the award. When people talk about cost of living—I'm sorry: you can't have a conversation about how much living costs without also looking at how much money comes in. Wages are an essential part of the cost-of-living problem. The problem isn't only that at the moment we have inflation running at 6.1; it's also that we have wages running at only 2.4 per cent. People are going backwards by 3.5 per cent on average. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what the PBS legislation that was introduced today is about. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what our childcare policy is about. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what our skills program is about. Those things put downward pressure on inflation—all things that those opposite had no interest in doing.

But you also have to be willing to get wages moving again. No-one will forget that the moment that made them angriest during the campaign, which they thought was a gaffe, was when the now Prime Minister was asked: 'Would you support a pay rise for people on the minimum wage that keeps up with the cost of living?' and he answered: 'Absolutely.' They saw conviction and thought it must have been a mistake. They weren't used to looking conviction in the eye. Then we were told it was the 'loose unit' language—remember that? We were told what a disaster this would be. We were told that this would trash the economy. And they said it should be left to the experts. What did the experts then say when the Fair Work Commission came back with its decision? Five point two per cent! That was what came back from the annual wage review.

So, if you want wages moving, you need to act in three ways. There are three things you need to do. You need to use the commission. We've used the commission with respect, putting in our submission and arguing for pay rises on the annual wage review. We've used the commission in respect of the aged-care wage review, which is on as well, putting in a submission—which those opposite refused to do—to say these workers deserve a pay rise. Similarly, the commission is a critical part of the pathway towards trying to get closer to gender pay equity in this country. This side of the House and this government say a 14.1 per cent pay equity gap is not satisfactory at all, and we need to act to close that gender pay gap.

The first thing you need to do is use the commission; the second thing you need to do is to close the loopholes that are in the act. Those opposite say, 'Oh, but it's your legislation.' Can I ask: how many major acts went for 10 years with no serious amendments when courts found new loopholes in them? When loopholes were found in the tax act, four or five times a year, new pieces of legislation were brought in here to bring the act up to date and to close loopholes because no-one wanted to see government revenue fall. But when loopholes appeared, through different decisions of the courts, in the Fair Work Act, the decision of the previous government was to let it go: 'Don't act. Don't legislate. Don't do what we do with any other piece of legislation.' And why? Because they wanted to drive wages down. So, as the new rorts came through with respect to people doing the same job but being paid radically less, they just let it be. When the gig economy arrived in Australia, we had ministers and a Prime Minister standing here saying, 'It's complicated as to whether or not Australians should at least be paid the minimum wage.' They didn't act to close the loophole. I raised this issue only a few weeks ago: when some workers, who had previously been described by Liberals as heroes, were facing a potential 40 per cent cut in their pay, those opposite said, 'Oh, no; you shouldn't change that.'

The third thing you need to do to get wages moving is to get agreements moving. The parties at the summit came together on that. I don't know how those opposite think that if you only have the business leaders around the table somehow that's both sides at the bargaining table. I guess if you want to drive wages down maybe that's what you do. But at the summit, even all the business organisations, without exception, accepted that we need to get wages moving. Getting bargaining moving is part of that.

We need to be able to update the act and bring the Fair Work Act up to date with the modern economy. If you don't want to do that, by all means, vote against each change that comes forward. Continue the policy that 10 years of low wage growth as a deliberate design feature wasn't enough. If those opposite want to fight for a second decade of low wage growth and people going backwards, they can argue for that, but don't think they'll ever have credibility on cost of living. If you want to act on cost of living, you have to act on wages.

See this speech in context