Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I've got to say, the second of the two speeches made more sense than the first. I think it's probably the aspiration of every member of this parliament, if we could be half as good in life as the shadow minister thinks he is, we'd all be doing extraordinarily well.

Talk about not learning a thing! There has never been a pay rise for the Australian workers that they have supported. Never once. But the arguments are always the same. The arguments that we just heard from the shadow minister were that getting the pay cut is, 'the difference in whether you get a job or not'. I remember we heard this last term. The shadow minister—I'll say a bit more about this later—while he wasn't in this place last term, it seems he was listening intently, because he's adopted all the same arguments we heard last time.

When we argued that 'same job, same pay' was part of justice in making sure that people's pay wasn't cut, we heard opposite: 'Oh no, no! That will drive inflation up, if you give people a pay rise, and people will lose their jobs.' When we argued that you have to have minimum standards for gig workers, those opposite said the same two things. They said, 'Oh no, no! That will drive prices up, and it will drive unemployment.' When we said that we had to get pay equity for women and made sure gender equality was an objective of the Fair Work Act, those two offered the same two arguments that we've heard here—that it will hit inflation and that it will hit jobs.

Right back at the 2022 election campaign, when the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, as the then Leader of the Opposition, was asked whether he would support a pay rise for minimum-wage earners that made sure they didn't go backwards, he answered with one word: 'absolutely!' We remember that word. The response from those opposite was that it must've been a mistake and that it must've been a gaffe. How could anyone possibly have the conviction that workers should not be going backwards? Well, the conviction that people should be going backwards is the only conviction that is consistent for those opposite.

Look at the outcomes. After all the things that they said would drive up inflation, what happened? Inflation went from having a six in front of it to getting back within the Reserve Bank's target band. What happened to unemployment after all their arguments saying, 'Oh, if you do something good for workers' wages, people will end up without jobs'? What happened? We ended up with the best and the lowest unemployment record of any government. That's what we had. This side of the House believes that people should be well paid; this side of the House wants people to be in work. But this side of the House will never accept the principle that the pathway to getting a good job is to have your pay cut, and to lose penalty rates is to have your pay cut. That's exactly what it means.

Those opposite said—and I tried to take down so many quotes; I was enjoying the speech I'll concede—they're on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can. They want to empower people. No-one thinks a pay cut makes them more powerful. No-one believes that. Penalty rates are the way that people who are working inconvenient hours can hold their lives together. It's a way they can make ends meet. There has never been a moment—

See this speech in context