Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion to take note of the answer given by Senator Payne to a question asked by Senator Farrell. That was an interesting speech. I've got a bit of time for Senator Scarr, but I think he needs to have a look at some of the facts around what's happening out there in the workplace. In actual fact, it would be useful to look at what's happening with regard to the WorkPac case, the mining industry and labour hire. In the case of the mining industry, a decision was taken regarding workers who had clearly been ripped off. They were operating as permanent workers but being paid as casual workers; they were getting paid 40 per cent less for doing exactly the same work as the permanent employees standing beside them. Let's be very clear: a casual employee working for a labour hire company was being paid 40 per cent less than a permanent employee who was getting annual and sick leave entitlements, and all those protections you would expect from permanent employment. The decision in that court was clearly about employers double dipping. Of course, that decision was peculiar to the particular circumstances that the court considered. It considered the fact that those workers received rosters 12 months in advance. I don't know too many small employers who give rosters 12 months in advance. I can understand why they wouldn't. I don't see many employers in many other industries giving rosters 12 months in advance. But, if you do, maybe the WorkPac case does apply to you, and you've been double dipping and ripping off casuals, just like what's happening in the resources industry.

I'd like to hope that those opposite just don't understand. I'd like to hope that they don't really know because they don't really look at the consequences; they read the propaganda sheet that they receive. Unfortunately, too many of them clearly understand too well that this is an attack on job security for part-time workers by casualising their performance. When an employer in the real world says, 'I'd like you to do your part-time overtime at flat rates, and you have one of two choices,' the person says either no or yes. And everyone knows what happens, in too many circumstances, when you say no to your employer. If you do say yes, what happens to the other part-time worker who's receiving those overtime payments for the exact same role? Funnily enough, the person receiving the proper penalty and exercising their proper rights is not employed, is not engaged. It's not true to say that every employer operates that way. But, when they do, their competitors have no other option but to meet the market requirements. If one player and rips off part-time workers in one market and gets a cheaper rate, then those companies that are competing are under pressure to take the exact same steps. How can it possibly be seen in isolation? When someone makes that decision in a workplace, it's not in isolation, and it isn't in isolation across a market. So, when decent employers, good employers, thoughtful employers don't want to go down that course, there is a consequence. That gets us down to the BOOT test. You know, bad business are licking their lips at this bill. They can't believe their luck. Some are even coming forward with suggestions of how they could take money from workers. McDonald's even put in a submission that they should be allowed to cut their workers' pay if the workers eat some chicken nuggets on their break—the old company store approach.

This bill that the government is talking about is part of the government's multipronged attack on Australian workers. I note Senator Bragg is spearheading the attack on workers' superannuation. Let's not have dignity in retirement, heaven forbid; that's the premise of the well-off and parliamentarians. He believes that cutting your superannuation will somehow trickle into your pay, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps he can work with McDonald's on their plan to not pay superannuation but to give people fries. The BOOT test, as has been proposed by the government, clearly is a substantial wage cut. Any simple review of the proposals from this government shows that they cut wages on penalties, on shift allowances, on annual leave payments. There is a cut right across public holidays. There's all that capacity to have that effect. (Time expired)