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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Urquhart and Gallacher today relating to penalty rates.

This government comes in here and portrays itself as above board, really kosher, everything going well. But the reality is different. Senator Brandis talks about the Fair Work Commission and the independence thereof, but he does not tell the chamber that the bipartisan nature of appointments to the Fair Work Commission have been set aside since 2013. He does not say that we have continually appointed people from the right of industrial relations to the Fair Work Commission.

I do not cast any aspersions on those people's credentials to be Fair Work commissioners, but they are not impartial. There is no union and employer representation coming forward. He has simply skewed the Fair Work Commission's ability to rationally decide on issues like penalty rates by deliberately appointing people from his preferred side of politics. Senator Brandis comes in here and says, 'It's an independent umpire. Why are you being critical?', when since 2013 they have been slowly but surely setting out to skew the deliberations of that august tribunal to suit their own ends.

Let's get back to the central issue here. It is someone's daughter, brother, son, cousin or nephew who goes out to seek part-time or any employment in the workforce, is unable to get five days permanent work, ends up working some casual and part-time work—and heaven forbid they are lucky enough to enjoy a penalty on a Saturday or Sunday! What this miserable government wants to do is reduce that earning capacity. They have done no study on the net benefit to employment. They have done no study on the net benefit economically. It is simply that people are going to miss out on the opportunity to enjoy a reasonable level of living in casual and part-time employment.

More importantly, there is no creation of employment here. Senator Abetz goes closest to it when he says: 'You should all be happy to have any sort of job—any job at all. If you don't get penalties, bad luck. Just cop it. Get a job.' Well, the difference between the UK, the United States and Australia is: we have got higher minimum standards, and, in those higher minimum standards, we enjoy hard-won, hard-fought-for conditions like penalty rates. And we ought to fight to keep them, not appoint people to the Fair Work Commission whose whole ideology is to reduce those sorts of arrangements, to allegedly make the economy more competitive.

I have got to say: people who enjoy permanent part-time or part-time work or low-paid work in hospitality, enjoy as much as they can possibly get—and they spend it. I am not sure that they are off depositing their penalty rates incentive into a bank account! They spend it. A friend of mine ran a very fine establishment in the Victorian country, and paid the appropriate rates of pay—paid penalty rates—and a lot of those people actually spent some of that money in their leisure hours in the same establishment. And that is what would be happening around these sorts of arrangements.

People may be studying. They may be at home, studying, and getting some permanent part-time work, or getting some casual work. And heaven forbid they might actually earn a decent wage on Sunday!

This miserable government has gone right out of its way to take that off them, by deliberately setting in place a procedural path of politicisation of the Fair Work Commission. Can anybody from the government side name anybody from the employee representation side who has been appointed to the Fair Work Commission? And the resounding answer has got to be no. Senator Brandis says, 'It's all fair. It's independent. It's the independent umpire,' yet he, his government, his cabinet and his Prime Minister have deliberately set out to only appoint employer representatives as Fair Work Commissioners, in the last five years at least. So he has continued the ideological line of the Hon. Tony Abbott which has continued under the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, and they stand up there and say, 'It's the independent umpire. Why are you complaining?'

Well, what we are complaining about is: you are ripping off hardworking, ordinary Australians who need a leg up, not a push down. We will continue to fight this issue all the way to the next election, and you will get your just deserts. Your return will be in the ballot box. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak to the motion to take note of the minister's answers. I could not believe what I was hearing from Senator Gallacher. It was just the same tired old Labor politics of division and left-wing ideology, and it was simply untrue.

On this side of the chamber, we understand that governments do not create jobs; employers do. And this government is standing up for small business people, who want to get ahead and grow jobs and create new jobs. If those opposite actually went out and talked to small businesses in their electorates in their states, they would hear very clearly that small shops, pharmacies, takeaways and small hotels, who have not benefited from the dirty EBA deals that those opposite have done with the big businesses, are suffering. And they want to employ more people. They want to open on Sundays. They want to employ students. They want to employ more women. But they cannot afford to do it. So, if they do open, what do they do? They work seven days a week—they do it themselves, so that they can open their doors and get business, because they simply cannot afford to employ more staff.

Senator Gallacher said, 'Oh well, the Fair Work Commission!' and tried to rubbish them. But it was your commission. You on the other side established that. And, just because you do not like the rules that the independent umpire makes, it is no excuse for walking away from what they said.

Let us just remember what Mr Shorten said on accepting the decision of his own umpire that you set up. He was asked:

… the Fair Work Commission will report soon on Sunday penalty rates. They're an independent body, in fact you had a lot to do with the way they operate now when you were Minister. Will you accept their findings given this is an independent body assessing penalty rates for Sunday, if you're Prime Minister.

So, given what those opposite are saying now, do you think that Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said: 'I've got problems with the Fair Work Commission. I don't agree with giving my independent umpire the decision'? No, he did not say that at all. What Mr Shorten said was: 'Yes,' he would. The interviewer said: 'You'll accept them?' He said: 'Yes,' quite clearly—'Yes.' No ifs; no buts; none of the concerns about the commission that Senator Gallacher was alluding to just now. And the journalist said: 'Even if they reduce Sunday penalty rates?' and Mr Shorten said: 'Well, I said I'd accept the independent tribunal.'

But all of a sudden he does not like the decision of the independent tribunal, so what is happening? Those opposite are now coming out with the same old, tired old rhetoric, trying to find reasons to undermine their own commission. And it is falling on deaf ears. People out in the community are not that simple. Yes, you are stirring up some emotion. But the facts are: the Fair Work Commission took years to come to this decision. They took about 7,000 submissions. They consulted widely. They came out with a very cogent report on this decision. Yet, again, instead of actually dealing with the facts in the Fair Work Commission's report, those opposite again are just pulling out this tired old 19th- or 20th-century union-warfare sort of language, because they cannot debate the points.

The facts are very clear. If you go and talk to any small business in your state, they will tell you that they want to employ more people. This penalty rate system was set up in the day for very good reasons, when people did work nine to five, Monday to Friday, they did not work Saturdays and Sundays, and they went to church with their families on Sundays. Well, sadly, that is not the case anymore.

Women want more flexibility in the workforce. Men want more flexibility in the workforce. We have got a lot of students. We have got a lot of young people who want their first job and cannot get it, and you are denying them an opportunity.

Who can forget the shameful incident that happened in the other chamber to my friend and colleague Ann Sudmalis?

She is one of the most wonderful local representatives. She has a heart the size of a planet. Where were any of you over there when your members absolutely demonised her for saying that she wanted more young people in her constituency to work with these penalty rates? Where were you when your colleagues made this wonderful woman cry? Shame on you all!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was another demonstration of just how out of touch the government really is on this issue. That contribution takes me back to something I heard Tony Abbott say. It might have been last year or when he was still Prime Minister. He said, 'If you don't want to work on a weekend, fair enough; don't work on a weekend'. And that is just what Senator Reynolds seems to believe. But it is not the case. Lots of people have to work on weekends. My partner, who works in the health area, was delighted when she heard that, because she works a 24-hour, seven-day roster. She would love not to work after hours and not to work on weekends, but she does not get that choice. Many people in our communities do not get that choice. When there are jobs on weekends that people need to live on, people should get a penalty for working weekends, and it does not matter whether they are well paid in organised professions or in hospitality or in other areas where this first tranche of cuts will take place. That argument really demonstrates that the government just do not understand. They think people work on weekends because they want to work on weekends, but it is not the case. I do not know anyone who wants to work on a weekend, and if they had the choice not to work they would take that as an option. People would rather spend time with their kids and their families doing activities that are available on weekends that are not available in the normal course of a working week.

The other argument that government members want to throw at us is that the Fair Work Act was set up by the Labor government, and that is absolutely true. No-one has said that the Fair Work Act is perfect. In fact, we recognised while we were in government that it was not perfect and we actually moved amendments to include in the objectives of the Fair Work Act 'the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working overtime or employees working unsociable, irregular or unpredictable hours or employees working shifts.'

We entrenched in the Fair Work Act objectives the fact that penalty rates had to be there. What the Fair Work Commission did not get—I do not know why they did not get it after we moved those amendments and put in the objectives—is that they could go ahead and cut penalty rates. That is simply wrong. That is not a position of the Labor Party. We are directly opposed to it.

We now know that the Fair Work Commission ignored those objectives as far as we are concerned and the reason behind the intent of putting those objectives in the Fair Work Act. So we intend to legislate to enshrine that penalties are there. If the government wants to support the bill they can. They have a choice just as they have made a choice on many other decisions they have not liked, whether from the Human Rights Commission or the Road Transport Remuneration Tribunal—any of those decisions. If they have not liked them, they simply legislate against them: 'We do not like that decision. We're going to legislate against it.' They have that absolute opportunity. They cannot say simply say because it is an independent body that it is unchallengeable. That is never the position they have taken on anything else. It is a ridiculous argument, it is a fig leaf of an argument and they will not be able to hide behind it. The Australia public will not let then get away with it.

Let's understand what the Fair Work Act actually replaced. Yes, we did put it in place to replace Work Choices. Maybe people need a little bit of a reminder about what Work Choices did to people. Let's just go back and look at what Work Choices did: 100 per cent of AWAs under Work Choices excluded at least one so-called protected award condition, 64 per cent removed leave loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shift-work loadings, 41 per cent did not contain gazetted public holidays, 29 per cent modified rest breaks, 27 per cent modified public-holiday payments, 22 per cent did not provide for any wage increase over the life of the agreement and 16 per cent excluded every award protection and condition from those agreements. I am not surprised that we are headed back there under this government. That is where this government comes from. This is where this government would like to go. Penalty rates are certainly the first step for these workers, and the next step will be every other worker and then the rest of the conditions next. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To commence my contribution in this debate, I want to make an observation. It is what Labor contributions seem to be underpinned by: misrepresenting answers given by ministers, misconstruing things and selective quoting—which I have seen a lot of today. It started with Senator Urquhart's question where she selectively quoted from Senator Brandis's answer from yesterday in trying to make a case, which she was not able to in the end. Senator Brandis, in his answer, was able to demolish the point that she was trying to make. It was also very revealing to hear today that the Labor Party intend to vote against the legislation to prevent corrupting benefits. I thought that was a very, very revealing answer. To hear that the people who are coming in here railing against these cuts to penalty rates, as they have characterised them, are then going to try and push back on this proposal from the government to protect workers and ensure their rights are protected when it comes to these big business and big union deals. There was a lot of noise from the opposition when that point was made, but I have not yet heard anyone deny that that is what Labor are going to do to protect workers' rights instead of the rights of big unions. It is just astounding that they try to come in here and claim the moral high ground when they have no capacity to do so.

In other areas of this debate, opposition members have pointed to us speaking about the independence of the Fair Work Commission and the way it reaches its decisions and tried to contrast that with our decision to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which is a ridiculous link to draw.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Bilyk. I wonder whether Labor are trying to call for the government to abolish the Fair Work Commission. Is that what you are trying to do? It is ridiculous to link the decision that has been reached by an independent body, based on thousands of submissions from all sorts of entities and individuals, and say we should not—

Senator Bushby interjecting—

Exactly right! I just wonder whether that is what those opposite are trying to do. Are they trying to call for the abolition of the Fair Work Commission, the body that they established, to which they appointed commissioners, and that they said they would respect—as per the contribution provided by Senator Reynolds. They want to pick and choose what decisions they support and will adhere to.

A point that was made to me earlier was: where were Labor when, in 2009, the predecessor entity to the Fair Work Commission decided to reduce penalty rates for workers? Where were they when the Australian Industrial Relations Commission made that decision? Were they quiet? Yes, they were. They did not stand up and campaign on that issue, saying that workers' rights were being stripped. Now it is politically convenient for them to do that, and they are making all this noise.

I want to go to the impact on small business. We have talked a lot about small businesses, such as those in our community, Senator Bilyk, and how they make up the economies of our small regional communities. What does Labor say to those businesses that cannot open on a Sunday? What does Labor say to those people who do not have a job on a Sunday because businesses cannot open—people who have zero dollars in their bank account because businesses do not open and they do not get paid? Labor wants to vilify small-business operators. It wants to make small business operators out to be people who are just in it to make a buck, who push down and oppress employees. I am sick of that. These people are genuine, honest, hardworking people who want to contribute to their local economies. They respect their employees, because that is what makes a good small business. I call on Labor to stop vilifying small-business people and allow them to do what is right for the economies of their small communities. Help them to open on a Sunday. Help them to employ people who need these jobs in our small communities. Labor should get on board and stop playing politics.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, you are actually a nice young lad for someone on that side. At least you do not scream and yell, like a number of other people on your side do because they think that being loud gets the message across, makes them more realistic or something like that. But I do have to pull you up, Senator Duniam, for saying that we often misrepresent answers. One problem we on this side have is that we cannot get proper, decent answers, especially from Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis so often says—and Hansard will show this time and time again—'I am not aware of that comment. I never heard that. No-one spoke to me.' At least once or twice every question time we get those comments. I do have to wonder how many staff Senator Brandis has and what they actually do, because surely his staff should be telling him when these things are in the media—that is, all over the media, not just in one piddly little newspaper.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are we discussing penalty rates?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will get to that. Don't you worry; I am not going to let you off penalty rates altogether—no way.

We get a recurring pattern of 'no answer'. Once again today Senator Brandis failed to address just how important penalty rates are to the workers who receive them. He cannot tell us what impact these cuts will have on workers, because he will not admit there is an issue. That is one of the big problems with your side—you cannot see that there is any issue in low-paid workers losing $77 a week. Well, let me tell you: we on this side understand.

Oh, stay, Senator Duniam. Don't leave. I listened to you.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think you had a choice.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true. I did not have a choice. That is absolutely true.

We on this side understand that that $77 is not for any sort of luxury. We understand it is to help pay the power bill, to help buy the kids' school uniforms, maybe to help send the kids on an excursion. I was on the Labor Party's Fair Work Taskforce and was privileged to travel around Tasmania to hear from people from my home state—also that of Senator Duniam, and I think Senator Whish-Wilson might have heard some of this too—how much of an impact a cut to penalty rates will have on people. As Senator Marshall said, people do not choose to work weekends to make a fortune. A lot of people work weekends because otherwise they would not get the job. Part of getting the job is: 'You can work in my restaurant but I need you to work Saturdays,' or, 'I need you work Sundays,' or, 'I need you to work after hours in unsociable hours.' People do that because the extra bit of money they get helps them pay their bills. It helps them to have some dignity. That is really important to people, and something those on the other side do not often think about.

The cuts to penalty rates will obviously have a detrimental effect on the wider economy; that is just common sense. If you reduce the incomes of 700,000 people, there will be less money for people in the community to spend, and family budgets will be even tougher. We have thousands of people who are already doing it tough because this government do not really care about people with lower incomes. This money is not banked until it becomes trillions of dollars. It is certainly not sent off to the Cayman Islands, for example. It is not invested in shares. It is money that is used every single day to help people live to a standard of living that I doubt any, even at the lowest level, of those on the other side have ever lived to. I doubt they have ever had to struggle. I would be surprised if their penalty rates did not fund their overseas holidays, if ever they worked in a job that had penalty rates—probably while they were living at home being looked after very well.

The most cruel thing of all about the penalty rates cut is that it has coincided— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.