House of Representatives

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 3 June 2013 throw out, and, once again, they were a small target; nothing was going to change, but we have seen in Queensland very significant attacks on society by the new state government. In New South Wales we have seen significant attacks upon the Public Service and also on workers compensation. Of course, despite the fact that they are trying to pretend that not much is going to change—'We're going to be the same as Labor on industrial relations; don't worry'—the employers and the big end of town know what the reality is. We have seen it from two industries that the previous government speaker spoke about: the retail sector and the hospitality sector. These are places where there are very low-paid workers, earning a lot less than the people opposite who will be speaking in support of, basically, attacking penalty rates. Those people desperately need these penalty rates not only to compensate them for their loss of lifestyle but also to actually live. We have seen those industries come out in the last few weeks, after the opposition leader's budget reply, and they have said: 'We can see a way through. Even though you're saying that your industrial relations policy is not much at variance with the current government, we are sure that we can use your measures to attack penalty rates.' We know, of course, that the hospitality industry have joined retailers in enthusiastically embracing Tony Abbott's proposed workplace changes as a mechanism to extend trading hours without penalty rates. So what we see there is that despite Tony Abbott saying, 'Look, I love John Howard but I disagree with him so greatly in industrial relations. I found it hard to sit in the cabinet room. I was so opposed to my hero's moves on industrial relations. I won't resign; I'll be part of it'— (Time expired) Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:56): It is just lucky I am prepared today, because we have one Labor speaker followed by another Labor speaker because the other side of the House, sadly, have not shown up for the debate. But I guess that is something we have come to expect on this. It used to be that they were like dragons. They were like monsters with Work Choices. We could not keep them under control, could we? In 2007 they were all for cutting penalty rates and people's job security. They were all for getting out there and giving the employer 100 per cent of what they wanted. But, of course, now they have gone completely silent. The proof is that, here in the chamber today, they do not even show up for the debate. We know what happened under Work Choices, and I saw it first under the Reith legislation and then under the Work Choices legislation. It was a slow progression in the destruction of people's penalty rate clauses under awards, and the trade-off for that was sometimes pay rises in the order of 1c an hour. That CHAMBER was the trade-off: give up all your penalty rates for 1c an hour—hardly fair. People in this building talk about cost of living. On both sides people talk about cost of living, and it is always an issue in the minds of our constituents. But, of course, the best defence against the cost of living is growing wages and a decent pay packet. We know that many people in retail, in hospitality and in cleaning who work unsociable hours do so to get the penalty rate. They work those unsocial hours so that they can pay the bills and keep up with the cost of living. We know how critically important penalty rates and growing wages are to that process of coping with the cost of living. Indeed, it is the only way of coping with the cost of living, because, sadly, we know that inflation is a fact of life. We know that penalty rates are important to protecting people's community life. My state of South Australia is one of two places in the world to protect Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. That was put in this year in a deal between unions and business. They came to the state government and said, 'We want to make sure that these two days are protected for community life,' and in exchange there were some trade-offs to work on public holidays for the retail industry. It was a very innovative and cooperative approach and the sort of approach that we would seek with business—that is, sensibly protecting community life while making sure we have a productive economy. The two things can be done at the same time. It is not the either-or proposition that is put by those opposite. We know that so many people struggle with worklife balance. It is certainly a challenge for anybody in politics, but it is also a challenge for fly-in fly-out workers, for people in the defence community and for anybody who has to travel for work, such as truck drivers and people in transport and storage. Anybody who works antisocial hours struggles, I think, with the challenges of work-life balance. Sometimes that is spending time with your partner, or your wife or husband; sometimes that is, very importantly, spending time with children; sometimes that is spending time in the community, at the footy game, with your mates. I think a critical aspect of people's holistic lives is that we do not just spend time at work. Australians are some of the hardest working people on the face of the planet, but we want to make sure that we have the best community life as well. There is a whole army of Liberals in the chamber now, lined up to tell us what their plans are, but we basically know what their plans are. They will go after the unions and, once they have finished with the unions, they will go after workers' wages. They will not be so, I guess, honest this time and say, 'We're going to take away your penalty rates.' What they will do this time is they will not say a word, they will just
Monday, 3 June 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 13 come for them in the dead of night and slowly but surely, using that cutting approach, whittle away all the things that have made this country fair, made this country decent and protected it, and protected working people in the process. (Time expired) Ms LEY (Farrer) (11:01): It gives me pleasure to speak on this private member's motion about penalty rates. People listening to the debate might imagine that it is us as parliamentarians that are deciding right here, right now, what the penalty rates of Australia workers should be; that it is the subjective judgement that we bring to this chamber, the discussion that we are having, the poor quality example that we just heard from the member opposite. But, in fact, there is a body entirely established for this purpose, thankfully, that does not rely on the contributions of members of the government. I want to remind those members, including the member who brought this motion to the House, that it is the Fair Work Commission, as the independent umpire, that has the responsibility for reviewing all modern awards. This process is actually well underway, in line with the requirements in the Fair Work Act 2009 that a review be undertaken two years after the commencement of modern awards. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Shorten, has indicated, however, that the government will not tolerate any reduction in penalty rates, in essence telling the Fair Work Commission that their review must not recommend any reduction to penalty rates, even though we have spotted some dissension in the ranks, with the then tourism minister, the member for Batman, identifying that penalty rates were the bane of the hospitality sector— and we all know this is the truth—acknowledging that penalty rates could well force companies out of business. So we understand there is a balance and we have to find the right balance, but this is the task that the Fair Work Commission has been entrusted with. It is actually their job to consider the cases that are put them and find that happy medium. The government, in turn, should accept the decision of the Fair Work Commission. We should bear in mind that the Fair Work Commission was a Labor creation. The membership is heavily dotted with former union officials. Those opposite still want to intervene and still want to manipulate the outcome, rather than saying to the Fair Work Commission: 'Examine the landscape in which we are all living, the economic environment that exists in Australia at the moment, the circumstances of businesses, the arguments of business, the arguments of employers, the arguments of unions, the arguments of the workforce, the arguments that come to light in here and in state parliaments and then make an informed decision, and we would then trust that outcome.' No, the minister has already stepped in and said: 'Do all those things, but don't do this.' I do not CHAMBER know why the government does not trust its own creation the Fair Work Commission. We want to see a fair and balanced system. To this end, if we are elected in September, we have outlined our plan to build a strong and prosperous economy. Under our policy no Australian worker will be worse off and businesses will be supported to grow, contributing more jobs and revenue to the economy. Our plan will see the creation of a million new jobs within five years and two million within 10 years. We will offer real hope to unemployed Australians, helping them realise their dreams of paid employment. The government is resorting to tired old classwarfare rhetoric—really tired, really outdated, really irrelevant. What the government should be debating is how to reduce unemployment, forecast to rise, and how to decrease welfare dependency in a country with an unacceptably high number of intergenerational unemployed young people, in a country where we cannot seem to get a policy that gets youths into a job. In every part of Australia, youth unemployment is between 20 and 45 per cent. This is what we should be talking about today. We should be considering how we will give Australians a brighter future and an opportunity for meaningful jobs, and how we will reward them for their hard work. Instead, we are debating something that is clearly the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission to determine. I am disappointed that members of the government cannot come to an agreement on the role of the bodies that they themselves established. We have to be so very careful that we do not lock out a group of Australian workers who are currently unemployed, losing their jobs and slipping out of the workforce disappointed and disengaged. We have to be careful that we do not create a system that looks after—fantastically well—those who have a job but does not acknowledge those who do not and does not provide a pathway for those outside the labour system to have a real chance in the real economy. That is what we have to be really careful of. We have said we are happy with the Fair Work Commission. We just would like the minister to stop interfering with the process of that independent quasijudiciary body and let it do its job. Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:06): I rise in support of the motion by the member for La Trobe and note the importance of penalty rates to ensure that many of the poorest workers in our society are able to make a living. We know the significance of penalty rates for part-time workers, students and young people trying to get a start in life. We know that those penalty rates are about compensating people for working at times that are outside the norm. It is fair to say that the norm, for some industries, has changed dramatically over the years, but if you expect people to work at night, on
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA House of
Page 3 and 4: FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6: Members of the House of Representat
Page 7 and 8: Members of the House of Representat
Page 9 and 10: Title Minister Parliamentary Secret
Page 11 and 12: Title Shadow Minister Shadow Parlia
Page 13 and 14: CONTENTS MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2013 Chambe
Page 15: CONTENTS—continued DisabilityCare
Page 18 and 19: 2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday,
Page 78 and 79:
62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday,
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228:
show all

House of Representatives

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?