House of Representatives

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 3 June 2013 weekends and on public holidays there is a penalty you pay in terms of your living standards, the time you have to enjoy leisure activities and the time you have with your family. This is something that needs to be taken into account. I have noted from this present debate, and the one in October last year when this motion was first debated, that the view from the other side is very much of two or three clear points. There is the question of flexibility and the need for flexibility from a business point of view to ensure that jobs can be created, workers can be employed and businesses can make a profit. Obviously, that is an important consideration—if there are no jobs there will be no workers. It is a very simple point. The point also is not what it says but what it hides—what it really means and has meant under those opposite. The opposition leader is of the view 'You cannot believe what I say unless I write it down', and we found out last week you cannot even believe it then. When we go to some of the things that he has written down on workplace reform, we know that his record is very different to his rhetoric today and to the policy that the coalition is taking forth to the next election. We know that under Work Choices—and they now say that is not what they are about—that is not what happened. We need to go back to Work Choices to understand what the Liberal Party has done. We saw agreement after agreement that was against the workers' needs and established conditions. One hundred per cent of AWAs cut at least one so-called protected award condition: 64 per cent cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 52 per cent cut the shift-work loadings, 51 per cent cut overtime loadings, 48 per cent cut monetary allowances, 46 per cent cut public holiday pay, 40 per cent cut rest breaks, 36 per cent cut declared public holidays and 22 per cent provided employees with no pay rise, some for up to five years. The Australian public needs to understand that that is the record of the coalition, and as much as they may try to move away from it, as much as they may say, 'That's not what we are about now,' that is, in fact, what they have been about, and when they had control of both houses of parliament that is what they did. In terms of the walking away from it: let us go to the very words of the opposition leader with respect to this. In 2008 the opposition leader said about Work Choices: … it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let’s never forget that. In 2009 he said that workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government. And in his book, Battlelines, in writing his policy manifesto Tony Abbott, 'Work Choices wasn't all bad'. The fact is that quite a bit of it was. One of the interesting points is the difficulty we have on the other CHAMBER side to get speakers even to address these issues. I note the member for Farrer, who spoke previously—this is her second contribution to this debate. The member for McPherson spoke twice in October. They are not even interested in debating the issues; they are not prepared to. That is what is wrong with this motion when it comes to the— (Time expired) Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (11:11): I am certainly pleased to rise to speak to this penalty rates motion because, in many respects, like most things that Labor does this penalty rates motion looks great in the headlines but the stark reality for Australian workers is very different. On the Gold Coast, in my electorate—an electorate built off the backs of hospitality workers, of which there are around 500,000 across Australia—we know that Labor like to herald the fact that they claim their legislation is great for Aussie workers. We see the Prime Minister and we see Bill Shorten consistently saying that they are all about Australian workers. In my city, Australia's sixth-largest city—a city where the single biggest employer is the tourism industry—the simple reality is that Labor's so-called penalty rates reforms have driven unemployment up. Take, for example, a sandwich bar just down the road from my electorate office, which used to be open six days a week. With Labor's reforms, and as they introduced the penalty rates which were great for Aussie workers according to the Labor Party, the situation arose with that particular sandwich bar, which had three mothers working as part of the team employed by the sandwich bar owner, that for the store to remain open six days a week—Tuesday through Sunday—was no longer feasible. Because of the rates that had to be paid on a Sunday, the decision was made that it was actually better for the sandwich bar to be closed on Sundays than it was to be open. As the proprietor said to me: 'Why would I open to lose money? It actually makes more sense for me to enjoy a two-day weekend, rather than the one-day weekend I have had for the past four or five years.' The consequence is that the workers in that particular small business, the people whom Labor claims they are going to help, ended up in net terms receiving less pay because they had fewer hours to work every week. And the amenity of the local area was reduced because there was one less small business available for people to frequent on the weekend. In a tourism town, it could not be more right or necessary for there to be flexibility when it comes to servicing the needs of today's tourists and, importantly, today's employers and employees. The reality is that in a city like the Gold Coast there is a lot of demand for people to have flexibility. Some people do not want to work standard business hours because that is actually not consistent with what they
Monday, 3 June 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 15 need for their families. There are a lot of people who like the fact that they can get flexible work hours which enable them to work out of the home at a time when their partner is in the home, so that when one finishes work, the other can go to work. That is exactly the practice that we wanted to put in place. The overall test is always: is the employee better off? Now, Labor is great at headlines, and it is great at saying, 'This is about extra pay to recognise the fact that people are not with their families.' But in doing so they ignore the simple fact that for many families this is a positive choice that Labor denies them. On public holidays on the Gold Coast, people now pay an extra 10, 15 or 20 per cent on the cost of going to a cafe or a restaurant or some other tourist operation—if it is even open. If you walk up and down the so-called glitter strip these days, chances are there are more places closed on public holidays than there are open. That is the great reform that the Labor Party has driven. This is not just for tourists but also for the community. We have seen, for example, many pharmacies which used to be open seven days a week now closed on weekends or on Sundays as a direct consequence of Labor's reform. Again, the straight-upand-down translation: fewer services—some would argue, essential community services—and fewer work hours for the so-called workers that Labor is so concerned about. This is nothing more than a headline motion that disregards the fact that there are many positives that flow from increased labour flexibility. The coalition is not about Work Choices; to quote the Leader of the Opposition: 'That is dead, buried and cremated.' And Labor member after Labor member can get up and run its pathetic scare campaign, but all Australians see right through that pathetic scare campaign. They know that the only puppet controlling the strings when it comes to that side of the House is Australia's trade union movement—and Labor's attempt to keep it a lockdown is part of the their desire to maintain power. (Time expired) Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:16): I rise to speak on this motion and it is a pleasure to follow the member for Moncrieff's words and caution the government about what this will do to small businesses around the country. In a motion of this nature, once again we see the government undermining confidence in our economy by fruitlessly proposing unnecessary legislation in this parliament to do nothing for our economy except damage the confidence of our businesses. I think the shadow Treasurer put it best when he cited CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, on the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook results. He said: 'The competitiveness result is the worst result for Australia in 17 years. The rankings this year show that in labour productivity growth, Australia has dropped from number 26 in the world to number 51 of the 60 CHAMBER countries surveyed.' Former Labor Speaker of this House and one of your predecessors, Madam Deputy Speaker, CEDA Chief Executive Professor the Hon. Stephen Martin, could not have been clearer when he said: The key issue is that we are seeing other countries … rapidly improve this measure of economic efficiency. While they are not at our levels yet, they are catching up at a rapid pace and we need to look at productivity-enhancing reforms now rather than when we fall behind. It is too late. We heard the member for Parramatta talking about industrial relations policy. I say to the member for Parramatta: unemployment in her electorate is at 7.2 per cent—higher than the national average. In Western Sydney, where my electorate is, youth unemployment is at 17 per cent. The member for Greenway is in the chamber—what is her plan to fix youth unemployment in Western Sydney? It certainly will not be helped by this legislating of inflexible things into modern awards. In fact, we take the view that we do not need legislation for all of these features of modern awards—we do not need to legislate the details. We do not need to legislate to take away flexibility. We are very surprised to see that, once again, the unions have had the final say here. This amendment was not suggested by the Fair Work Review Panel that the government is proposing. This motion that we are debating today was not proposed by the Fair Work Review Panel Who did propose it? All of this has been proposed by Mr Dave Oliver, Secretary of the ACTU. Surprise, surprise! The member for Greenway has gone very silent. Of course, we on this side want to see harmonious, productive, smart workplaces but I want it known out there that there are calls from industry and other sectors to explain what is going on with penalty rates in today's world. We have heard the restaurant and catering industry say that 10,000 new jobs could be created if they had more flexibility in their businesses—10,000 new jobs straightaway! Mr John Hardy is right about that: flexibility means more jobs. There are no wages for anybody when a business does not open on the weekend. The member for Moncrieff outlined that compellingly. News.com.au cites a cafe and its cost of doing business from Monday to Friday compared to Sunday. The total cost, including superannuation, on a weekday with two wait staff, one dishwasher, one cook and one manager: $644—that is the cost of opening their cafe on a Monday to Friday. On a Sunday the cost of opening the cafe—Oli and Levi, a small family business—with the same number of staff: $1,239— almost double. The cafe's owner, Lloyd Smith—says if your labour costs are 50 per cent to 70 per cent more expensive on a weekend then it is not worth opening
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 80 and 81:
64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday,
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?