Matters of Interest

Penalty Rates

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (15:22): Earlier this year, the Hon. John Darley made a contribution that characterised criticism of the Xenophon team's industrial relations policy as 'deplorable, desperate tactics'. A more accurate comment might have been, 'We are not accustomed to our views being held up to any level of scrutiny and we don't like it at all.'

These are the facts. On the X-Team's website for the 2014 state election was the 'employment and workplace relations policy', which stated a desire to remove penalty rates for certain workers. Nick Xenophon has previously introduced legislation in federal parliament to reduce such penalty rates and, just in case there was any doubt, in a radio interview on 4 March, Nick Xenophon stated that 'penalty rates have just gone out of kilter'. In relation to his state candidates, he said, 'They agree with me on this; we've discussed this at length.'

As a result of modern awards and a reduction of weekend penalty rates, a 47-year-old single mum who has a job on weekends as a casual waitress in a restaurant has already faced a wage cut of $5,000 to $7,000 a year. The Xenophon proposal would now make her loss more than $10,000 a year. On a tight budget, she could lose her home. This is not some theoretical debate about even lower paid jobs for university students: this policy could literally ruin people's life.

The X-Team policy would have further crippling social effects by taking working people away from their families to work antisocial hours. On FIVEaa earlier this year, the owner of Rigoni's restaurant stated:

We sat down last week and ran the numbers ourselves. If we actually opened on a Saturday we'd walk away with $300 in our pockets. I'm not prepared to give up my Saturday with my family when it's actually not viable for me.

Even the employers on behalf of whom the X-team is purporting to advocate recognise that weekends are an important family time that should not be given up lightly without proper compensation.

It is hardly surprising that those unions who represent some of the lowest paid workers in South Australia, such as United Voice, did not take particularly kindly to this Xenophon-led attack on low-paid wages. When the labour movement highlighted this draconian policy position, the X-Team complained bitterly that they were being held to account and that this was unfair. They even went as far as to complain to the Electoral Commissioner that the union campaign was misleading, a complaint that was rightly very quickly dismissed.

Perhaps most bizarrely of all, the X-Team complained to the Electoral Commissioner that they ought not be held to account for this policy because, in their own view, they could not implement it. Nick Xenophon complained that the state X-Team, and I quote, 'could have no impact upon the legislation dealing with penalty rates as this is federal legislation.' Not only was that a ridiculous try-on, but it is factually wrong. South Australia's Fair Work Act covers some 110,000 employees and this legislation allows the SA Industrial Relations Commission to make awards and certify agreements including weekend penalty rates. The declaring of additional public holidays for the payment of penalty rates rests entirely within the jurisdiction of the South Australian parliament.

The Electoral Commissioner again took very little time in dismissing this particular complaint. The irony of these frivolous complaints is that there were many complaints about the misleading nature of the X-Team's material. The most visible part of that campaign was the tens of thousands of Nick Xenophon posters all over South Australia. Most prominently these posters had: Nick Xenophon's face, no-one else's; and the name 'Nick Xenophon', and no-one else's. Nowhere on this poster did it give any indication whatsoever that anyone other than the person being advertised was in fact their candidate. It is hard to envisage that this was not a deliberate attempt to deceive voters. After all, any time Nick's face has appeared on a poster he has been the candidate.

The deception was very well crafted, and it worked initially. There were many Labor and Liberal voters who reported being convinced that Nick Xenophon himself was running and were quite angry when informed that was not the case. However, it seems this sneaky tactic may have backfired and resulted in significant reputational damage. No doubt many in the Labor movement would welcome the state contingent of the X-Team repudiating Nick's extreme IR views. Unionists I know, like those from United Voice, the SDA and SA Unions, are passionate about standing up for their members and I am sure will continue to campaign to protect pay and conditions.

I congratulate the Hon. John Darley for standing up to Senator Xenophon on other matters. Many people around this place have heard that Nick attempted to get all successful X-Team candidates to agree to contribute a portion of their salary to some sort of Xenophon fund. The  Hon.  John Darley has proudly explained to many people that he courageously stood up to this attempt to effectively commercially franchise the Xenophon brand. The Hon. John Darley pointed out in his contribution earlier this year that he has advocated for workers' rights in a number of areas and I acknowledge and congratulate him on this stance, but simply doing the right thing in one aspect of IR does not provide immunity from criticism, when warranted, on other aspects.

I, like many in this place, enjoy working alongside the Hon. John Darley and respect the commitment he made before the election to serve the whole eight years, but on the topic of penalty rates I reckon the X-Team's policy to reduce the wages of some of our lowest paid workers is just plain wrong. When low-paid workers' wages are under attack like this, I will stand by those in the union movement in defending them.