Press conference, Sydney

MURRAY WATT, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: Thanks very much everyone for coming along here today to New South Wales Trades Hall. Thank you to Unions New South Wales for working with us to put on a fantastic rally of workers who are out there today fighting to preserve their penalty rates. And I'm very pleased to assure the workers standing behind me, along with Senator Tony Sheldon and Senator Tim Ayres, that the Albanese Labor Government is not going to let penalty rates get scrapped without a mighty big fight. We today, the Albanese Labor Government, will be intervening in a Fair Work Commission case which is seeing the supermarkets and the big retailers of Australia try to strip penalty rates off people who are earning as little as $53,000 per year.
 
Now, the workers standing with us here today do really important jobs in our supermarkets, in our retail stores all across the country, and very often they give up their weekends or their weeknights to feed and to clothe us, the rest of us who don’t have to work those hours. And I reckon there's a pretty basic principle that weekends are special and weeknights are special. When do we have weddings? When do we have family gatherings? When do we have football grand finals? They're on weekends. Weekends are special. And people who give up their time to feed and clothe us on those weekends or on those weeknights in unsociable hours, they deserve their penalty rates, and they deserve a government that's going to protect those penalty rates.
 
So, we'll be intervening in this case to oppose the attempt from the supermarkets and the big retailers to strip away these penalty rates and other conditions. I know that workers here are literally standing with us as we try to do this. And there's a big question mark now for Peter Dutton and the Coalition, do they stand with workers? Do they stand with protecting penalty rates? Or do they stand with the supermarkets and big retailers who are trying to rip away penalty rates from people who earn as little as $53,000 a year? It's time for Peter Dutton to come clean. We know that he wants to scrap a range of other workplace rights, which would send wages backwards. We are finally getting wages moving again in this country under the Albanese Labor Government, we intend to keep it that way. And we intend to take up the fight to Peter Dutton at the next election to make sure that he doesn't take workers backwards, that he doesn't take wages backwards, and we'll be reminding people that you will be a hell of a lot worse off under Peter Dutton.
 
I'll hand over now to Senator Tony Sheldon, then we're happy to take questions.
 
TONY SHELDON, SENATOR FOR NEW SOUTH WALES: Thanks very much, Murray. This is a simple question, is Peter Dutton going to stick with the people who made billions of dollars on the back of these retail workers, or is he going to turn around and back them up? It's quite simply billions of dollars worth of profit, and now they're putting their hands in the pockets of these hard working retail workers. Whose side is Dutton on? Because Peter Dutton has made it quite clear he'll give free lunches to billionaires, but we’ll see if he will back these workers against those billionaires.

Now, I've been involved in many disputes with retail workers standing side by side against these billion dollar profitable companies. These big retailers aren't happy enough to make $7 billion, they want to put their hands in the pockets of hard working retailers so they can even make more money at their expense. This is a simple question. Does Peter Dutton want to take weekends and public holidays off hard working Australians and have this happen right across the economy? Or is he going to stand with hard working Australians and tell those billionaire, profitable companies that enough is enough?
 
Now we're facing this challenge in cost of living, it's quite clear if Peter Dutton doesn't side with retail workers, then he's siding with those people that are making billions of dollars, and he's going to make Australian workers worse off. It's quite clear that they have a simple, simple option, stand by hard working families, keep their weekends and make sure that those billionaire profitable companies, those big retailers, back down. Peter Dutton, stand with Australian workers, stand with Australian families, or you're going to stand with those billionaire, big retailers.
 
I just want to say one other particularly important thing, and that is these workers, when they take direct action, I’ve been involved in direct action against retailers in my working life, and I will stand beside them. And I'll say to those retailers that have been putting our prices up, stealing out of the pockets of these workers, I'm going to sit in, stand in and stand beside these workers to say: we're going to hold you to account. And Peter Dutton, you're either on our side, the Australian public’s side and these families' side, or you're on the billionaire, big retailer's side.  
 
JOURNALIST: So, Senator Watt, it's very unusual for the Federal Government to intervene in a Fair Work hearing of this nature. Why are you doing it?
 
MURRAY WATT: It is unusual for a Federal Minister to intervene in a Fair Work Commission this way. But we need to draw a line in the sand and say that it is not on for the supermarkets and the big retailers to rip away penalty rates from people earning as little as $53,000 per year. Now, of course, this case will set a precedent. What we are concerned about is that, right now, the focus is on retail workers. But if the big retailers succeed in taking away these penalty rates, who's going to be next? Is it going to be hospitality workers? Is it going to be security guards? Is it going to be cleaners? Is it going to be all sorts of other workers who rely on their penalty rates to be able to pay their bills? So that's why it is important that the Federal Government stands up and stands with these workers who are at risk of losing their penalty rates.
 
JOURNALIST: Can you take a step back for a moment, though, because the proposal is not to take away penalty rates, but to give an option to workers, what do you say to that?
 
MURRAY WATT: Yeah, so I've seen this argument being put by the retailers that everyone will have a choice. We are talking about an attempt from the retailers to rip these conditions out of the award, the safety net, the minimum conditions and pay. Now, there is easy opportunity within our industrial relations system for employers, for unions and workers to reach an enterprise agreement where decisions are made about trading off some things for other things. That's how that happens is through the bargaining system, which is supervised by the Fair Work Commission to make sure that everyone gets a fair deal. And of course, every enterprise bargain has to pass the better off overall test, that would not occur if the retailers have their way here. What this opens the door to with the retailers is ripping these standards and penalty rates from minimum pay and conditions. And for that to be organised individually, with an employer going to an individual employee and saying: how about you do this? There's not fair bargaining power in that situation. It's very different to an enterprise bargaining agreement, which has those other safeguards in it, and that's why it's important for the Government to stand up and protect the minimum safety net for workers who are not earning huge amounts of money.
 
JOURNALIST: But can you step through it, you're making a leap there. You're saying if they have, people have options, and some workers take up those options that will get rid of the penalty rates. Can you just step through that? Because it's a really long bow to draw?
 
MURRAY WATT: I don't think it is a long bow to draw. As I say, the way our industrial relations system works in Australia is that we have awards. We set out minimum pay and conditions for all workers in a particular industry that cannot be traded away, that cannot go backwards. We also have enterprise bargaining systems, which is the way that employers, unions and workers can reach agreements where there's a bit of give and take, and that some people get some things and other people get some things, but that's a protected system supervised by the Fair Work Commission that has to pass the better off overall test.
 
Our Government, the Albanese Government, since we came to power has been about getting wages moving again, letting them go forwards, not letting them go backwards in the way that the retailers are seeking to do. Even with the pay rise that retailers are putting forward in exchange for trading away penalty rates, overtime, meal breaks, annual leave loading, a whole range of other conditions, the pay rises that are being offered by the big retailers would still leave these workers earning significantly less than the average weekly wage for Australians. They will go backwards all round. They won't go forwards. And we're not going to let that happen.
 
JOURNALIST: Okay, so two separate issues. You're saying that if there are changes that people go individually, that is the breakdown of the award system? Just run through that please.
 
MURRAY WATT: Yeah, what we're saying is that the award system puts in place minimum standards and conditions for all workers in a particular industry. What the retailers are trying to do here is to open up the system so that an individual boss can have an individual conversation with an individual worker, on their own, no one else there supervising it, no one else making sure that the worker has adequate bargaining power to get the worker to sign up to a deal which would see them go backwards, and a Labor Government is not going to let that happen. If employers want to have these discussions about pay rises in return for certain other things, there are ways to do that, and the way to do that is through the enterprise bargaining system, which has the Fair Work Commission playing an active role to make sure that no one ends up worse off. That's the way that these sort of conversations should be happening, rather than tearing out conditions from the safety net that applies to all workers.
 
JOURNALIST: In a modern world what's wrong with modernising the award system given it's overly complex, a thousand awards, what’s wrong with trying to change that to suit modern times?
 
MURRAY WATT: There's absolutely nothing wrong with modernising awards. In fact, this whole process started under my predecessor, Tony Burke, who referred a number of awards to the Fair Work Commission for modernising. But to modernise or simplify awards, you don't have to be making people have pay cuts. There are many things that can be done to simplify awards without cutting people's pay, cutting the pay of the kind of people standing behind us now.
 
JOURNALIST: So that's the second point you make. So, you're saying that if workers opt to do the individual trade off, they will receive less money. Can you just step through that?
 
MURRAY WATT: Our argument is that the pay rise that's being offered by the big retailers goes nowhere near the full range of conditions that they are asking people to trade away. Some of the people we're standing with here make a significant portion of their income each and every year off their penalty rates by working weekends, by working public holidays, by working weeknights, when the rest of us have the opportunity to spend time with our family, play sport, do whatever we want to do in those sorts of hours. These people are making that sacrifice in return for penalty rates and all the other conditions that come with it. And as I say, we are not going to allow big business to get in there and try and take those kind of conditions off people without a very big fight.
 
JOURNALIST: But what if a work opts for it? Isn't it their choice they want to do that?
 
MURRAY WATT: I feel like I've addressed that question on the number of occasions.
 
JOURNALIST: And what do you see in terms of dollars? I mean, can you give it an example? You said inside someone earning $53,000 a year could be the sort of management they're talking about, the senior people, just step through what that means if they lost penalties?
 
MURRAY WATT: I think you heard from the workers inside who spoke to the rally what it would mean for them to lose these kind of penalty rates. As I say, the kind of people we're talking about here are earning as little as $53,000 a year. That is nearly half the average weekly wage for a full time worker in Australia. It's a workforce that is predominantly female, very reliant on awards. This decision would directly affect several thousand people and have very big implications for the one million people who are covered by this award. The award sets the minimum rates and conditions for people who work in the industry, a lot more people than those who would be directly affected. So, this has the potential to see, over time, pay cuts and the loss of conditions for a much broader group of people.
 
JOURNALIST: And just lastly, the Australian Retailers Association have accused unions of misinformation over this, saying they're not talking about getting rid of penalties. What do you say to that?
 
MURRAY WATT: Well, they would say that. I'll let the Australian public make their choice about if they're going to believe Woolies, Coles and the big retailers, or the kind of people who flog their guts out on weekends and weeknights to feed and clothe the rest of us. The retailers would say that. I think the evidence is very clear. And as I said inside, if anyone thinks that Woolies and Coles are doing this because they want to pay their workers more, well, I've got a Sydney Harbor Bridge to sell you.