Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. In some countries, politics is divided on the basis of religion or race or culture or geography; in Australian politics, it's really based on the attitude people have to bills like this and to the working men and women of this country. We on this side of the chamber represent the working-class people—compare that to the attitude of those opposite in relation to this issue.

There's much contention between Labor historians and people in different states as to the origin of the Labor Party. Some people think it's a pub in Balmain. I, as a Queenslander, try and think it's under a ghost gum, the Tree of Knowledge, in Barcaldine in 1891. And there were Labor parties all through the colonial period, rising out of shearers' strikes. On 27 April 1904, Chris Watson led the first Labor ministry not just in Australia but in the world. The first majority Labor government came about when the fifth Australian prime minister, Andrew Fisher, was elected in 1910. That was a situation where we had a majority Labor government.

Labor governments, when in power, legislate to protect workers' rights, as with the legislation that's before us here tonight. That's what Labor governments do. It didn't surprise anyone—or it shouldn't have—that one of the first acts of the Labor government in 2022 was to support the rise in minimum wages for millions of Australians, and we've done it again. What we're doing tonight, with this legislation, is making sure that the men and women who work in our workplaces—the teachers, the nurses, the shop assistants, the firies, the ambos and all those people who serve us and who work hard for our local community—can get their penalty rates protected.

I never saw anything like that from those opposite during their nine long years of office, not under Abbott nor under Turnbull nor under Morrison as prime ministers—not once. We promised this legislation as one of the very first acts of business if we were re-elected, and we're doing it and honouring it. And this debate is all about honouring our election commitment. I will be really fascinated to see the vote and attitude of those opposite. Because the Labor Party are the party of good, secure jobs and wages that give men and women the opportunity for financial security and dignity in retirement. It is the party that delivered Medicare, superannuation and all the pensions that we have. Those opposite believe in insecurity and not a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Historically, that's the difference.

This bill is one of those pieces of legislation that defines the difference between the Labor side of politics and the non-Labor side of politics. In Australia, that has been the defining issue. You're either Labor or non- or anti-Labor, and that's been the difference in Australian politics since the pastoral workers met under that ghost gum tree in Barcaldine.

Millions of Australians will have their penalty rates and overtime rates protected under this legislation—millions! We want to make sure they're protected. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill will prevent variations to awards that will reduce or remove an employee's penalty rates or overtime rates—not for us, AWAs, and not for us, WorkChoices; we're going to protect workers' rights.

The legislation inserts a high-level principle into the Fair Work Act that operates alongside the modern award objective, ensuring penalty rates and overtime can't be rolled into a single rate of pay which leaves an employee worse off. That reminds you of something that John Howard might have done. The AWAs, WorkChoices and getting rid of the no-disadvantage test were the sorts of stuff they did, only to try and bring them back on the eve of the election in 2007—too little, too late. The public were onto them. They had pens—do you remember the WorkChoices pens and the mousepads they did? They did all that stuff to venerate and worship WorkChoices, only to find on the eve of the election that taking away people's penalty rates and overtime rates was not in their best interests, and the public was on to them. That's why legislation like this is so important. This is about definition between us and them when it comes to industrial relations.

This particular bill amends the act of parliament to legislate protections. It's effectively a no-worse-off or no-disadvantage test. Penalty rates and overtime rates are an absolutely essential feature of minimum terms and conditions in modern awards, and safety is crucial for people. Safety equals security. These things should be protected and not reduced, and this bill will ensure penalty rates of workers and awards are protected into the future.

Protecting a fair minimum safety net of terms and conditions of employment is crucial for workers who are award reliant and low paid. That's why the Labor Party believes in unions and unionism, in collectivism and in the solidarity that protects you if you're low paid. That's why we believe in terms and conditions that give men and women the opportunity to protect themselves in the workplace. There is economic injustice in this country. There's disadvantage. We don't want a situation where the rich and the powerful—the billionaires and the millionaires—are in a position where they can dictate to working men and women in workplaces without the protection of their unions and without the protection of legislation that protects their rights.

This includes a lot of people on awards in my electorate of Blair, including those who work in retail, hospitality and fast food, and warehousing, many of whom are members of the mighty Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association—the SDA or the shoppies. For example, there are 12,700 retail and hospitality workers in Blair, and they make up nearly 15 per cent of the total workforce. One retail worker in my community, Karen, said that picking up weekend work and overtime and earning penalty rates helps her and her colleagues to keep on top of things financially. This is what she said:

The importance of penalty rates for people working unsociable hours can't be overstated, especially as they are already on low wages.

I see the younger workers particularly, who are struggling to make ends meet in the current financial climate, having to rely on working penalty rate hours to get by.

They still have rents and expenses to pay that continue to go up, and they rely on the penalty rates they earn from working holidays and weekends to give them the extra breathing space in their weekly budgets.

I agree entirely, Karen. I know the work that you do in shopping centres around Ipswich and I know the work that you've done. I know your community spirit, because I know you personally.

Before the election, fellow Queenslander and former minister for employment and workplace relations, Senator Murray Watt, announced a re-elected Albanese Labor government would legislate to protect penalty rates and awards, ensuring the wages of around three million workers wouldn't go backwards. This commitment and this bill will ensure that in the future, and that position is enshrined in law.

In recent times we've seen big-business lobby groups in the retail, clerical and banking sectors make applications to the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates of low-paid workers from awards. For example, right now the Australian Retailers Association is proposing to vary the retail award to cut entitlements. If they're successful in their applications, these employer groups will reduce the overall income of workers, and they'll be down by thousands of dollars every year.

In the retail case, the Albanese government intervened to argue as a matter of principle that the wages of low-paid workers should not go backwards. In stark contrast, the former Leader of the Opposition and former member for Dickson said he wouldn't stand up to the big retailers as they attempted to cut the workers' pay. Indeed, before the election, the coalition gave the green light for big business to cut penalty rates under a future LNP government federally, confirming they would not match the Albanese government's intervention in the application currently before the Fair Work Commission.

In comments quietly released on a Friday in February, the LNP admitted that they wouldn't make a submission opposing the application by the big retailers, including Woolworths and Coles, to cut penalty rates and other entitlements in the award covering retail employees. Prior to the election, the then coalition leader stated, 'The independent umpire sets the conditions,' and continues 'and we won't propose any departure from the current arrangements.' In other words, they were happy to stand by for big business to cut the wages and conditions of some of Australia's lowest-paid workers. They were happy just to sit back and watch low-paid workers take a pay cut and happy to side with big business rather than hardworking Australians doing it tough.

This is a repeat of the same approach they had when they were last in government, where they refused to support increases in minimum wages, which saw low-paid workers go backward, and it was a deliberate design feature that. That's what they admitted they were doing.

In contrast, for three years consecutive years in our first term, the Albanese government had consistently advocated to protect the real wages of low-paid workers at each annual wage review, resulting in an 18.5 per cent increase over the last term of the government—well above inflation. In dollar terms, in the three years since Labor came to government, the national minimum wage has increased by $4.62 per hour, more than $175 per week, $9,120 per year or a 22.7 per cent increase.

Against this, the coalition has voted against penalty rates multiple times. This failure was another clear point of difference between the major parties, as workplace relations became a clear election issue. I think the Australian people understood this. You can see that the coalition wanted people to work longer and receive less and, in fact, pay more tax as well—that was their policy, because they voted against our tax cuts. The issue of penalty rates has been on the national agenda for years, and the coalition have lots of form on this.

The former Leader of the Opposition and the former shadow minister for employment and workplace relations Senator Cash have been very clear in supporting cuts to penalty rates. They openly supported the decision to cut penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers in 2017. Senator Cash said:

Instead of getting double time on Sundays, casuals on the retail award will now get time-and-three-quarters, while permanent staff will get time-and-a-half.

Anyone who approaches this issue honestly will acknowledge the benefits the decision will bring for small businesses and jobs.

This is a real kick in the guts for many low-paid workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. Of course we've seen the shadow minister, now the member for Goldstein, come out and criticise these laws. We know the coalition doesn't believe in protecting workers' wages and upholding the award safety net.

Let's be clear in addressing how we boost productivity in this country. It has never been and will never be a solution, as far as the Labor side of politics is concerned, to make workers do more for less. This legislation is aimed at protecting penalty rates and overtime rates for award-reliant workers to ensure they can't go backwards. They are some of the people I referred to in my speech and the member for Adelaide mentioned in his speech. And what's more, there's even evidence that without penalty and overtime rates, not only would workers be disadvantaged but skills shortages and productivity might end up being worse than before, which is bad for business. After all, better paid workers are happier and more productive. We on the Labor side make no apologies for advocating for higher wages for workers.

I was in business for 20 years before I came to this place, and making sure people had good secure jobs and were well paid was absolutely crucial to the function of my law practice to make sure that it operated profitably. I don't understand why those opposite can't see these issues. Real wages have grown for the past five consecutive quarters, in contrast to the previous coalition government's real wages record, which went backwards for five consecutive quarters. When you look at what we are saying here and our track record compared to those opposite, it's only Labor that protects award wages, it's only Labor that protects penalty rates and it's only Labor that protects overtime rates. The contrast between us and them is stark.

See this speech in context