Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6) to page 3 (line 18), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part pursuant to:

(a) section 144 (flexibility terms); or

(b) section 160 (which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors); or

(c) paragraph 157 (3)(a) (own initiative).

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms existed immediately prior to commencement of Subsection (1).

(4) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms are expressed to apply only to a small business employer.

(5) Subsection (1) does not limit the FWC's ability to make a determination to vary a modern award where the determination is made:

(a) to ensure that awards are operating effectively by addressing any anomaly or technical irregularity in the award arising from either the making of the award or past variations to it; or

(b) as an outcome of proceedings commenced by the Commission of its own motion if Commission is satisfied is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and compliance with section 138, or

(c) following the Fair Work Commission being satisfied that the variation is fair to employees and that it would:

(i) improve productivity; or

(ii) promote employment opportunities or the participation of employees in paid work; or

(iii) assist employees to balance their work and family commitments.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 Regulatory impact statement

(1) The Minister must cause a regulatory impact statement to be prepared in relation to the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must complete it within one year after this Act commences.

(3) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must give the Minister a copy of the statement.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the regulatory impact statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives a copy of the statement.

We just had a long dissertation on the amendments put forward, even though I understand they have been provided to the Clerk. But the Leader of the House, in his brilliance and capacity to be able to manage the challenges of this parliament, particularly its committee process, is, of course, being a pedant. So be it. There is a simple reality: we support penalty rates. We understand how important it is to support jobs and small businesses, and there are no penalty rates on jobs that don't exist. We have gone directly to the Australian people because the minister has shut down any pathway of understanding the impact of the legislation she is putting before the House. She is not interested in hearing from nor speaking to nor seeing any small business, so we did the minister's job for her.

Let's look at some of the feedback we have from the Australian community on why these changes are so important, to make sure that these voices are heard: 'I run a small business, and I'd like to know what this new legislation is, because I don't know what it entails'; 'Small business requires owners to work in the businesses, be bookkeepers, know all the taxes, know all the fair work laws, know all retail and wage laws and make sure everything is on paper. Penalties are great if not done'; 'Big businesses have accountants and PR and HR professionals—things small businesses can't afford'; 'At present we have good businesses closing down which can't sell'; 'No-one wants the stress, pressure and long hours for what now has little reward. It's easy to have a government job with shorter hours, large penalty rates, holidays, sick leave et cetera.' This is the problem. Without any proper consultation, the government has not understood the consequences of its legislation and the impact it's going to have on small businesses. The minister's understanding of small business, and this government's understanding of small business, is that corner shops have HR departments, legal departments and special advisers.

By the way, that's where all the money for penalty rates for young Australians and people who want to get ahead and get paid well gets sucked into: non-economically-productive activity to manage the realities of laws in this country. When we talk about simplification, we're talking about getting rid of needless legal work, needless accounting work and needless industrial relations advice so you can actually pay Australians more. It's simpler, cleaner and easier so Australians can get ahead, support their families, be in a position to have flexibility in their workplace arrangements and do things like pick up kids from school or manage work-life balance. It seems an entirely logical thing to do, except, of course, if you're part of the Albanese government. If you know this is the reality, and you know this is the consequence of legislation put forward to this House, the questions for the minister, the Prime Minister and, of course, everybody on Labor benches are: Why do they not want to hear from small business, see small business or talk to small business? Why don't they want to have a conversation where they can give the voices of small business a say in this nation's parliament?

We have had sloppy drafting at every stage of this legislation. This is not just my view; it's, of course, the view of industry, who have explicitly said that these are badly drafted laws. To the credit of the minister, she moved an amendment to address some of the sloppy drafting in her legislation, just now, and we supported her. We supported her because we actually want to make sure we get the legislation we need so that we get the outcome that we want for the Australian people. I will take a point of slight hilarity, which is that she's now accusing me of being disingenuous in my approach—through the Speaker, of course. The minister simply doesn't understand. Some of us believe in empowering Australians. Some of us—

See this speech in context