Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The flourishing rhetoric from the member for Goldstein is very reminiscent of Work Choices. I know that, deep down, that IPA Work Choices passion still burns in the shadow minister for small business, industrial relations and employment. I will directly reject the proposition. We will not be supporting this amendment for a number of reasons.

The first reason is that the shadow minister has pretended he supports penalty rates, but, in the provision that he has tabled, the words 'where the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied' are actually a watering down of protections. It is a lower test to protect penalty rates. Our words that include 'must ensure' are the words that provide the greatest protection. So while he's trying to have a bet both ways here, his substitution and his amendment would water down the test for workers in this country and go to a lower test to protect penalty rates. That is one of the reasons we are rejecting this amendment.

The second reason is—he's a bit rusty on this, and, in his own way, he acknowledged that he'd already accepted our amendment that made sure that there wasn't a requirement to go through any old modern awards—his (1)(b) position is actually completely redundant. It is an unnecessary duplication, and, for someone who has talked about regulatory burden, having a duplication in this bill really doesn't sound very productive to me. It adds complexity to the Fair Work Act, so we are rejecting that part.

He's focused a lot on a regulatory impact statement. He's talked about the 'big change' that this amendment is going to put through all workplaces in Australia, but the impact of this is that there is no change to what is currently operating. So he is asking for a regulatory impact statement—talk about a lot of duplication and red tape!—for something that involves no change whatsoever. He's asked about the direct consequences for small business. That has been his biggest concern. He must have missed my summing-up speech, because, to be clear, this bill does not alter existing employer obligations, including those of small business. It requires employers to do exactly what they are doing now. I am not sure if the shadow minister, through this amendment, is trying to foreshadow that if the coalition is ever elected, he intends to rip away penalty rates and overtime rates, because it doesn't alter any obligations.

There has been flourishing rhetoric about all the small businesses. I'm talking directly to small business all of the time, and my message to small business is that the result of this amendment we are making to protect penalty rates is for you to do exactly what you're doing now. Comply with the law; pay penalty rates, if you pay under the award system and you’re required to do so; and, if you would like to enter into negotiations with your employers, there is an enterprise bargaining framework that is there for you to use. This is a sensible, simple proposition. The shadow minister has got himself all tied up in knots. He's a little bit rusty with the parliamentary procedures. I'm sure that he'll calm.

Finally, I'd just like to mention—talking in good faith—that I have been very open with the shadow minister. I have not only consulted with employers, unions and, of course, workers around this country; I briefed him as well. I would hope that we could continue to work in a collaborative way, even when we disagree. He has clearly put it on the table that that is not the way he wants to work, which I'm fine with. We will get on with the job of protecting Australian workers, making sure Australian workers don't go backwards, and we will reject these amendments entirely.

See this speech in context