Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Protecting the integrity of the modern award system ensuring workers are properly compensated is at the core of the Labor Party and the labour movement. Young workers in my electorate of Hasluck, like Patrick Hunt, deserve their penalty rates. Patrick is a proud member of the SDA. In fact, he just celebrated his 17th birthday last week, so he's still on a youth wage. Without his penalty rates, he would see substantially less of his wages. As Patrick's mum said:

Penalty rates make working weekends worth it for Patrick. It makes time away from family, long hours, late nights worth it.

We want people like Patrick to continue to receive the wages that he does in order to be able to serve us.

Penalty rates are not a luxury; they are recognition of the unsociable hours that hundreds of thousands of Australians, just like Patrick, are doing all around the country, be it in retail, in fast food, in pharmacies and in so many other sectors. They reflect the sacrifice of the weekends, the public holidays, the family time. For many workers, especially those on modest incomes, they are the difference between making ends meet and falling behind.

For many of my local volunteers, people like John Topliss, 'penalty wages mean the world'; those are John's words. John had worked in Midland Gate, just across from my office, and he had relied on those penalty rates he's received. When we made our election commitment on this issue, John told me that it means everything to him to have a local member who stands up for his rights at work. His penalty rates provided the security that got him through university and have provided him with the means to start full-time work with some savings in his pocket.

Another volunteer, Lucinda Bartlett, said, in her own words, that her dad and her granddad were also able to work through university because of penalty rates:

The sanctity of my study is preserved by law, protecting penalty rates from an opposition unfamiliar with the work study balance of modern young people.

As a full time student, studying 40 hours plus attending class and working 20 hours a week, penalty rates are not a luxury but what allowed me to attend class.

This move is not to protect against a theoretical harm; there is a very real threat to workers' wages from big corporations and those opposite me in this chamber.

The Australian Retailers Association and other big business organisations are at the Fair Work Commission seeking to have penalty rates scrapped for some workers in the retail sector. I extend a thank you to the SDA national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, for his work in this matter. Modelling by the SDA found that a typical retail worker working afternoon and evening shifts and working every second weekend would be more than $5,000 worse off under the Australian Retail Association's proposal. The SDA said:

The ARA and big business call this workplace 'flexibility'. We call this greed.

I couldn't agree more.

There is opposition to this bill, yet I believe that those opposite may find some issues in their own position. One of the issues that members of the Liberal and National parties have to deal with—and they have a few issues that they need to deal with—is their adulation for aspects of the governance of the USA that simply aren't working. Health care is one. How many members of the opposition would be happy to scrap Medicare and the PBS, to follow the broken American system? There aren't penalty rates in the USA. There's overtime if you've already worked a 48-hour week, but no mandated dispensation for working nights, holidays or weekends—unless you're counting tips. 'Land of the free', 'the freedom to choose'—we often hear that from members opposite. But, as usual, it's freedom you only get to enjoy if you can afford to pay for it.

The member for Goldstein pretends this legislation might mean workers are paid less. Our government has presided over real wage rises and over tax cuts for all workers. The coalition government of which the member for Goldstein was a part—perhaps he's forgotten—saw real wages go backwards over their nine-plus years in office. As the shadow minister for industrial relations and employment, he's criticised this bill—which is not a shock to anyone. He does not believe in protecting workers' wages and upholding the award safety net.

The now opposition leader, Sussan Ley, voted in favour of removing Sunday and public holiday penalty rates when she voted on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. The opposition leader isn't really sure where to stand when there's a flag in the room but she has absolutely no doubt about looking at the flag at the top of the building, to see which way the wind is blowing.

We on this side want to protect the safety nets we have in place. We want to protect workers' rights and their families. We don't want our hospitality workers working all night for drinks and just tips. This legislation protects penalty rates. It doesn't extend them but it ensures that they can't be given away under undue pressure. The legislation doesn't hold good businesses back but it does ensure that there are no workers left behind.

The Independent Education Union, which represents teachers and support staff in independent schools, has welcomed this legislation. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said that they welcome the protection of penalty rates for insecure and casual work. The ACTU has stated:

Our Government is finally stepping in to stop employers cutting penalty rates and protecting people's pay. This was a key election promise, and we thank the Albanese Government for making it one of their first priorities. We call on all political parties to respect the election's outcome and pass this law.

The member for Goldstein has stated that the coalition supports penalty rates. It's a meaningless statement if you're not prepared to vote to protect them. For us, it's a high-level principle, and that's what we're enshrining in this legislation.

Due to the composition of the workforce, this legislation will particularly assist those workers who are women, part-time or casual workers and especially those under the age of 35, like Patrick. The Australian Business Journal stated last week:

For many Australians, especially those in hospitality, retail, health, and transport, penalty rates make a significant difference to their weekly earnings. The government's move to protect penalty overtime rates aims to offer certainty for these workers, ensuring they are not disadvantaged by any award changes or enterprise agreements.

It also sends a strong signal that the safety net for vulnerable workers cannot be eroded through backdoor mechanisms that leave employees worse off financially.

Essential research polling suggests that 70 per cent of Australians see protecting penalty rates as a critical workplace issue. This demonstrates the support for this legislation felt around the country. We all know someone who benefits from their penalty rates. It may be a family member, friend or worker at the local store. Many of these workers rely on their penalty rates to actually get by. They rely on the penalty rates to pay their bills, their fuel, their rent and their child care or to get through their studies. They deserve to have those wages protected, and the Albanese Labor government is committed to doing just that.

In our first term, the Labor government gave workers the right to disconnect. The Albanese Labor government ended the forced permanent casual loophole, providing a proper pathway to conversions for casuals who want it. The Albanese Labor government criminalised intentional wage theft, and now the Albanese Labor government is protecting the penalty rates of Australian workers. Defending workers rights is the blood of the Labor Party. For as long as there is an opposition that threatens workers' rights, there is the Labor party, protecting Australian workers' rights and their wages. I commend the bill.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which was introduced yesterday and is being debated today. You may ask how I've managed to get to an informed position on this legislation in 24 hours. It would be a reasonable question. Turning legislation around in 24 hours does not give members of the House an opportunity to hear from all stakeholder groups, consider the impacts and really understand the outcomes of new laws. I've done my best, but this is not the path to passing the best legislation. I'm surprised that this is not being referred to a committee. I abstained from the member for Goldstein's motion to refer this to a committee, because the committee he referred it to doesn't exist, so it was not a practical suggestion. But I would like to see greater scrutiny on these changes.

Let me be clear. I support fair pay and decent working conditions. Penalty and overtime rates are a vital part of our industrial relations framework, especially for those working unsociable hours. But, based on the limited time I've had to review this bill, I have formed the view that this bill is not the right way to protect them. This bill introduces provisions to prevent a reduction in specified penalty or overtime rates in modern awards, preventing provisions in modern awards that allow employers to roll up penalty and overtime rates into a single pay rate if it will result in a reduction in remuneration for any employee. We have one of the most complicated workplace relations systems in the world. For businesses of all sizes, but especially small businesses, which are the powerhouse of our economy, navigating our workplace relations system is a huge headache and a drag on business growth. It's not conducive to dynamic businesses.

There's been no political impetus to reform the industrial relations framework so it becomes more functional. We've seen, over the years, that ideological overhaul wins out over pragmatic iteration. In such a complex regulatory environment, the main winners are the specialists—lawyers, unions and IR professionals, who'll have a steady stream of work ahead of them. Neither businesses nor workers benefit from complexity. Efforts have been made to rationalise the number of awards in recent years, but each award is still ridiculously complicated. No doubt there are egregious breaches of award conditions, but there are also lots of examples of awards being so complicated that employers, especially small businesses, inadvertently underpay staff, need to engage specialists to determine whether they are paying correctly or both. Even large companies with significant human resources teams frequently find they've breached some unknown or complicated term of an award.

Quite aside from the complexity issue, it appears this legislation represents a troubling overreach. The Fair Work Commission, the independent expert body established precisely to adjudicate these types of matters, is currently considering a case brought by retailers seeking to vary penalty rates for managerial positions in exchange for increased pay. That process should be allowed to run its course. Instead, we see the government pre-empting the commission's decision with legislation that undermines its independence. This is not the first time we've seen this pattern. When governments legislate to override or anticipate decisions from independent institutions, it erodes trusts in those bodies and politicises what should be impartial processes.

Unions have raised concerns that this case may be the thin end of the wedge—the beginning of a broader campaign to dismantle penalty rates. But the solution is not to bypass the commission with politically motivated legislation. We must protect workers, but we also must protect the integrity of our institutions. If we continue to legislate around the commission every time we disagree with a potential outcome, industrial relations becomes even more of a political football.

On the substance of the changes, requiring that additional remuneration cannot be reduced for any employee is an unreasonably high bar. One example of an employee who may be disadvantaged could bring down a commonsense simplification to rates. This echoes the attempts to make the Better Off Overall Test a bit more practical, which ultimately couldn't do much because of these hypothetical situations. It's also not clear how these new provisions would interact with any variation to other modern award provisions that affect when the rate is triggered.

In short, there are complexities here, and they deserve to be investigated rather than having the bill rushed through the day after it's introduced to override a potential Fair Work Commission decision. In the context of an already far-too-complicated industrial relations framework, this is just more complexity. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill. I urge the government to respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission and allow it to do the job it was created to do.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to congratulate you in your magnificent role as Deputy Speaker in the chair. I do wish to rise this evening to speak in strong support—unlike the member we just heard from—of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which aims to protect penalty and overtime rates for Australian workers. This bill was introduced by my good friend and colleague the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, a woman who has undertaken extensive consultation. Some might say we had an entire election fought on some of these issues. Millions of Australians got to have their say.

This bill is a bill that goes to the heart of what Labor believes: fairness, dignity and respect for working people. It's a bill that honours the shift workers, weekend workers, early risers and late finishers—the people who work while others rest, who clock in at 4 am to bake the bread or sign off at 3 am after a long night working behind the bar. It's for the workers who spend Christmas Eves stocking shelves and Easter Sundays changing hospital beds. For too long, these Australians have been told their sacrifice doesn't matter—that their time isn't worth more than a Monday-to-Friday nine-to-five. This bill says the opposite. It says that your time does matter, and so does your pay.

This legislation delivers on a key Labor election commitment to protect the penalty rates of around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers. It amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate protections that ensure that penalty rates and overtime payments in modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by any other term that would lower a worker's take-home pay. It's a simple principle, really. Workers should not have their rights eroded under the guise of efficiency or flexibility—not when that flexibility only ever seems to benefit one side, and it's not the worker. Right now, there are active applications before the Fair Work Commission in sectors like retail, banking and clerical work, industries where workers are already underpaid and undervalued are seeking to trade away penalty rates. That's why this bill is so urgent. It speaks to the issues the member for Curtin raised. This is why this urgent bill needs to be before the House now. We want these changes passed and enacted so the commission can apply the new law to those cases immediately, stopping the erosion of pay before the damage is done.

Penalty rates and overtime are not perks. They are not bonuses or benefits to be bargained away. They are recognition of the time that workers spend away from their families, their friends and their communities, working nights, weekends, early mornings and holidays. They are compensation for working nights, when everyone else is asleep, for showing up on Sunday when others are resting or for saying yes to shifts on Christmas Day, New Year's Eve or school holidays, when, honestly, you'd rather be with your kids. When a nurse does a double shift and misses bedtime with her children, that deserves recognition. When a warehouse worker clocks out at 2 am and makes the long commute home, that deserves recognition. When a barista opens up a cafe every weekend while studying full time during the week, that deserves recognition. These are hardworking Australians who keep the country running. They deserve a system that fairly compensates them for this work. Penalty rates recognise that sacrifice. They say: 'Your time matters. Your labour matters, and it's worth more when it costs more.' That's why this legislation matters—because, in recent years, we have seen exactly what happens when workers don't have the protection of government behind them.

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 ensures that penalty rates and overtime cannot be undermined or bargained away as part of enterprise agreements. This bill is designed to be simple, flexible and workable, providing clarity without adding unnecessary complexity. It makes clear that the safety net of minimum conditions under the award system is just that—it's a floor and not a ceiling. The bill strengthens the role of the Fair Work Commission, upholds the principle of no disadvantage and stops the erosion of hard-earned conditions under the guise of flexibility or cost cutting. It closes the loopholes, it restores balance and it sends a clear message: workers rights are not negotiable.

In my community of Newcastle this bill will make a real and immediate difference. Newcastle is a city built on the backs of shift workers. We are home to thousands of nurses, paramedics, aged-care workers, cleaners, hospitality workers, retail workers, transport drivers and security guards—people who don't work standard hours but work odd hours, long hours and hard hours. This bill means that those workers can have certainty that their penalty rates can't be stripped out through enterprise bargaining and their overtime pay won't be sold off for a flat rate or a 'take it or leave it' deal. That matters because, in Newcastle and in so many communities across Australia, every dollar counts. Penalty rates are not an extra; they're not an add-on luxury item. Some members struggle to understand this concept, I think. They are part of essential recognition of long and often very family-unfriendly hours worked and served. They pay the bills; they cover the school uniforms; they keep the fridge full. I've had many conversations with workers in Newcastle who've told me that the penalty rates they earn make the difference between just scraping by and actually getting ahead. For single parents, carers, casuals and part-time workers, penalty rates are a lifeline, and for too long they have been under attack.

Let's be very clear about how we got here. Penalty rates were cut under the former coalition government. They allowed it to happen; indeed, they defended it. They said it would help business. They said it would create jobs. They said the impact would be minimal. But, for the retail workers who had to cancel their kids' birthday parties, it wasn't minimal. For the student who had to take on an extra shift instead of studying for an exam, it wasn't minimal. For the aged-care worker who watched their pay shrink while costs kept rising, it wasn't minimal. Labor opposed these cuts from day one. We stood with workers. We fought alongside their unions. I want to give a very special shout-out to Hunter Workers, who are at the forefront of defending workers rights each and every day. It's hard work, but it's noble work. We stood with everyday Australians who knew that a pay cut, no matter how it was packaged up by those opposite, was a blow to both dignity and fairness.

The Liberals never believed in strong workplace protections. They don't support collective bargaining. They don't support a robust awards system. They don't support workers having a real say. We know those opposite won't lift a finger to protect workers entitlements. The former leader of the opposition confirmed it when he said, 'The independent umpire sets the conditions,' and affirmed, 'We don't propose any departure from the current arrangements.' Of course, we have seen the shadow minister come out criticising these laws as well. In contrast, Labor has always fought for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It's part of the founding principles of our party. We brought you the Fair Work Act, we introduced universal superannuation, we created paid parental leave, we criminalised wage theft, we banned pay secrecy clauses, we legislated 'same job, same pay' laws to stop the labour hire exploitation, we gave workers the right to clock off and, now, we're acting again to protect penalty and overtime rates, because, when Labor is in government, working people are never on their own.

Let me highlight exactly who does benefit from this bill: women, who make up the majority of the part-time and casual workforce and the majority of those in the care sector, the cleaning sector and the retail sector, who dominate sectors like aged care, cleaning, hospitality and retail, and who are more likely to be working irregular hours and relying on penalty rates to top up otherwise modest pay packets; young people, many of whom began their working lives in shift based industries like fast food, retail and customer service and are more vulnerable to unfair agreements and pay erosion; migrant workers, who are disproportionately represented in award-dependent, shift based jobs and are more likely to be unfamiliar with workplace laws or less empowered to bargain; and low-paid workers, who do not have the leverage to say no to a bad deal and who rely on the award safety net to ensure fairness. This bill is a gender equity measure, it's an antipoverty measure, it's a youth justice measure and it's a multicultural equity measure too. It is everything a good government should be. We use the levers of the law to protect those most at risk of being left behind.

This bill doesn't just fix the past; it futureproofs the system. We know the nature of work is changing faster than ever. The rise of gig work, the growth of casualisation, the increasing influence of AI and automation—these are big forces reshaping our economy. But no matter how work changes, some principles must remain constant. Workplaces must be safe, they must offer fair payment and fair remuneration for work done, and they must be places where people are not exploited. This legislation says clearly that the Fair Work Act is a living document. It must adapt as the workforce evolves, and, as a parliament, we must be responsive to the needs of the people we represent. We are reinforcing the role of the Fair Work Commission. We are raising the floor for workers, not just for now but for the future. We are rebuilding public trust in a system that puts people before profit.

For many modern-award-reliant employees, penalty rates and overtime are not optional extras. They are a critical part of their take-home pay, and this bill continues the Albanese Labor government's commitment to deliver fair and decent conditions for working Australians. It delivers on our government's key election commitment to protect the penalty rates of around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers. However, this bill is about more than money. It's about dignity and security. It's about saying to workers in Newcastle and, indeed, in every single electorate represented in this chamber, that their time matters. Their effort matters and their sacrifice matters. Most of all, your government sees that effort and sacrifice.

This is what Labor governments do. We stand up for workers, legislate for fairness and deliver for working people. I commend this bill to the House. Let's protect penalty rates, let's protect overtime and let's keep building a country where no worker is left behind and every worker gets to have a fair go.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. Penalty and overtime rates are a really important part of our employment system and were, in many cases, fought hard for over the course of Australia's history.

In my electorate, I have St Vincent's hospital, one area of the community where I often meet amazing shift workers who give up their weekends, their nights and their public holidays so that the rest of our community are safe and have help when we need them. Shift work is hard enough, but additionally these essential workers have to give up precious time they could otherwise be spending with friends, with family and out in the community. To them, penalty and overtime rates are crucial, and I recognise that. It is with those people in mind that I considered this bill.

This bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act to insert a new section requiring the Fair Work Commission to ensure that, in making or varying modern awards, penalty rates are not reduced and that new or varied awards will not include terms that substitute penalty rates or overtime entitlements which reduce additional remuneration from penalty or overtime rates.

Now, no-one disputes the fact that people who work those shifts and those hours should receive fair compensation for doing so. I think it is disingenuous to characterise any questions on this bill in that way, but I do have serious reservations about the bill—principally, that it undermines the role of our independent Fair Work Commission, who we've entrusted to take politics out of such decisions. It will prevent reasonable options and menus in awards and, in some cases, hold back an overwhelming majority of workers from accepting better outcomes, and it adds additional complexity to our already complex award system. None of these objections seek to undermine the ability of workers to receive compensation for their tireless work, particularly those that work in unsociable hours.

My principal concern with this bill is the deliberate interference with the Fair Work Commission's powers to adjudicate such matters. I think it's really critical to identify that the protections this bill seeks to insert are already explicitly stated in the bill under section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act. These protections exist. This section states that, under the objectives of modern awards, they must consider the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working: overtime; unsociable, irregular or unpredictable hours; weekends or public holidays; and shifts. That is already enshrined in the current Fair Work Act, and the Fair Work Commission has to work under those objectives. In other words, the Fair Work Commission is already instructed by the act to consider the provisions the bill seeks to protect. Legislating an additional proposed section 135A represents a lack of faith in the independent Fair Work Commission to adjudicate this matter fairly on the guidance that already exists.

This brings me to my next concern. This bill is in direct response to a current application from one sector to the Fair Work Commission to have an adjustment to the award to allow workers to opt in to a higher, yet stable, salary over a lower base rate reliant on penalty rates. This bill is seeking to prevent workers having a choice about whether they get the current arrangements or whether they accept a different arrangement which they would prefer. I do understand that for some people the concern is that this just represents the thin end of the wedge and that, if we introduce a reasonably acceptable change, this will be start of the slippery slope to gradual degradation of penalty rates. I have heard that argument. But, respectfully, I disagree. I think that this shows an unreasonable lack of faith in the Fair Work Commission and an unreasonable lack of respect for individuals' right to choose what options suit them best.

As I mentioned before, section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act already gives the Fair Work Commission the responsibility to adjudicate on these matters. We want an industrial relations system that accommodates different circumstances and affords workers choice but pushes back when compromises go too far. I believe the current system strikes the appropriate balance, and I believe the bill undermines this important principle. It is entirely reasonable that some workers may want to choose a stable salary over relying on penalty rates, for example. The reasons for this might be as simple as wanting to be able to make applications for credit easier or making it simpler for them to save and budget their weekly wage. Allowing workers the option is exactly what our workplace system, I believe, should have more of rather than less of. In fact, the Productivity Commission's 2023 report Advancingprosperity, explicitly recommended 'introducing menus into industrial rewards' in recommendation 7.14.

The additional concern I have on this bill is the bar under which this could be judged—if a single worker would be worse off under a different penalty rate arrangement then it would not be possible for it to be offered. Again, I think we need to think of context. If the vast majority—and I am talking about the vast, vast majority—of workers are better off under a different arrangement but a very small handful would be worse off under that arrangement, in whose interest is it for that not to be at least offered as an option for people? That is the question I really am asking as the government puts forward this bill.

Finally, my final concern with the bill is simplicity. I understand that awards are simpler than they have been in the past. I have employed many people under awards and I have sat with family members and friends trying to work out what they should be paid, and I can I tell you that we have a long way to go to make awards simple for businesses to make sure they are doing the right thing and simple for people to make sure they're being paid correctly. This change, while modest, adds to the complexity and makes it harder for people trying to do the right thing to make sure they are doing the right thing or they are being paid the right amount. It also makes it potentially more complex to engage with and enter into designing enterprise bargaining arrangements, which I know is a key desire, frankly, of the Labor government and of many employers.

This brings me to my second reading amendment. The government has shown today how easy it is to open the Fair Work Act and legislate provisions to, in the minister's words, 'get wages moving for Australian workers'. Well I ask them, while we're at it, to please consider recommendation 7.14 of the Productivity Commission's report entitled Advancing prosperity, which I referred to earlier. It argued for 'explicitly enshrining productivity as an objective of modern awards'. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) Australia has just had the worst decade for productivity in the past 60 years;

(b) boosting productivity is the only way Australia can sustainably increase wages over time;

(c) the Government's agenda to lift Australia's productivity is not comprehensive without considering the role of Australia's industrial relations system; and

(d) in 2023, the Productivity Commission's report Advancing Prosperity recommended that the Fair Work Act be amended to explicitly include productivity as an objective of modern awards; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend subsection 134(1) of the Fair Work Act such that Productivity is an objective of modern awards, as per Recommendation 7.13 of the Productivity Commission's report Advancing Prosperity".

We all know that productivity is the only way we can get a sustainable lift in wages over the long-term. In fact, the Intergenerational report suggests that it has represented around 80 per cent of real wage growth since the 1980s. If we don't lift our sluggish productivity levels all of our wages go backwards. All this negotiating, all this fighting over the pie means so much less if the pie isn't growing. How do we grow that pie? We have to grow productivity.

You might not notice it, you might not feel the benefit of productivity, but as Ken Henry outlined in his recent Press Club speech, 'The average full-time Australian worker has been robbed of around $500,000 over the past 25 years,' because of our failure to lift sluggish productivity. I know industrial relations and tax reform are no panacea for productivity. No single action is a panacea for productivity, but we cannot pretend to have a comprehensive discussion about how to lift our lacklustre productivity without acknowledging that there are balances to be struck and, frankly, we need a better evidence base to assess whether changes to the industrial relations acts make a difference, make a negative or positive difference, to productivity and the cost or the benefit that that imposes on the community.

While I'm talking about this, I have been urging the government for some time to ask the Productivity Commission to specifically look at industrial relations through a productivity lens. If we could look at our system, not through a political lens but through a productivity lens—a lens of just understanding how the system works, how it doesn't work and then better understand our choices and our trade-offs when we choose to make them—then we do have a better chance of making all workers better off, which is certainly my objective in coming into this House.

The simplistic message the government is espousing is that anyone who opposes this bill must want to slash wages. That is an unfair argument and it is not worthy of what is actually a really important debate. It just demonstrates how politicised IR has become. I don't want to see industrial relations be an ideological battle between the major parties to the extent that it is virtually impossible to have the sensible debate around IR that we need. It is for that very reason that we determined to have a Fair Work Commission in the first place, an arm's length organisation that can take the politics out of these sorts of decisions, because industrial relations are too important to squabble over for political games.

So, I come back to the workers I spoke about at the very start. I will be honest with all those people in my community who do rely on penalty rates and overtime rates. If I believed that this bill was critical to protecting you getting what you deserve, in terms of those penalty and overtime rates, then I would be voting for this bill. But I'm not because I don't believe it is critical. I believe it is already enshrined in the Fair Work Act, and that it actually removes choice for workers, which is important, and also makes our industrial relations system more complex, which has a burden that is hard to quantify but is significantly there.

I believe that if we are serious about boosting productivity then we need to be absolutely rigorous in scrutinising every piece of legislation that comes through this House and viewing it through a productivity lens as well as all the lenses of the other issues that this piece of legislation is trying to address.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Wentworth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very proud to be here speaking on this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which protects workers' penalty rates. I do so because it's an important bill for my electorate, especially, and for everyone's electorate as it amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate protections to ensure that penalty and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that would reduce employees' take-home pay. Our workers, who rely on overtime and penalty rates, deserve nothing less. That's why I'm supporting this bill and why all of us on this side are supporting the bill.

In the electorate of Adelaide there are approximately 8,925 people employed in the retail industry and 6,328 employed in construction industries. There are workers in many other industries who work overtime or who work on weekends or after hours within my electorate. Every single one of those workers deserves to have their penalty rates and overtime rates protected, and that's exactly what this government bill is doing.

With the CBD at the centre of the seat of Adelaide, we have the state's major department stores within the geographical boundary. We have workers in the retail and the hospitality industries, in cafes and pubs. We have shift workers in the hospitals that are based in my electorate. We have people who work after hours. We have part-time workers and many university students who rely on these penalty rates, when they work on the weekends, to meet the cost of living; we hear about the hardships that are taking place at the moment.

It's very important that, as a government, we do everything to protect workers and to protect their penalty rates and overtime rates when they work. Let's just think about it. Many of us go out to a restaurant to eat on Mother's Day, on Father's Day, on Sundays and even on Christmas Day. We enjoy the day with our families—with our kids and our grandkids—yet there are workers there to serve us and make sure that we enjoy that day. Think about it. They've given up their family time, their public holiday, their Sunday or the special time that they have with their family because they work shifts throughout the week just to serve the public. They deserve their penalty rates, and they deserve to be paid according to the overtime rates. No-one should have to give that up. That's why this bill is so important.

Think of industrial relations and the many bills that have come before this place. There's a regular pattern that takes place in things like, for example, WorkChoices. It was the other side that brought that in, that looked at downgrading these rates, at eating into those extras that existed for workers because they gave up their free time or worked extra hours et cetera. When we first formed government we were the side, the Labor side, that actually lobbied for the commission to give an extra pay rise to the lowest paid workers in the country. Yet the other side said it wasn't up to us or governments to do that. We know that workers are better off under Labor governments. That is historically a fact. If you look back at the history, since the party was established in 1891, you'll see that workers have been better off every time a Labor government has been formed. And there's no better time than now for a Labor government, with the cost-of-living pressures, because all of this assists and helps those people who are struggling and doing it tough. It's so important.

Penalty rates have been in Australia for many years, in Queensland from when the Labor Party was formed in 1891 and then gradually in the other states; that's well over 100 years. This was the bread and butter of our political party. We were formed for this reason. We were formed to govern, of course, but a major part of our scope was to ensure that workers' rights were protected, that workers were given dignity and that workers could actually get paid so that they could afford to live, to put bread and butter on the table, to dress their kids, to send them to school and to do all the things that give dignity to human beings. As I said, penalty rates have been around for many, many years, but it wasn't until 1947, when there was a ruling by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, that penalty rates were effectively established and standardised for millions of Australians who relied on penalty rates to keep their heads above water.

I recall clearly when my parents were working. They were both working. My mother worked at the Royal Adelaide Hospital as a domestic, as a cleaner and in the kitchen. In those days, she worked shift work. My father worked at General Motors-Holden. I remember him waiting to hear if he was going to work on the Saturday, which was overtime for him—an extra eight hours that was paid in those days at time and a half, I think—which made all the difference for our family. I remember the conversations around the kitchen table when, occasionally, he'd be despondent because he wasn't given overtime on that particular Saturday. You've got to remember that this was in the sixties, when motor vehicles were pouring off the production line nonstop and people had to keep up with the sale of those cars, so many factory workers were actually working on Saturdays. I recall it very well. Had there been no penalty rates, it could have been a very different story for my family. I don't know, and we'll never know. The case is exactly the same today for all those people that I mentioned when I started talking—part-time workers, a lot of women in retail, people in the hospitality industry and university students who keep their heads above water by being able to work on Saturday nights, Sundays et cetera. So it's very, very important.

There's been a sustained effort from certain employers to combine penalty and overtime rates into one single rate of pay. This obviously—it's not rocket science—would leave some of those workers worse off, and we don't want that situation. We don't want workers to be worse off and to have less pay, and that's what this bill prevents. It gives certainty and a guarantee that they won't, so I can't see why anyone would be opposing a bill that will guarantee some of our lowest paid workers the benefit of being able to keep their heads above water through penalty rates.

It is something that, as we heard the member for Newcastle say earlier, gives dignity to those people. If we can't give dignity to those people, why are we here? If we can't give dignity to people who earn the least amount of money of anyone in the country and who are doing it tough to keep their heads above water, to keep the fridges full at home and to keep their kids at school, then we have to really think about why we're here, because it's for those people that these safety nets, like penalty rates, have been put up so we can protect them. These are hardworking Australians who keep the country going and running on weekends, public holidays and late nights through many, many shift hours et cetera—shift work. They deserve a system that fairly compensates them for this work. Relative to all employees, award-reliant employees are more likely to be women under the age of 35 who work part time and are employed on a casual basis.

The bill adds this new section to the act to establish a clear principle that, when exercising its powers to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the Fair Work Commission must ensure that the specified penalty or overtime rates are not reduced and that modern awards do not include terms that are substitutes for employees' entitlements to receive penalty or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration any employee would otherwise receive. The bill will commence, of course, the day after it receives royal assent, reflecting this government's election commitment to move quickly to protect something that is a necessity for low-paid workers and shift workers, and that is penalty and overtime rates for Australia's lowest paid workers. It'll ensure that award-reliant workers continue to be fairly compensated for working overtime or working those unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours, weekends, public holidays and/or shifts.

It preserves the commission's existing powers under, in particular, section 144 to insert flexibility terms into awards. That allows employers and employees to enter into individual flexibility arrangements, including to vary penalty and overtime rates, as long as the existing legislated safeguard of ensuring they are better off compared to the standard terms is met. The bill preserves the commission's existing powers under section 160 of the act to vary a modern award to remove any ambiguity, uncertainty or to correct an error. The safeguards in the enterprise bargaining framework remain unchanged. Parties would still be able to bargain at the enterprise level to reduce that existing rate, so long as the commission is satisfied the enterprise agreement meets the better off overall test.

As I said earlier, in my electorate there are 8,925 people employed in the retail industry, 6,328 employed in the construction industry and many thousands of others employed in the hospitality industry and in health work who all work shifts, weekends and public holidays. They will continue to benefit from penalty and overtime rates as a result of this bill. As a result of this bill, it will be guaranteed that they get paid the correct rates if they're working overtime, on weekends and after hours—as they should be. These, as I said, are hardworking Australians. They keep the country going. They're running on weekends, public holidays and late nights, throughout shift hours, so they deserve this system. They deserve a system that compensates them for their work.

As I said, many of us are home with our families on the weekends. We enjoy that family life or we enjoy our sport or we enjoy going to the races or we enjoy just going down to the pub for a meal, but there are people that keep all these things running. There are people there who have given up their weekend. They've given up their family. They're working hard to ensure that they earn a little bit of extra money. They've given up that time to service us, to service the rest of the community, and we should never forget that. Next time you're out on a public holiday being served by someone, thank them—thank them for being there servicing us and giving up their time.

This bill won't impose any additional costs or red tape. That's really important to note. There are no additional costs, and there's no red tape. It doesn't force employers to bargain either. The government has introduced these significant reforms to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, including by making the bargaining framework more streamlined and accessible.

Since our election in 2022, the government has had a track record of protecting and improving the lives of our Australian workers, especially low-paid workers. For example, our same job, same pay laws have seen thousands of workers receiving up to $60,000 extra in their pay packets each year—another reform that was about dignity and fairness. Two people could have been working side by side doing the exact same job, yet there were loopholes in the law that allowed one to get paid less and the other one more. How is that fair? It is not fair, and we made sure we put an end to that.

We 've criminalised intentional wage theft, meaning that starting from 1 January this year any employer who deliberately underpays a worker's wage or entitlements could be committing a criminal offence and could be referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman for criminal prosecution. We've seen many cases where it's systematic. They can argue that it was a mistake or that it was something that they weren't aware of, but we've seen it. It happens and it happens regularly. We saw it in the 7-Eleven story that came out a few years ago. These are people that are working shift work, that are working weekends, yet there are unscrupulous people that will take advantage of them. We don't want that. This government supports everyday hardworking Australians, and it won't end there. Our workplace relations framework has gender equality at its heart, and it's helped reduce the gender pay gap to the lowest level since records began.

As I said, I am extremely proud of this bill, and it's something, as we heard earlier, that gives dignity to workers and ensures they get paid the correct amount when they give up their family time and work after hours and extra hours.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.