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

I move:

That the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for consideration and an advisory report by 7 October 2025.

During the election, the Albanese government put forward a proposition and ran a successful scare campaign amongst the Australian community that there was a serious issue—that penalty rates across this nation were at risk. There was simply no basis to do so, but, since the election, the Albanese government has put forward legislation to bring effect to its scare campaign, to make sure that they can deliver on the basis on which they went to the last election.

We understand that. The coalition supports penalty rates, but there has been a fundamental problem since we have got to this point. The legislation which has been put forward to this parliament is sloppy and poorly drafted, and there has been very poor consultation with the Australian community. We have seen this. As an example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:

This change is a backwards step and out of touch with the realities of a modern economy …

…   …   …

This Bill is at odds with the Government's plans to improve productivity, and instead injects more rigidity and complexity into the Fair Work laws.

When the minister was asked directly about the number of small businesses that will be impacted as a consequence of this legislation, there was no answer because there was no consultation and there was no consideration. We have heard directly from the Australian Industry Group, who have said:

This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people who want to work when it suits them.

It will reduce avenues for lifting productivity when we are about to convene … on how to lift it.

We have industry saying there is no consultation or engagement on this sloppily drafted legislation from the minister. We know a very serious and real impact is that it will undermine the capacity for Australians to get employed by small businesses, and, as we know, we have a much bigger challenge across the Australian community right now with the record number of business insolvencies. That could then have a direct impact, where we could see Australians lose their jobs because businesses no longer exist.

There is a simple reality. When you have sloppy legislation that is poorly drafted, where stakeholders are now directly calling it out, where the minister can't even answer how many small businesses this legislation impacts, where a regulatory impact statement has not even been completed by the minister and there is clearly no interest in doing so, it means at every single step of the legislation to this point we have had a minister incapable of doing their job and consulting with the industries that are going to be impacted. Ironically, the people that they claim they are going to assist and support as a consequence of this legislation are the ones most likely to bear the brunt of the sloppy work being done by this government.

It's simply a reality that we need a proper process to give due consideration to this legislation to remove the risks that are now being proposed as a consequence of the sloppy work of this government, because we simply cannot have a situation in this country right now where the government isn't on top of its agenda. But, in addition, there's this downstream impact where we could see Australian small businesses go into the Albanese government's sinkhole and, further than that, see jobs lost and lost economic opportunity. I'll keep making the point that there are no penalty rates applied to jobs that don't exist.

When you look at the broader economic environment that we have right now—you've seen the data—the number of small businesses is declining and unemployment is rising. Everything that should be going down is going up, and everything that is going up should be going down. This is the lived reality of small business. We should make sure they are fully considered in the conversation on this legislation. But, instead, the approach of the government is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, or see no small business, hear no small business, speak to no small business. That is the reality of the engagement this minister has had currently on her industrial relations legislation, and the impact is not going to be felt just by small businesses—although, of course, it absolutely is. Deputy Speaker Young, you understand the realities of small business very clearly. The impact is going to be felt by the workers of this country because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the sloppy work of the Albanese government, who don't understand how to draft the legislation to bring their legislative victory lap to full effect.

There is simply a reasonable request on behalf of the opposition that, when we have legislation of this nature in the context of trying to change the laws around penalty rates and overtime rates, we have a reasonable process of consideration, consultation and engagement to bring small businesses and their voices into the parliament of this nation. It is so important. Small businesses in this country right now feel abandoned by this government. They feel they have no voice and no say in the national conversation. It's important that they have the opportunity to stand up and speak for themselves, to directly challenge the agenda of the government when they are not acting with any goodwill and to make sure that they have a pathway to be heard on the record of this nation. We are not getting that from this government. As I said, the minister has not consulted them successfully to date. She has not really even engaged with the sector to date. They are now raising their deep and abiding concerns about the legislation that has been put forward that the government is trying to ram through. They're trying to ram through the legislation because—believe it or not—they actually want to block workers from getting pay rises.

This whole process began because the retail industry applied to Fair Work to aggregate up penalty rate arrangements so that workers could be given a 35 per cent pay rise. So all those mums out there who work in retail during the week, but who don't want to work on weekends because they're supporting their families, and all the young students who might decide that they want to have flexible education arrangements, are all losing out because of the Albanese government. All we want to do is to give them a say by making a recommendation to the employment, workplace relations, skills and training committee for proper consideration of this legislation. It is a reasonable request, but we have sloppy work and sloppy legislation being put to the parliament. There is a time now where those voices need to be heard in this parliament. We want to make sure that we can stand up and give them their say in the nation's house and in the process of the legislation that is so important for the future of this country. We want to make sure that we're actually doing things to lift up and empower small business to be part of the success of this country. But if we see a situation where the government wants to silence small business—to silence those who would benefit from the economic opportunity of having terms and conditions that work for them—to silence and shut down any debate from the voices in this important issue, then we will see revealed the real face of the Albanese government once the mask has slipped.

We get that they have a political agenda; we completely understand. Of course they'll engage in their legislative victory lap after the last election. But Australian jobs, Australian wages and of course small businesses and their success as part of the foundation of the future success of this country are on the line. We are not simply going to allow the government to trample over and ignore proper process, including the sloppy drafting of the legislation by the minister. We simply want a process where a committee can go off to look at the legislation and give it due consideration: socialise it with the community, look at the reality of what it is going to do and, more importantly, seek the feedback and counsel of small businesses across the country and bring those voices into this nation's parliament.

It's a simple proposition, and I would have thought that if the government were so confident about their legislation—if they believe their legislation is so good and that it's going to do exactly what they think it is designed to achieve—they would of course support the process. Why wouldn't sunlight be the best disinfectant for the legislation put before the House? That is why we table this here; to bring in the voices of the future to the parliament of this country. That is what I think members in this parliament should want as well. I want to make sure that the members of this parliament have the opportunity to enable and mobilise the small businesses of this country to be able to have their say into the committee process as well. That's because we are on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can. If it is your first job—your first opportunity in the workforce—and if you want to see a lift in the standards of wages and work, then we want to back you in as part of the bigger conversation. We want to see your success tied to Australia's national success. When we win, we all win.

So the legislation before the parliament right now still needs work. I understand that the minister wants to ram it through the parliament and doesn't want to go through the process of inquiry—probably not in the House or the Senate, but who knows what goes on in the mystical land of the red chamber! But it is so important that we have this process right now, because the sloppy drafting that the stakeholders have raised raises really serious issues about what needs to be done so that we can protect Australian jobs, Australian small businesses and, of course, penalty rates and economic opportunity for this country.

I'm just going to draw attention again to the realities. The Australian Retailers Association, who wanted to give workers a 35 per cent pay rise, made the case that it would remove flexibility in wage negotiations and introduce additional cost complexities and administrative pressures. Retailers argue that many workers prefer consistent, reliable income rather than complex penalty structures, and that modern agreements which include higher base pay offer stability and simplicity without sacrificing take-home pay.

The Minerals Council, once they saw the legislation that came out of the vault from within the government and the drafting process, before the minister had socialised or consulted successfully with anybody to the point where anybody would have highlighted its significant short comings, reflected:

The government's changes will reduce productivity and compromise Australia's competitiveness in global export markets. The laws are also becoming a decisive material factor in whether new projects proceed or not—

Again, the difference between whether you get a job or not—

and whether billions of dollars in investment capital is invested in Australia or elsewhere.

This is simple. I would have thought, if the government so believes in their legislation, they would have no problem sending it off to a committee to have the proper consideration of the legislation. All we want to do is make sure that Australians have their say in the laws that come before this parliament.

We had an election. We're respecting the fact that of course the government has a right to go on. They've run their scare campaign, and they've succeeded in it. They're now trying to implement it. Let us be realists. That is, make sure that you do no harm in the process of implementing your scare campaign and that we actually do things to back Australian workers and jobs so that we have the pathway to bring in Australian voices, small businesses, into the conversation when the minister wants to shut them out.

As I will go through again, the Australia Industry Group's own observations, 'This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people.' When you get that sort of language from employer groups saying that it is going to be harder to give people jobs, give labourers jobs, allegedly the people that the Labor Party claimed they represented—today it's not really clear who they represent, but that's a separate issue and a topic for another day—the reality is, when you get that sort of language and that sort of clarity, what you get is a reflection that they do not understand what they're doing. I get they've their political priorities. It does not mean 'Hear no business, see no business, speak to no small business.' We want them to be part of the conversation.

Now is the time for them to turn up. Now is the time to stand up and support our simple recommendation of inquiry, and I'm quite sure that the gaggle of Labor members appearing in the chamber, including the Leader of the House, is of course because they are going to come in here and support an inquiry to back their legislation.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got to say, the second of the two speeches made more sense than the first. I think it's probably the aspiration of every member of this parliament, if we could be half as good in life as the shadow minister thinks he is, we'd all be doing extraordinarily well.

Talk about not learning a thing! There has never been a pay rise for the Australian workers that they have supported. Never once. But the arguments are always the same. The arguments that we just heard from the shadow minister were that getting the pay cut is, 'the difference in whether you get a job or not'. I remember we heard this last term. The shadow minister—I'll say a bit more about this later—while he wasn't in this place last term, it seems he was listening intently, because he's adopted all the same arguments we heard last time.

When we argued that 'same job, same pay' was part of justice in making sure that people's pay wasn't cut, we heard opposite: 'Oh no, no! That will drive inflation up, if you give people a pay rise, and people will lose their jobs.' When we argued that you have to have minimum standards for gig workers, those opposite said the same two things. They said, 'Oh no, no! That will drive prices up, and it will drive unemployment.' When we said that we had to get pay equity for women and made sure gender equality was an objective of the Fair Work Act, those two offered the same two arguments that we've heard here—that it will hit inflation and that it will hit jobs.

Right back at the 2022 election campaign, when the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, as the then Leader of the Opposition, was asked whether he would support a pay rise for minimum-wage earners that made sure they didn't go backwards, he answered with one word: 'absolutely!' We remember that word. The response from those opposite was that it must've been a mistake and that it must've been a gaffe. How could anyone possibly have the conviction that workers should not be going backwards? Well, the conviction that people should be going backwards is the only conviction that is consistent for those opposite.

Look at the outcomes. After all the things that they said would drive up inflation, what happened? Inflation went from having a six in front of it to getting back within the Reserve Bank's target band. What happened to unemployment after all their arguments saying, 'Oh, if you do something good for workers' wages, people will end up without jobs'? What happened? We ended up with the best and the lowest unemployment record of any government. That's what we had. This side of the House believes that people should be well paid; this side of the House wants people to be in work. But this side of the House will never accept the principle that the pathway to getting a good job is to have your pay cut, and to lose penalty rates is to have your pay cut. That's exactly what it means.

Those opposite said—and I tried to take down so many quotes; I was enjoying the speech I'll concede—they're on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can. They want to empower people. No-one thinks a pay cut makes them more powerful. No-one believes that. Penalty rates are the way that people who are working inconvenient hours can hold their lives together. It's a way they can make ends meet. There has never been a moment—

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

What about the inquiry?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll get to the issue of the inquiry in a minute, because my favourite quote was 'sloppy drafting', but, wait, we'll get to that. Hold that thought for me; work with me here.

Penalty rates are the way that people hold their lives together and make sure that they have a pathway of coping with the cost of living. It is no surprise that the example that he hung on to saying, 'Here was an industry that was willing to have a higher base rate in return for getting rid of penalty rates,' was an industry where overwhelming the bulk of the shifts are in penalty rate periods. Do you really think that proposal was designed for employers to have to pay more? There has never been a time when a transfer of income from profit margins to workers' wages has been supported by those opposite.

I guess at one level I'm happy that they still don't get it, but the reality is the cost of living is about the difference between the money that comes into your bank account and the costs that go out. For three and a bit years now, every time there's something about lowering prices those opposite have opposed it; every time there's something about increasing wages they've opposed it. If you want people to be paid less and for their medicines and expenses to all cost more, that is the worst outcome for the cost of living. That is exactly what those opposite took to the last election, and it's exactly what the shadow minister is pointing to now.

On the full 15 minutes of the shadow minister's speech, I'd remind him that speaking times as listed in the standing orders are a limit, not a target, and, when you run out of things to say, you don't have to keep going. It's okay to stop when you've run out of material. The line that was my favourite—and he kept coming back to it—was 'sloppy drafting', and so I thought, if he's alleging sloppy drafting, maybe we ought to have a look at the motion he's just moved. Let me tell people what the motion is in front of the House right now. It says:

That the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for consideration and an advisory report …

So you then go to the Notice Paper and you go to the list of committees. If you look at the Notice Paperthere are copies just there if you need them—on page 14 you get the list of House committees. He's referring the bill to a committee that doesn't exist. So I'm sort of tempted—we could just vote for this, and it would go nowhere. It would go absolutely nowhere. It would be like referring the bill to the shadow cabinet. It goes absolutely nowhere.

I think it would be fun to have a vote on it because I'd like to see how many of his colleagues would be forced to wander into this chamber to fiercely demand that this bill be referred to a committee of the House of Representatives that does not exist. I'll let you know now that we're going to vote no. If you want to call the division, you have the second voice. If he leaves, then you're on your own, and it won't happen. But I'd encourage you—no matter how impossible this motion is, no matter how completely wrong the drafting is and no matter how many times you've got upset and passionate about sloppy drafting. The call is yours now. Does the opposition stand loyally, strongly with their shadow minister and force the whole of the coalition to vote right now that a bill on penalty rates be referred to a committee that does not exist? I commend the consideration of this resolution to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.