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

WILSON () (): We're back here again talking about the importance of penalty rates and this legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, that the government simply doesn't want to hear the voices of Australian small business on. Deputy Speaker Freelander, you may recall only a few moments ago we had a division in this chamber because we wanted to send this legislation off to a committee inquiry. We then had the Leader of the House, the ultimate in bluster, come into this chamber and make an excuse about why this legislation should never see the light of day from the perspective and the input of the small businesses of this nation. His argument was allegedly that the motion we put forward referring it to a committee was inaccurate because there had been a change in the title of the committee. That was his magnificent, intelligent, insightful contribution. There's just one problem. The changes to the titles haven't actually been printed yet. According to the Clerk of this House, he is wrong and it would have been justified, and there would have been an inquiry had it passed. So what the Leader of the House did in this place was use bluster and bluff to once again convince those on the other side of a justification about why Australians should not have input into legislation that affects them and directly impacts small businesses across this country.

There's one reason they're doing this. It's that they can't tell anybody what the impact of this legislation will be on small business across the country. When we had our briefing with the minister, we asked for simple information since Labor had gone on this pathway of introducing its legislative victory lap. We asked simple questions: You're proposing new legislation that directly undermines the independence of the Fair Work Commission. So, tell us now, Minister, when we can see the regulatory impact statement. 'Well, there isn't one.' So we asked another question: how many small businesses in Australia will be impacted as a consequence of this legislation? 'Ah, we don't know.' In fact, as I said in the other debate, they are taking the three-monkey approach—hear no small business, see no small business, speak to no small business—because they have no interest in understanding the consequences, because they are simply engaging in their legislative victory.

It's extraordinary, frankly, how much the minister has stuffed this process up. If you think about this legislation, their claim is that there has been this great threat to penalty rates, when that side of the chamber supports penalty rates and this side of the chamber supports penalty rates. I do concede that I haven't canvassed the views of the crossbench and the Independents—or the corporate funded Independents—but I'm willing to bet that they're not kicking up a stink about this, as far as I'm aware; I might be wrong. So, we have about 95 per cent of the entire parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in support of penalty rates, but apparently they're under threat. It's a pretty amazing claim, but we know the history of the Labor Party in finding pathways to run scare campaigns on the community. They are quite effective at it; you've got to give them credit where credit's due and respect your opponents for the skills they have.

They ran a scare campaign because the retail industry of Australia said, 'We want to pay workers more so we can make it simpler, easier and fairer.' The assumption of the Australian Labor Party is that every retail outlet in this country—the local milk bar, the local bookshop—has this massive HR department sitting behind them, and they go over these legislative tomes bit by bit to understand: we're going to employ somebody who's going to pick up dishes, or shelve a book, during the minutes and the seconds of different times of day, but the rates should be different depending on whether they're washing the dishes or working at the checkout. So, if you shelve a book it's one price; if you swipe it through the swiping machine it's a different price. If you wash a dish it's one price; if you lay it on the table in front of somebody who has ordered the dish it's a different price.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like the definition of insanity to me. You don't need to take my opinion for it. You just need to look at—I don't know—the government department that is legally responsible for oversighting policy and employment law in this nation. Even they can't figure it out, so much so that they have short-changed their own employees. When the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in Australia cannot figure out how to pay people under Labor's laws, then perhaps—I've got a funny feeling—the laws aren't that clear; they're a bit complex. And maybe for someone who's just set up a small business—at a strip shopping centre, or working from home, or maybe they rented out a warehouse and are moving stock, or are running a digital business online and want to employ people—it's not their core focus, the details of this, that and the other and the regulations and everything else. It's not their focus. The laws are a bit complex, and they're not getting it right.

So—shock, horror!—some people say, 'Actually, it's cheaper to pay workers more than it is to pay an army of lawyers, accountants and all these other people to seek advice, because I'd rather that the people who work for me be happier and have better outcomes.' Funnily enough, the Fair Work Commission has come along sometimes and said, 'Actually, that makes a lot of sense.' They're not in the business—well, they shouldn't be, anyway—of making accountants and lawyers richer. They certainly shouldn't be. Their practice and purpose should be making sure Australians get paid well for the work they do as part of lifting the Australian economy. But you can just imagine it: alright, Labor's been elected. We all accept it. It is what it is. They've got 94 seats. You're flooding over to the other side of the parliament, with the egos that go with it. They've gone over and succeeded in getting elected. Here it is—we're now passing a piece of legislation to stop workers getting paid more. It's an interesting revelation.

Then, of course, last Thursday, the Prime Minister wanted his great victory lap day where it was all going to be about penalty rates, and he was going to be doing a little 'whoop, whoop' around this chamber and out in the public square, doing press conferences. They had the people as props for exactly the argument they wanted to run. What happened? We asked simple, reasonable questions of the minister: What's the regulatory impact statement? How many small businesses are going to be impacted? What's the consultation process? Now we've asked this outrageous thing, 'Can we have an inquiry in the House of Representatives?' The answer, by the way—the decision of parliament and the Labor government—was no. They chose to silence and censor small business as part of this process.

So you can imagine the Prime Minister, who just wanted this perfect outcome, but, all of a sudden, the media went, 'Actually, that's an entirely reasonable question—where is the regulatory impact statement?' and the minister, then said, 'Well, we haven't got one.' The media said: 'It's an entirely reasonable question. What are the impacts on all the small businesses in the country?' Of course, it's a simple point. There are no penalty rates on jobs that don't exist, and, when you've got record business insolvencies and rising unemployment, it's this little point.

Of course, what would have happened is they wanted to do that little 'whoop, whoop' victory lap around this chamber and say, 'We've done this, we've saved it.' We know the rhetoric. I love a bit of rhetoric myself, but the Prime Minister loves it more. He doesn't have the equivalent of a card, but maybe we'll get a card that he'll flash around the chamber for this purpose. Let's wait and see; you never know. The prop, even though we're not allowed to use them, pops up every now and again.

But you can just imagine in the PMO that the Prime Minister is sitting there, and he just wants to have his moment in the sun. All of a sudden, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says:

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.

That's not an endorsement, even though we were told there was all this consultation and everybody was on board.

Then, of course, the Australian Industry Group came out and 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.

All of a sudden, we're undermining wages and we're undermining people's capacity for workplace flexibility, things like mums being able to go and pick up kids from school and dads going to pick up kids from school in between their workplace arrangements, which is something I certainly always support. The Australian Industry Group continued:

It will reduce avenues for lifting productivity when we're about to convene a Roundtable on how to lift it.

You know that thing the Treasurer, who sits over there somewhere on the other side of the chamber, keeps going on about? He keeps going on about how important productivity is because we've got to increase standards of living—a point I agree with—but the Australian Industry Group is now saying: 'No, we're calling you on that one. That's not going to happen because of this type of legislation, particularly the sloppy drafting of the minister.'

Then, you have the Australian Retailers Association. They come out and say: 'It would remove flexibility in wage negotiations and introduce additional costs, complexities and administrative pressures. Retailers argue that many workers prefer consistent, reliable income rather than complex penalty structures and modern agreements that could include higher base pay and offer stability and simplicity without sacrificing take-home pay.' Okay. We've now got ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Australian Industry Group; and now the Australian Retailers Association saying this law doesn't actually achieve what they say it's going to achieve.

Then, of course, the Minerals Council—the industry that actually creates wealth for the country—says:

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

So it undermines growth, undermines workers, undermines independence, undermines flexibility and, of course, has sloppy drafting.

We're at the point where the Prime Minister's probably sitting around in his little bunker over there in the ministerial wing. He picks up the phone to the minister, (02)6277—I can't remember the rest of the numbers for the minister's phone—and says: 'Hey, Minister, this isn't going well. Why is this law, that we thought we had an electoral mandate to just smash out, not going the way we thought it would?' And, of course, the minister would say: 'Well, you know, Prime Minister, we drafted the laws; we're doing what our scare campaign was intended to do. We're just bringing it into effect. We're doing exactly what you wanted us to do.' But the Prime Minister asks a simple question: 'Where's the regulatory impact statement, Minister? It's a simple question the media's asking us, and you can't answer it.' 'Well, Prime Minister, we didn't do one.'

The Prime Minister is, of course, going to turn around and say, 'Well, what about this question of small businesses? How many small businesses are going to be impacted? Surely you know the answer. This is what I put you in the job for!' Of course, the minister would have to respond and say, 'Well, hang on, Prime Minister'—I'm on hold, Deputy Speaker. And then she'll come back and say: 'We didn't actually check. We didn't check how many millions of Australian small businesses might be impacted by these laws, how many might be exposed or at risk or go under.'

The Prime Minister, not unreasonably, would turn around and say, 'Minister, I don't think you're on top of your job.' I think it's even worse than that. You're the Prime Minister and you're sitting there saying, 'And why are they saying the legislation's poorly drafted and sloppy?' 'We haven't actually done the work.' This is at the point where—you know sometimes when some people just hang up because it's easier than having to answer a difficult question? I think that's the point at which the minister would have just hung up. I get why. It would have been difficult. You have people saying it's sloppy legislation, poorly drafted and isn't going to have the desired effect. It will actually undermine workers. And this is the legislation that we, as a parliament, are now being asked to consider.

It's even worse than that because of course we then, as the opposition—actually in a very constructive way—come into this chamber and say: 'You know you've got that committee that does inquiries into things like laws around employment? You changed the name of it, but it still exists. It existed in the last parliament; it exists in this one. Can we do a little inquiry to tidy up the neat little problems you've got with your legislation and your sloppy drafting?' We then went through the hoopla. We had the Leader of the House come in. He blustered and he bluffed and everybody laughed and it was all very entertaining for the 94 government members of the House, because half of it's a confidence game. You've got to show there's not actually a problem when there's actually a very serious problem. Anyway, we got there. They voted against an inquiry; they voted to silence and shut out the small businesses of this country.

Well, we're now being asked to vote on legislation that I don't think this government has any confidence in. I don't think the government has any confidence in their minister. This is like day one basically, or week one effectively, of the government actually getting on with its agenda. If this is where we are now, it's a pretty poor sign of things to come. Australians need confidence in laws around workplace relations and employment now more than ever.

We are now at an impasse where there is legislation before the parliament; industry is saying it's not going to do the job it's designed to do; we all support penalty rates; we have the minister not really confident that her legislation is up to chop; and we're faced with this reality of considering it in detail before we go on and vote accordingly.

The challenge for every member in this House is what it is we seek to do and what is the way forward. The key thing is we need to make sure that we have a path to get the voice of small business into this parliament as part of this conversation. It's a simple proposition: if the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations can't figure out drafting, and then, in addition to that, how to implement Labor's industrial relations agenda and can't even pay its own workers right, then how is the person running the milk bar, the home business, the corner store, the local florist—without an HR department, without a bureaucracy and with thousands of pages mounting every single day—supposed to figure out how Labor's laws are going to work.

We shouldn't forget that this is how these laws are designed, because, of course, Labor has a very clever, actually, but sneaky answer to this. The sneaky answer to this is, 'Well, that's it; we'll just get the unions to come in and do it for you.' You lose agency over your business, you lose agency over your employees, and you become appropriated by the vast network of the Labor Party and its various arms or, more correctly put, the ACTU's arms and, of course, its political arm, which is the Australian Labor Party. But this does nothing for growth. It does nothing for activity. It does nothing to improve Australian industry. It does nothing for future generations of Australians. It does nothing for workers, particularly because right now we have this massive problem where people need arrangements of work.

One of the key ways you get productivity enhancement is when people do things because they're happy and because it actually works for them. Instead, we have a government that is seeking to kneecap at every single point small businesses and workers to come to arrangements on their own mutual benefits and their own mutual terms—undermining pay increases, undermining employers, undermining the independent work regulator they set up to determine these things, all in pursuit of a scare campaign of a problem that didn't exist. In addition to that, in a parliament where, as far as I've counted as late, everyone supports penalty rates, and against a backdrop of a minister who isn't on top of her brief, who has done a sloppy version of drafting her legislation and who is increasingly not confident enough to stand up and make the case for us.

Now the parliament faces a choice. My only hope is that, in that other ethereal place called the Senate chamber, Labor might back down from its attempt to silence and shut out other voices. They might actually provide the pathway for input, not just from the opposition but, hey, even from some of the other minor parties, and, of course, from the small businesses of this nation so that they can have a say in their future, their destiny and their opportunity to employ Australians. Then they can call out the limitations of Labor's agenda. A partnership between small business and workers is how you're going to boost productivity growth, not laws and intimidation, and certainly not by adding more costs, more regulations that have one purpose: to take money out of the pockets of workers and fund industrial relations lawyers, accountants and back-end HR departments for local corner stores, home businesses and, of course, web based businesses and the full spectrum of startup side hustles and shared-equity schemes across this country.

Why would Labor want to do this? Because in the absence of an agenda that actually focuses on rising standards of living and finding a pathway to achieve raising standards of living, their only pathway forward is to go to the bottom of the barrel, find a new low in the trough, and think, 'If you mine and harvest that, somehow you're going to get a better outcome.' That's a short-term political hit. It's absolutely a short-term sugar hit. It doesn't solve any of the fundamental structural problems. And now we face a situation where the government, increasingly concerned about the sloppy nature of its drafting of its own legislation, is concerned about the process that its own minister has gone through. Time, patience and cooperation would have fixed it, but when they were asked for that in this chamber, they shut people's voices down. They shut down the pathway for people outside this chamber who had constructive things to say to improve the laws of this country from having input. Our hope is that this is fixed in this next chapter. But, frankly, it is over to the government, because they have not been willing participants in this conversation. There's not just declining confidence in the minister but, in addition to that, declining confidence that the government is actually interested in listening to industry about how it can improve workers' conditions, flexibility and wages. It's such an important thing to do. I understand it requires some people to step back and to accept that maybe not everything is being done on their terms. But I can tell you that, if you do, the workers and the small businesses of this nation will thank you.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start with a simple principle. If you are working weekends, public holidays, early mornings or late nights, you deserve to be paid fairly. That time matters to workers, to families and to our communities. That's what penalty rates are all about—making sure working Australians are properly paid for giving up their precious time that could be spent with family or friends. This legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, delivers on a clear promise we made to Australians to protect the penalty rates and overtime pay of those covered by modern awards. It delivers on this straightaway, not after delays, as proposed by those opposite.

I would like to take a moment to reject the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Goldstein. He asked, 'How many small businesses will be impacted by this legislation?' None. This legislation doesn't change current penalty rates; it enshrines and protects them. But what it does do is stop the bartering away of workers' rights and their penalty rates. Workers deserve certainty now, and that's what this bill delivers.

The bill makes a straightforward but powerful change to the Fair Work Act. It says the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, must not make changes to awards that reduce penalty rates or overtime entitlements or roll them out into other arrangements that leave workers worse off. This bill is all about fairness. It's about decency. It's about standing up for the people who often have the least power in the workplace but who give so much of their time and energy to keeping our country running.

We know that workers who rely on modern awards are more likely to be younger, more likely to be women and more likely to be casual, part time or in insecure work. Many of them work in sectors like retail, hospitality, aged care and health care, and many of them live in communities like mine in Corangamite. They rely on the fairness that is at the heart of penalty rates. Right now, that fairness is under threat. There's a loophole in the system, one that allows employers to propose terms that roll out penalty and overtime rates into a single rate of pay, even when that means workers are left worse off. Some employers are using that loophole. They are applying to the commission to reduce what low-paid workers are entitled to by replacing penalty rates with flat pay structures. Let me be clear. These are not high-flying executives we are talking about. These are workers on modest incomes, the very people the award system is meant to protect. It is happening right now. The Fair Work Commission is currently dealing with cases where employers are trying to lock in these kinds of arrangements.

The opposition have made it clear they won't stand in the way of these employers. Their leader says without hesitation, 'We don't propose to depart from the current arrangements.' Well, we do, because we believe the award system should act as a safety net, not a ceiling. We believe a full weekend of retail work shouldn't leave you short on rent and we believe that, if you're asked to give up your nights, your holidays or your family time, your pay shouldn't quietly go backwards. The bottom line is that a worker should not be asked to barter away their rights and conditions of work that we, the great labour movement and unions, have fought so hard for. That's why this legislation matters and that's what we're doing; we're acting.

This bill builds on the strong workplace reforms we've already delivered. Since forming government, we've made it our mission to get wages moving again and to restore fairness to our workplace laws. We've backed every increase to the minimum wage, including a 3.5 per cent increase from 1 July. We've closed loopholes that kept wages low, with same job, same pay laws now delivering up to $60,000 extra to some workers. We've made gender equality a key principle of workplace law, helping drive the gender pay gap to its lowest level ever. We've introduced the right to disconnect, making it clear that workers have a right to switch off at the end of the day, and we're reinvigorating enterprise bargaining.

Since our reforms, more than 9,800 entrepreneur agreements have been approved, covering more than nearly 2.5 million workers. As of March this year, almost 2.7 million Australians are covered by an active enterprise agreement—the highest number on record since enterprise bargaining began in 1991. The average wage increase under those agreements is 3.8 per cent, well above the five-year average before our reforms and higher than inflation. These are real outcomes for real people. This bill strengthens that progress and locks in protections for workers on modern awards.

Let me explain exactly how the bill works. It amends the Fair Work Act to introduce a new section, 135A. It requires the Fair Work Commission to make sure that penalty and overtime rates in awards aren't reduced and that awards don't include terms that substitute those entitlements in a way that cuts take-home pay. This means the commission will still have flexibility to do its work but it will have a clear principle it must follow: protect the pay of workers who rely on penalty and overtime rates. This change is carefully designed. It targets the kinds of changes that would reduce the percentage of pay a worker receives for penalty hours or roll those penalties up into a flat rate that's worth less overall. It doesn't impact individual contracts, it doesn't apply to enterprise agreements and it doesn't stop good faith efforts to modernise awards. It stops pay quietly being cut for the people who can least afford it.

This bill doesn't impose anything new. Employers already have a legal obligation to pay their workers according to the award. If the award says a casual worker gets an extra 25 per cent for working Saturday nights, that's what they should be paid. This bill doesn't change that obligation; it reinforces it. It gives certainty to employers who are doing the right thing, and it stops the race to the bottom for a handful who aren't. We've consulted widely to make sure these changes are fair, balanced and workable. I thank the minister for the work that has been done on this bill.

Importantly, this bill respects the independence of the Fair Work Commission. The commission will continue to apply the law in a careful, consultative way, taking into account the views of workers, unions, employers and other stakeholders. This is not about heavy-handed interference; it's about giving the commission a clear mandate to protect core entitlements and give workers confidence that their penalty rates are not up for grabs.

Just as importantly, this bill supports the continued success of enterprise bargaining. We want to see more enterprise agreements—agreements that deliver better pay, better conditions and more productive workplaces. That's why we've reformed the system, making bargaining more accessible and more meaningful for workers and employers alike. This bill does not interfere with that. It preserves the better off overall test, which ensures that workers are in fact better off under enterprise agreements, and it continues to support the idea that genuine negotiations, with safeguards in place, can lead to win-win outcomes for business and workers alike.

What this bill does is protect the floor so no-one falls below it. For many workers in Corangamite, this is personal. I've had people come up to me in the street stalls in Belmont and Leopold and tell me: 'I work weekends because I have to, not because I want to. Penalty rates are the reason I can keep up with my rent. Without them, I'd be in real trouble.' These are workers we rely on in aged care, in child care, in food service, in our regional health centres and in our small business. They're not asking for more than they deserve. They're asking for the bare minimum to not go backwards, and that is exactly what this bill guarantees.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a matter of principle. If we value people's time, we should show it. If we ask people to work when others rest, we need to reward that. If we believe in fairness, in dignity and in decency, we can't stand by while the wages of our lowest-paid workers are quietly eroded. This bill draws a line. It says: 'Enough. No more hiding pay cuts in the fine print. No more trading away penalty rates without scrutiny. No more quiet reductions to the pay of people who already earn the least.' This bill protects what's fair. It protects what's right. It protects the thousands of Australians who keep our economy running, our shops open, our hospitals staffed and our communities cared for. I want to thank unions and workers who have fought tirelessly for these protections. You have made your voices heard, you have stood up for your mates and we have listened.

In closing, let me say that this is a government that stands with working people. It is a government that believes penalty rates are a right, not a privilege, and it's a government that will keep fighting for fairness, respect and better pay for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The Labor Party is Australia's oldest political party. Born from the labour movement, defending workers' rights is in our blood. Now, over 100 years later, we are still here fighting for the rights of workers across this great nation. The Albanese Labor government, like our forebears, is committed to delivering fair pay and decent conditions for Australians. With this bill, the Albanese Labor government is delivering on a key election commitment to protect the penalty rates of around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers, many of whom count on penalty rates to make ends meet.

Most people do work a nine to five day. Their work and their kids' schooling takes place during the week, and on the weekend there is time for rest and togetherness. It is the rhythm, and rhythm is healthy. The other way we celebrate the weekend is by going out. We might go for a hike or ride bikes, but then we often do stop somewhere for lunch, don't we? We stop at the coffee shops or we go have a nice drink at a bar. I certainly do. I know my friends do. Those lunches, the coffees, the wine bars—they don't make themselves. When we ask other people to adjust their weekly rhythm to suit ours, we need to recognise that and we need to pay for that.

The only way to fail to support penalty rates, to fail to support this legislation, is to fail to recognise that someone is putting themselves out there for us, to simply take the attitude that 'I'm alright, Jack.' Labor members do not take that attitude, not in this or in any other area of policy. Be it Medicare, universal superannuation—we were never founded on the attitude of 'I'm alright, Jack.' We cannot undervalue the workers who give up their time outside of what we consider regular working hours to provide us with the services that we seek during our downtime. So this bill comes at an important time, as we have seen a sustained effort from certain employers to roll penalty rates and overtime rates into a single rate of pay, leaving some employees worse off. The Fair Work Commission is considering a proposal from employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors to cut the penalty rates of lower-paid workers who rely on modern awards. Can you imagine companies, businesses that are making millions or billions of dollars of profit, turning to squeeze just that little bit more out by targeting the lowest-paid workers in Australia? We can't stand by while crucial workers nationwide are left worse off. We must always act to ensure that applications like these in no way see workers' pay packets reduced. We must always act to ensure Australia's lowest paid workers are protected from wage cuts.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.