Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

That'll take me to an example of a retail worker, one that you gave yourself a while ago. It made me think of my own daughter who, while she was at uni, worked at a major retailer and often worked into the evenings, on weekends and early mornings, and there are many other people that have done the same. It's often also the remit of single working mothers, who work hours that might fit in with their care arrangements for their children. If a person has set up an agreement with their employer that works best for them, that encapsulates the average working hours and gives them a set, regular income that they have confidence in, knowing that that will be for both ongoing hours and ongoing income without any variation or fluctuation, that is very important when estimating income for Centrelink when it comes to family tax benefits and parenting payments and also in relation to child support payments. This worker has come to this agreement with their employer because it works for them.

It also works for their employer. Let's say it's a small retail store. Under this current legislation, if in some circumstances it could potentially be based on some hypothetical scenario—not on the actual scenario of that worker but on some hypothetical, made-up scenario somewhere—that that worker's penalty rates have been cut, will this bill require that worker and that employer to exit that agreement and take up a different agreement directed by this legislation, against their own effective flexibility requirements and what actually suits them and their needs best?