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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. To be clear, the coalition supports penalty and overtime rates as fair compensation for working unsociable and unpredictable hours. We also support employee choice and flexibility, allowing workers and employers to negotiate arrangements that suit them and best fit their needs. The Fair Work Commission already has adequate powers to safeguard penalty rates through the better off overall test.

So what is the purpose of this legislation? Why is it before our parliament? We have some concerns in relation to this bill, and they are not limited to the fact that it adds significant red tape to small business, which already faces 35 major Fair Work Act changes under this government, 34 of which disproportionately affect Australian small businesses. By constraining the commission, the bill undermines its independence and risks unintended consequences in award variations.

This bill could also operate retrospectively. This is a question that we asked a number of times in the Senate inquiry hearings some two weeks ago. We sought clarity about the retrospectivity of this bill, which would create uncertainty and expose employers to union driven variations to existing awards—not to future agreements, but to existing awards.

I want to talk specifically a little bit around the impact on Australian small businesses. I noted a moment ago that small businesses are being hit with a new compliance burden almost every month under the Albanese Labor government. This is at a time when Australian households are struggling under a cost-of-living crisis. Australian small businesses have also been crushed under a cost-of-doing-business crisis in this country.

This is just too much. This is yet another unnecessary hit to Australian small businesses. Evidence that we were provided during the hearings and that has been available prior shows that small-business owners spend about 15 hours each week on compliance and red tape. That is time taken away from their businesses. And it's easy for me to just say 15 hours, and people say, 'Yeah, well, 15 hours.' But that is 15 hours every single week, week on week. If you look at that 15 hours as a percentage of the average work week—the 38-hour week, Monday to Friday—that's just under 40 per cent of that average week spent in regulatory compliance, the burden of red tape for Australian small businesses.

Australian small businesses want to do the right thing. They don't want to do the wrong thing. They actually want to have fulfilled and engaged and prosperous employees. But they are suffocating under the burden of red tape under this government. Unlike large corporations, small operators cannot absorb extra costs, which leads to fewer jobs and to market consolidations. Employer groups have warned that this bill will discourage employment and drag down productivity. We've just had a productivity roundtable. That was last week, and this week we have a bill before this parliament that is badged as protecting penalty rates, which nobody wants impacted, but it's not really protecting penalty rates; it's protecting the rights of unions to intervene in discussions between employees and the employer.

The minister has no idea how many small businesses will be impacted by this bill, because they didn't do the analysis to find out. What we really need from this government is a clear and focused plan to address the needs of small businesses and our economy, to address the problems of productivity in our country. We need policies that make it easier for businesses to expand, easier for businesses to employ people—to hire young Australians, to give them good jobs and to provide opportunities for them to get a really good foothold in the workplace.

Why do we keep talking about small businesses? Why are we so hyperfocused on them? It is because they are really important. They are the cornerstone of our communities. They're not just economic units. They are family owned. They are community based. They support local jobs and community organisations. They are your local pharmacy, your dentist, your tradies, your mechanic, your tiler, your plumber, your electrician, your dentist, your hairdresser, your real estate agent, your local florist. They are all the different businesses that we go to in our communities that are such a cornerstone of everyday life. Yet month after month under this government we are impacting them. This bill removes choice for workers who may prefer higher base salaries and stability in their income, or flexible arrangements over fluctuating penalty rates. Employees should be able to choose what works best for them.

This bill could also, worryingly, limit work-from-home flexibility, with employers forced into intrusive monitoring to meet record keeping rules. Work from home is such an important part of modern working, particularly in a cost-of- living crisis. Introducing legislation that may potentially make it harder for employers to allow their employees to work from home should give us pause. This is not about being opposed to penalty rates. We support penalty rates. But we support the right to choose and the right to choose the flexibility that matters to you.

Many workers prefer the stability of a higher and more consistent salary. It helps with budgeting, growing superannuation, borrowing capacity and avoiding income volatility in Centrelink payments. I've had a number of women reach out to me about these issues over time. They highlight the problems with reporting their earnings to agencies such as Centrelink and the child support agency, where fluctuating penalty earnings make those assessments and those estimations irregular, often creating a debt burden. Employees should have the freedom to choose pay structures that best suit their circumstances. By forcing a one-size-fits-all framework, the bill locks employees out of arrangements that might better suit them, that might better suit their families, that might better suit what it is that they are looking to do. Even if the majority of employees want a particular arrangement, the commission is prevented from approving it if any hypothetical worker might at some point be worse off under the terms of this bill. This denies employees the ability to strike a balance between financial security and workplace flexibility.

I asked a question about this in our inquiry a couple of weeks ago of one of the witnesses, Professor Chris Wright, specifically around the impacts to people who'd prefer a steady base—a higher base that they negotiate with their employer—versus the fluctuating impacts of penalty rates. I'll read from the dissenting report:

Professor Chris Wright acknowledged these non-wage benefits are real, but argued they are not typically considered by the FWC, which focuses on 'objective' measures like pay rather than 'subjective' measures like flexibility or stability of income …

These are his words:

Things like working from home arrangements are harder to take into account. The other aspects you mentioned in terms of pay versus social security payments are harder to take account of, partly because of the subjective value in some cases and also the matters that go beyond the Fair Work Commission's remit in terms of those social security dimensions.

So what does that mean? These things are not being taken into account, because we're looking at the dollar value only. We're not looking at the benefit of flexibility, the security of that stability and the right to make a choice about something that works best for you and your family. Again, I think it gives us pause, to have a think about what it is that we're asking Australians to do here.

Instead of empowering Australian employees, this bill strips them of genuine choice. I'll say that again: instead of empowering Australian employees, this bill strips them of genuine choice. True reform should expand workplace options, not shut them down. That is what reform is—making things better, providing greater choice and providing greater opportunity, not taking away your right to choose what works best for you.

We're also a little bit concerned about the claim of closing loopholes. We consider that to be misleading. Rolling penalty rates into higher salaries is already lawful. It is already regulated, and it is already subject to safeguards. It is our view that this bill is a response to union hypotheticals, not to real-world cases of underpayment. Evidence to the Senate committee inquiry showed that this government did not want to have it confirmed that the Fair Work Commission already has both the power and proven track record to safeguard penalty and overtime rates. They can already do that; they already do do that. The Fair Work Commission is not only empowered but required under section 134 of the Fair Work Act to maintain a fair and relevant safety net for employees. That means that they have to take into account the need for penalty rates for unsociable hours, the need for penalty rates for people who work weekends, the need for penalty rates for people who work at night and the need for penalty rates for people who work on public holidays, and so they should.

In practice, the commission has consistently upheld penalty rates. The protections are already in place, and they work. But, instead of trusting the independent umpire, this bill predetermines outcomes, removing the commission's discretion. In our view, this weakens the independence and expertise of the commission, which should be upheld, and, in our view, it politicises the decisions that should be based on evidence.

This government should be legislating for the workers of Australia not for some headlines around protecting penalty rates, which are already protected. I say it again: the coalition is in favour of protecting penalty rates. We are not opposed to penalty rates. This is a solution in search of a problem. The system is already working. We believe that there should be a comprehensive regulatory impact statement before the passage of this bill. We believe that small businesses should be exempt from the operation of this bill, and we believe that the Fair Work Commission should keep its discretion to approve higher pay and simpler conditions supported by both employers and employees—their right to determine themselves what it is that they want in their employment agreements, the flexibility that they want and that meets their needs.

I move the second reading amendment as circulated on sheet 3407 standing in my name:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

"(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) Australian small businesses have been hit with a new compliance burden almost every month since the Albanese Labor Government came to office,

(ii) evidence shows that small business owners spend 15 hours per week on compliance instead of running their business,

(iii) the Albanese Labor Government has refused to prepare a Regulation Impact Statement for this bill and has no idea how many small businesses are going to be affected by this increased burden, and

(iv) instead of developing a clear and focussed plan to address the needs of small businesses within the economy, the Albanese Government seems intent on only applying a larger regulatory burden on them; and

(b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government tables a Regulation Impact Statement assessing the impacts of the bill".

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate, on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, goes to the very heart of what it means to be an Australian and to live in Australia. We live in a country built not on privilege or inherited wealth but on the simple, powerful idea that, if you work hard, you deserve a fair go. Let me make something absolutely clear to those opposite: penalty rates are not a luxury. Overtime is not a perk. They are the building blocks of fairness for millions of Australians. That's why the Albanese government is moving to strengthen the Fair Work Act—to protect penalty rates and overtime and to ensure the Fair Work Commission cannot be used as a backdoor mechanism to strip away the wages of people who are already earning the least.

Penalty rates recognise something fundamental—that working on a Sunday, on a public holiday or through the night comes at a cost. It comes at the cost of family time, rest, community and sometimes even health. Overtime protections recognise that employers cannot treat workers as mechanisms to be run endlessly until they break. They ensure that, if a worker gives up more of their life, more of their health and more of their energy, they are properly compensated. Let's be very clear. For so many Australians, penalty rates are not pocket money. It is their survival money. Penalty rates are the difference between paying rent and falling into arrears. They are the difference between food on the table and going without.

I want to make it very clear that this fight is personal for me, which is why I am so passionate about penalty rates. I don't come from privilege. I didn't grow up in wealth. I grew up raised by a single mum with two kids, where money was short and every dollar mattered. From the age of 17, I worked every shift and every weekend that I could to pay my rent, to cover my bills and to put myself through my studies.

Sadly, like too many workers, I have been a victim of wage theft at a time in life when I was dependent on penalty rates. My first job was at a big cafe chain, where my employer was deliberately not paying his staff properly. Some weeks he'd blame the bank; other weeks he'd blame an administrative issue. Sometimes he just tried plain old underpaying us. Other weeks, he just wouldn't pay us at all. Let me be clear: that was no accident. It was no mistake. It was his business practice to exploit teenage and vulnerable workers and rely on them to quit and just go somewhere else, because he saw churning through underpaid workers as a way to boost his personal profit margins.

My story is not unique. Millions of Australians rely on the fair pay to make ends meet that workers and unions have fought for under the award system. For families across this country, penalty rates are the line between survival and poverty. So to vote against protecting their basic rights is to turn your back on Australia's promise of a fair go.

We will hear from those opposite the tired, worn-out arguments that reducing penalty rates somehow boosts productivity and that, only if we stripped workers' pay, businesses would thrive and the benefits would magically trickle down to everybody else. This is a dangerous myth. Trickle-down economics has been tested for 40 years across the developed world, and it has failed. It does not raise national productivity. It does not create stronger economies; it creates inequality. You don't build prosperity from the top down. You build it out from the middle and up from the bottom.

Here is the economic truth. When you cut the pay of workers, you are not creating efficiency. You are draining demand from the economy. You are reducing the capacity of households to spend. You are reducing the capacity of families to invest in their children's education and to contribute to their communities.

Workers are not costs on the balance sheet; workers are the economy. They are the very people who shop in small businesses, who pay their mortgages, who buy groceries and who keep local communities alive. When wages stagnate, when rights are eroded, national productivity falls because demand falls. The fantasy of trickle-down economics is this—if you just make the richest people richer, somehow the wealth will flow down. But what happens in reality? The wealth pools at the top. It gets locked into property speculation, offshore tax havens and luxury consumption but does nothing for productivity. Meanwhile the workers, the people who actually keep the lights on, who staff our hospitals, who clean the offices, who pull the pints and who stack the shelves at our supermarkets are told to accept less. That is not an economy. That is exploitation dressed up as economics, and that is exactly what those opposite want. They want to trade away workers' rights like penalty rates and overtime, so their take-home pay goes backwards. They don't even try to hide it. Who could forget that, when they were in government, they described low wage growth as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.

This Labor government is here for workers. We're here to grow their wages, strengthen their rights and, in doing so, strengthen our national economy. To even contemplate allowing workers' penalty rates and overtime protections to be stripped away would be unconscionable. It would be an assault on the lowest-paid workers, those who need protection the most.

When those opposite come to cast their votes on this measure, I wanted them to remember something: this is Australia. This is the land of hard yakka and a fair go. This is not North America, where good, honest workers are demonised by billionaires buying their fifth yacht to attend a wedding in Venice or taking a joy flight in space. This is Australia, and we are better than that.

That's why the Albanese government believes in a fair wage for a fair day's work. We believe that productivity comes from empowering workers, not impoverishing them. We believe that protecting penalty rates and overtime is not only good economics; it is the very essence of Australian fairness. And I say to those opposite: if you believe in a fair go, if you believe in hard work being rewarded, if you believe in our national story, vote for this bill. In fact, I don't think anyone can in good conscience vote against this bill. On behalf of every worker who clocks in on a Sunday or on a public holiday, on behalf of those staying back late at night, and on behalf of everyone working overtime to support their family, I will be voting to support this bill to support their rights and their wages.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. Australians know the value of penalty rates. They know what it means to give up time with family, to work through the night or to spend Christmas Day or Easter Sunday or New Year's Eve at work while the rest of the country celebrates. They know what it means to work long hours to get the job done. Penalty rates recognise this sacrifice. This additional pay is an acknowledgement that time away from family, friends, and community comes with sacrifice and should be compensated.

Yet, too often, employers and conservative governments have chipped away at penalty rates, sometimes through industrial tribunals and sometimes through legislation, but usually because big employers and their peak bodies want to flesh out their bottom lines with wage cuts. The workers who bear the consequences of these attacks are concentrated in low-wage, low-security jobs, including in retail, hospitality, the care sector and the health industry. They are women with caring responsibilities and young people trying to survive while studying. They are people with disability and older workers, all of whom face discrimination in the labour market.

Ensuring that employers cannot rob their workers of penalty and overtime rates is very important. The Greens have consistently defended penalty rates because we know they are not just about fairness; they are about survival. For many low-paid workers, penalty rates make the difference between paying the rent and going without. They make the difference between putting food on the table and missing meals. The Australian Greens support this bill because we know the importance of protecting workers' wages and conditions. But let's be clear: this bill is a defensive measure by Labor aimed at protecting existing arrangements from employer tax rather than advancing new rights for workers fit for a 21st-century labour market and modern life. This is a minimum protective step, not the leap forward that we need for our changing workplaces and workforce.

At a time when insecure work is widespread, the real value of wages is under pressure, and nothing is in the way of employers pocketing the vast productivity benefits of artificial intelligence, returning little if nothing to workers. It's not enough to merely hold the line in this changing circumstance. Workers deserve stronger and expanded protections in a changing labour market and economy. The Labor government has the opportunity this parliament to work with the Greens to deliver real benefits to workers—to move forward. And they could start by working with the Greens to introduce a reasonable right to work from home two days a week for Australian workers.

To this end, I foreshadow second reading amendment on sheet 3411, circulated in my name. It calls on the government to legislate a right to work from home for up to two days a week where it's reasonable to do so. Under this new right, employers would be required to positively consider such requests and may only refuse a request if it would make the performance of the worker's role seriously impractical or impossible. We're calling on the government to work with us to deliver this new right for workers. We have the numbers to deliver this improvement for all workers in Australia. All that is standing in the way is Labor's ambition.

Work-from-home rights in Australia are long overdue. There is wide public support and very strong demand for this change. Its benefits stack up for employers and for employees. Australian workers are doing it tough at the moment. They are on average contributing six weeks unpaid overtime a year to their workplace. They are bringing up kids and battling the cost of living and have adopted all kinds of productivity enhancing technology over the last 20 years. For many Australian workers, talking about productivity sounds like yet another push to work faster and harder by their bosses. In fact, in the last 10 years we've seen the rate of profit increase at twice the rate of wages, despite all the adaptation that Australian workers and their families have done.

The pandemic showed us new ways of working are possible. Up to 40 per cent of Australian workers transferred to working from home during COVID. We saw that many of us can do our jobs from home, saving money and time and getting the flexibility which, in the words of the Productivity Commission, has been fundamentally positive in unlocking value to be shared between workers and their firms. The work-from-home trend has outlived the pandemic. The old rhythms of eight-to-four or nine-to-five in a central workplace are no longer the reality for millions of Australians.

Public opinion polls and extensive research on work from home show us there is strong support and positive benefits to come from it. Most workers know they are at least as productive at home as they are in the workplace, and many of their employers agree. Most workers want a hybrid model, where they work some days at home. The evidence tells us that the average cut in their commuting time is more than an hour a day, and there's research that tells us that workers split this saving with their employer—half to the employer, and half to themselves—and they increase their working time and add to their personal rest and recreation. Working from home is one way in which we can share the benefits of work between workers and their employers more fairly. Lots of people are already doing it and many more want to.

The latest surveys tell us that two-thirds of Australian workers want work that is hybrid in its organisation. Workers say that 60 per cent of their bosses permit hybrid working arrangements. With most workers covered by the national Fair Work Act, the Greens want to see a sensible national approach. One state can't do this and reach workers outside state and local government. Our workplaces are mostly regulated at that national level through the Fair Work Act, which means a national law, a national approach, on working from home makes sense.

We propose that Australians have a legal right to work from home where it's practical and reasonable to do so. This new right to work from home fits well alongside the existing right to request flexibility, but it gives a stronger right to ask to work from home. It's only if a job is really quite difficult to do in that arrangement that workers would be knocked back. At present, only workers who are pregnant, are parents of school-aged kids, are carers, have a disability, are over 55 or are experiencing domestic violence can request flexibility like the right to work from home. We think this right should be available to everyone who can do their work reasonably from home.

Numerous research studies have confirmed what workers already know: flexible work, including working from home, is here to stay and can deliver benefits for productivity, our families and our society. The savings on commuting time and transport costs are real. Recent research reports an overall decline in commuting times of between 17 and 25 per cent for those who do any work from home. This means more time for other activities such as more work, care, exercise, housework and family time, as well as dollar savings. That means positive impacts on health, wellbeing and family life. Work from home can improve gender equity through the encouragement of more men to more evenly pick up domestic work and share it more equally with their partners at home.

The benefits are vast, and not just for workers; they can be very considerable for employers, too. According to the Productivity Commission, work from home can increase productivity because employees have a better ability to manage their time and to concentrate and because they are better rested due to less time commuting. Work from home can also boost participation in the labour market, especially for women and carers. It can help to grow the recruitment pool and retain staff, and it's been shown to lower labour turnover.

Work from home also has benefits for the climate. Transport is one of Australia's fastest-growing sources of emissions. Giving workers the right to work from home two days a week would significantly cut commuting emissions, ease congestion in our cities, reduce demand for road expansion and lower the cost of living by cutting fuel and transport costs.

Working from home, of course, won't work in all jobs, no more than many other conditions in different industries and occupations, which vary according to the characteristics of the job. Our proposal recognises that not all jobs can be done remotely—jobs like nursing, cleaning, construction or being a pilot. You can't do any of those jobs from home. Differences in working conditions for different jobs are already common. For example, firefighters are provided with PPE but can't work from home, while clerical workers don't get PPE but might be able to work from home some of the time. Their awards and agreements reflect and deal with their different realities. But, where a job can be done from home, workers should have the right to request it and to have that request granted unless there's a genuine, demonstrable reason that it can't be done that way.

Our proposal is for a minimum of two days at home, and some employers will go further. They're already going further, where it suits them. A minimum of two days reflects the reality of what many workplaces are already doing. It's about making sure those rights are protected in law. If employers want to arrange more flexible working arrangements, we would welcome that, and many employees already have arrangements to work from home and are reaping the benefits, along with their bosses and their communities. This right may not affect some workers, but it will give them the confidence that their right to work from home cannot be arbitrarily removed. Most importantly, this right gives workers who don't currently have the chance to work from home some backing to ask for it where it's reasonable in their role and some backup if their employer refuses to consider their request, along with some confidence that it won't be arbitrarily removed.

In conclusion, recent surveys tell us that 64 per cent of all Australians back a right to work from home and only 17 per cent oppose it. This includes three-quarters of Labor voters and more than a majority of coalition voters, 51 per cent of those in Australia at present. Nearly a third of Australian workers already work from home, typically, sometime in an average week. It's time to create a generalised right to work from home for all Australian workers who are able to do it in a practical and reasonable way, where their jobs do not inherently restrict the possibility.

So the Greens support this bill, but we do so with open eyes. We know this is not a bold reform, but it's an essential defensive step to protect workers, some of them our lowest paid and many of them women, from going backwards—but it doesn't help them go forwards. Australians deserve better. They deserve workplace laws that reflect and deal with the realities of people's lives now. They deserve the right to work from home where it's reasonable, and we need a sensible national approach. It's time that Labor did it, and the first step is to support our second reading amendment. The Greens are ready to work with Labor to implement this right, which so many Australians are seeking immediately and will benefit from, as will their employers. We could do this, this week.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 is not about protecting penalty and overtime rates. That might be its title, but that is not its purpose. Instead, this bill is about taking power from an individual and assuming it on behalf of the state. It's about infantilising grown adults. It's about denying workers freedom and agency. It's about substituting the uncompromising and inflexible judgement of the state for the preferences and desires of the individual. It's about attacking the independence and impartiality of the Fair Work Commission.

This bill is reflective of the anachronistic nature of today's labour movement and today's Labor government. It reflects a patronising attitude that workers do not know what is best for them. It's emblematic of a paternalistic attitude that individuals should not be able to exercise their own choice. It exudes a hostility to business, especially small business, and it reveals a fundamental misconception about the nature of the economy and the workforce today. Finally, it showcases the reflective desire of this government to encroach ever further into the rights and freedoms of individuals. This bill is not about protecting workers' rights. This bill is instead about denying economic freedom and individual agency. This bill, at its heart, lacks a fundamental purpose.

There is overwhelming support in the community for the idea that Australian workers should be fairly compensated for working overtime or unsociable, regular or unpredictable hours on weekends, public holidays and so on. The Liberal Party—and me, personally—support penalty rates, but these principles are embedded right now in section 134 of the Fair Work Act, which has an objective that the Fair Work Commission must apply when using its powers. Instead, what this bill does is undermine employee agency, employee choice, employee flexibility. It harms productivity. It adds to the regulatory burden of business, in particular small business, and it fundamentally attacks the independence, the functions, the integrity and the probity of the Fair Work Commission. Lastly, it fails to strike a balance between protecting workers and preserving the essential flexibility that modern workplaces and, indeed, modern workers demand.

The Fair Work Act has existing safeguards that protect the rights of workers to be fairly paid, fairly compensated, fairly remunerated—most notably, the better off overall test. What this bill does is take away the rights of workers to negotiate based on their own needs, based on their own preferences, based on their own priorities. The bill seeks to create a one-size-fits-all approach. It restricts workers from entering into arrangements that might better suit their personal circumstances. So, for example, even if workers in an industry supported a change to the modern award, for beneficial changes, this would not be permitted if any hypothetical employee might be considered worse off. This fundamentally removes genuine choice from employees, but it also fundamentally limits the discretion and the judgement of the Fair Work Commission.

I notice the previous speaker referenced working from home arrangements and flexible working arrangements. This bill also creates risks to flexible working arrangements and working from home arrangements. If employers now have to start tracking precise start, finish and break times to comply, they may be reluctant to offer flexible work from home options, even if employees have a legitimate desire to shift their hours around in order to meet personal or caring commitments. The Fair Work Commission itself is exploring how to remove award derived impediments to working from home. What this bill will introduce is a potential barrier to such efforts.

The reality is that the Fair Work Commission already has ample authority to protect penalty and overtime rates. Remember, there are no proposals currently before the Fair Work Commission to reduce penalty rates. The government and the trade unions that support them claim that this bill is closing loopholes, but the Law Council confirmed in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill that no such loophole exists. The reality is that the bill is simply a response to union hypotheticals and not real-world scenarios.

In their submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, the ACTU, the peak body of unions, concedes that it is only hypothetically possible for the commission to leave workers off under the law as it currently stands today. In fact, to the contrary, the judicial practice of the Fair Work Commission has been a long track record of protecting penalty rates, including rejecting employer applications to varying penalty rates when not justified by the circumstances. Section 134 of the Fair Work Act mandates that the commission ensure that modern awards provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, explicitly considering the need for additional remuneration for overtime, irregular hours, weekends and the like.

All the bill does is strip the Fair Work Commission of its independents and the ability of it to exercise its functions. The bill is the government usurping the role of the Fair Work Commission by legislating specific outcomes, or seeking to legislate specific outcomes, rather than trusting an independent tribunal to fairly weight and moderate claims. It repeats a pattern established by this government to reach for a legislative or regulatory solution that is not commensurate with the harm being addressed—if the harm even exists, which they do not in this case.

Let me turn now to retrospectivity, one of the biggest concerns about this bill. The government has consistently argued that the terms of the bill, if passed, will not be retrospective, but the drafting of the bill ensures that existing terms in a modern award that offend the proposed new section 135A of the act are vulnerable. That section makes clear that the commission must ensure modern awards do not reduce penalty rates for any employee when they make, vary or revoke modern awards. What this drafting means is that the commission will have to consider these things the next time an application is made to even vary an award. It will need to look back retrospectively at what has happened to penalty and other rates in the past, even if, when looking at this variation, the variation itself does not attempt to touch penalty, overtime or other covered rates.

In their evidence before the committee, the Australian Industry Group, Ai Group—and they weren't alone in this—said that the effect of this bill will pose, in their words, an 'unacceptable risk' to previously agreed and settled awards and other determinations of the Fair Work Commission. This bill is also at odds with all the government's talk about improving productivity in the economy. It's at odds with their embrace of the so-called abundance agenda. It's at odds with one of the supposed outcomes of last week's productivity and economic reform roundtable, to declutter the regulatory agenda. What this proposal does is make working conditions less flexible and more restrictive, and it adds to the burden of doing business in Australia.

COSBOA, the small-business advocacy group, noted that this bill would be the 36th major change to the Fair Work Act since this government came to office. In the first term of government, this government added an additional 757 pages to the Fair Work Act. That's 757 pages that businesses and employers must comply with. That makes the lives of not only employers but also employees impossible to navigate and manage. This change is only going to add dozens more pages to those 757 pages. Each change, no matter how meritorious it might be, represents an additional burden on Australian business, and this is felt most acutely amongst small businesses. Small businesses lack the resources to keep up with each wave of new regulation, with this one being the latest. They don't have legal departments. They don't have HR departments. They don't have outside counsel. They already spend an average of 15 hours per week on compliance, rather than trying to provide a service or a good to a customer, and this is all against a backdrop of additional uncertainty around existing awards, which may now be at risk of being changed retrospectively.

This bill is flawed, unnecessary and counterproductive. It will not advance workers' rights but, instead, limit employee choice. It will not lead to a new nirvana for working Australians. All it will do is impose new burdens on small business. It is not going to make the life of the Fair Work Commission easier; it is going to tie their hands when making these determinations.

When I think back to Labor governments of old, I recall the work that former Labor prime minister Paul Keating did to modernise the industrial relations system; to encourage enterprise bargaining; and to strengthen the role of what was then called the Industrial Relations Commission, now the Fair Work Commission, in adjudicating disputes between workers and employers. The fundamental view was that the one-size-fits-all approach, which had characterised much of labour relations in at least the first three-quarters of the 20th century in Australia, was no longer fit for purpose. Paul Keating reached this conclusion in the 1980s, but what we've had is this government seeking to turn the clock back to a period before then.

The workplace has changed immeasurably since Paul Keating was Treasurer and Prime Minister. The nature of the modern economy has changed immeasurably. These days, people work from home or remotely. Both partners in a relationship often work. Workers have to balance caring, family and other responsibilities with their job, and modern technology has allowed them to do this, so why are we seeking to wind the clock back and apply a set of strictures, mandates and enclosures on the rights of workers, pretending that workplaces have only one kind, only one shape, only one format today?

What this is doing is winding back the clock further. It will hamper flexibility in our economy. It will not get productivity moving. It will add to the regulatory burden. It will add to the compliance burden. Most fundamentally, it will detract from the rights of workers, and their freedoms and actions. Workers are the ones who are best placed to make an assessment about their own interest. They are entitled to bargain collectively in doing so and to negotiate collectively in doing so, but they are the ones who know whether they would prefer more flexible working arrangements or to trade off higher base rates of pay for lower rates of overtime or penalty rates. They are the ones who know the demands on their time and the work tempos. They are the ones who know the demands on their family, personal and other commitments. They are the ones who are best placed to make these judgements. The existing arrangements allow workers to weigh all these factors alongside and with their employers across the table, to make these assessments about what is in their best interests and to reach a conclusion which is then upheld and can be adjudicated on by the Fair Work Commission, which will ensure that workers are better off overall under the better off overall test. They are losing that freedom.

Fundamentally, this bill is not about protecting penalty and overtime rates; it's about a transfer of power and agency from the individual to the state. It's about a transfer of judgement from an individual to a government bureaucracy. It's about taking away judgement, discretion and individual circumstances which characterise the Fair Work Commission's jurisprudence on this issue today. Ultimately it will be to the detriment of workers. Ultimately, yes, it will be to the detriment of business, it will be to the detriment of the economy and it will be to the detriment of productivity, but it will also be to the detriment of workers.

If you are a worker now and you want to work flexibly—if you want to clock on at seven in the morning to do some work, prepare a submission, prepare some points, do some letters or deal with correspondence so you can then take your children to school at nine o'clock, take your elderly grandparent to a medical appointment, go do your groceries or go to the dentist—is an employer going to have to pay you overtime now? Is an employer going to want to support flexible working-from-home arrangements if they are going to have to require that time sheets be kept and if they are going to have to accommodate your flexibility by paying you more? The answer is simply no. What this bill will do is deny workers freedom, choice and agency, and that is why the coalition does not support this bill.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in strong support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025. For millions of Australians, penalty rates are not just a bonus and they are not a luxury; they are part of the safety net. They are the difference between keeping a roof over their heads and falling behind. They are the difference between paying the rent, putting food on the table and saving for a home, or just being left to struggle through the week. To Australians we say that if you work weekends, public holidays, late nights or early mornings, you deserve your penalty rates, and Labor will always protect them.

In Western Australia, this could not be more important. In retail alone there are 153,200 people employed as of May 2025, and nearly 109,000 employed in hospitality. That's more than a quarter of a million people whose livelihoods depend on penalty rates and overtime rates. These are students; parents, often women; casual workers; young people in their first jobs; and workers in regional towns who keep our pubs open, our shops running and our communities thriving. When their wages are on the line, it is only Labor who will stand up for them.

Under the General Retail Industry Award, a level 8 employee earns $32.45 an hour during a normal weekday. On Sunday, that jumps to $48.68 an hour. On a public holiday, it is $73.01 an hour. For shiftworkers, rates are even higher, particularly for early morning or night shifts. Overtime rates increase further, with the Sunday overtime rate at $64.90 an hour and public holiday overtime at $81.13 per hour. In hospitality, a level 1 food and beverage attendant earns $29.88 on a weekday, which becomes $44.82 on a Sunday and $67.23 on a public holiday. Evening and night shifts attract additional loadings, and casual employees have a further casual loading included in these rates. These are not just perks; they are wages that people plan their lives around to pay for rent, food, groceries, fuel, child care and study costs. They rely on these rates to get through the week. Nationally, 2.6 million Australians rely on the modern award safety net. Many of them serve your coffee, stock our shelves or clean the office. They might even do your hair. This bill ensures those essential workers that keep our economy going don't see their wages cut through the back door.

I got my first job when I was 15 years old. It was at the brand-new Subway opening at the Baldivis shopping centre. I really applied mostly because my friend from school was applying too. He didn't get the job, but I did, because they only employed girls at that point. I had to catch two or sometimes three buses to get there from home or school, and I always worked Thursday nights and either a Saturday or a Sunday. While I wasn't quite sure about applying for the job, it really did make a difference to me, as a young person living in the outer suburbs of Perth, to be able to go out and do the things that young people might do on the weekend. I was a little boring. We liked to go to the movies. That was probably about as exciting as it got. It was a great job. My mum used to say that I came home on a Thursday night smelling like Subway bread. I really relied on those penalty rates and continued to well into my late teens, when I was studying at university. There just wasn't another way around it. Without a doubt, the three best things about that job as a sandwich artist at Subway were—not necessarily in this order—the strange guy who came in every day and ordered a foot-long veggie sub every single day, the frozen cookie dough, which we definitely weren't allowed to eat but certainly did—I highly recommend it if you haven't tried it—and the penalty rates. I'm still very specific to this day about my Subway order: don't give me only three olives, don't give me two pieces of tomato, and don't give me flexibility measures when it means less money in workers' pockets.

We've seen what happens when penalty rates are cut. In 2017, the Liberal-National government slashed penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers. They promised it would create jobs, but instead workers lost thousands of dollars a year, and there was no evidence, ever, that cutting wages created more work. These essential workers had to pick up extra shifts just to make ends meet—shifts that meant less time at home with their families, less time studying and less time to rest.

Some of the big business groups—the usual suspects—are back, arguing that cutting or rolling up penalty rates will create jobs. Those opposite argue that it might improve productivity. They want flexibility arrangements that allow companies to offer a slightly higher base pay in exchange for forgoing penalty rates. We say that is not good enough. Research shows us and history shows us time and time again that this is a con. The numbers never add up for workers. All it does is lock in permanently lower pay for the workers who rely on penalty rates to get by.

Retail and hospitality penalty rate cuts have shown no evidence of job growth. In fact, studies estimate that penalty rates contribute roughly $14 billion a year to the economy, supporting aggregate demand. Arrangements exchanging penalty rates for higher base salaries do nothing except to save businesses money and leave employees worse off overall—in some cases, substantially so.

But fair pay also helps businesses, not just workers. In sectors like retail and hospitality, they are facing persistent staff shortages—and competitive pay is critical for attracting and retaining good employees. The evidence shows that collective bargaining and sector wide awards improve productivity, reduce turnover and lower hiring and training costs over time. Sector wide agreements can boost business productivity, improve tenure and reduce turnover costs.

The government's penalty rates bill enshrines a clear principle. Penalty and overtime rates cannot be rolled into a single rate of pay if workers are left worse off. It protects against schemes that offer a higher base pay in exchange for forfeiting those penalty rates—evenings, early mornings, weekends—while still allowing flexibility in the award, so long as workers are not financially disadvantaged and so long as workers are not left worse off under these arrangements. What this means is that this legislation protects workers, supports the economy and strengthens the stability of our workforce.

Labor made a promise that we will always protect penalty rates, and this bill delivers on that promise. When we said we would be a government for working Australians, this is what we meant: protecting that safety net and ensuring that people who give up their weekends and holidays are not worse off.

Those opposite claim to support penalty rates, but history tells us a different story. They supported cutting them in 2017, have consistently opposed minimum wage rises and opposed secure jobs and better pay reforms. Now they call for more consultation. But consultation is no substitute for conviction. This is about fairness, about recognising that, if you give up your Sunday to pull beers, your Boxing Day to stock supermarket shelves or your late nights to clean offices, you deserve the pay that goes with it.

In Western Australia, more than a quarter of a million people rely on these protections, and never has it been more important that we do everything we can to protect them. From students in Perth or parents in Peel to young workers in our regions, penalty rates can never be a relic of the past. They are part of what how we value the people who keep our nation running while the rest of us are at home.

This bill says to them, 'You are valued and your time matters.' It protects workers, it supports the economy and it strengthens the stability of our workforce. It sends a clear message: the days of cutting wages are over, and Labor will always protect your penalty rates.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's ironic that six years after me first raising in the Senate the issue that BHP and other multinational mining companies, together with labour hire companies, colluding with the coalmining union bosses and the Fair Work Commission, perpetrated Australia's largest case of wage theft. An estimated $1.3 billion was ripped off workers.

I first raised this in July 2019, together with clear breaches in statutory provisions for workers compensation, leave, long service leave and other provisions. I was met with ridicule. Slowly, with my persistence and solid data as evidence, my claims were increasingly accepted and now are accepted. Yet here we have before us yet another Fair Work Act bill, yet another change to the Fair Work Act. While we support this bill, I raise concerns with the Fair Work Act itself yet again.

Getting back to BHP and the CFMEU colluding with the labour hire companies, stealing wages and conditions from workers that the government is finally recognising is wrong, I am wearing down my opponents in parliament and the bureaucracy, in one of Australia's largest and most powerful unions, in one of Australia's most powerful industries, in some of the world's largest mining companies and in the world's largest labour hire firm, Japan's Recruit Holdings. Who would have thought that the Labor Party, formerly touting itself as the party of the worker, could actively cover up theft from workers? Who could have thought it? What about Labor colluding with major multinational mining corporations, major multinational and Australian labour hire firms and major union bosses to hammer, abuse and steal from Australian workers? These are workers who keep the lights on and who earn export income for what oscillates between Australia's largest and second-largest export income earner, the coal industry. Labour hire companies, particularly in coal mining, have been consistently underpaying miners to rip off and abuse casual workers who are really working regular full-time hours with the full knowledge and agreement of the CFMEU and MEU bosses and employers. They are stripped of award protections, conditions and entitlements.

I introduced the first equal work, equal pay bill. Labor did not vote for it. They did not support it, saying they would introduce their own. Eventually—a long wait—we shamed Labor into doing their equal work, equal pay bill. They followed One Nation. Equal work for equal pay should be a norm, yet what about the millions—an estimated $1.3 billion—owed in back pay to those who are ripped off? What about them? Some workers were shortchanged more than $40,000 each per year. One complaint lodged with the Fair Work Ombudsman recently as a result of my work revealed a worker is owed $211,000 for years of back pay. It's wage theft. These workers deserve to be compensated for their years of being underpaid. It's a rort that goes back to 2014 and has its roots in the Rudd-Gillard Labor fiasco, with former minister Shorten in 2010 overseeing changes in coal-mining long-service leave provisions, making it possible to hide the other breaches of industrial law in the coal sector. They were hidden until I applied the spotlight relentlessly for 6½ years. When will this Labor government go all the way to compensate those workers, whose losses the union bosses should have stopped, not enabled? When will this Labor government go all the way to compensate those whose losses the Fair Work Commission should have stopped, not approved?

Two entities, the CFMEU/MEU bosses and the Fair Work Commission, who should have protected Australian workers, in fact enabled Australia's largest wage theft from honest workers and then vigorously denied it, thereby helping to cover it up. They were hiding the rip-off of workers to make large multinational labour hire firms in the world's largest mining company unlawful profits that are exported overseas. The profits are exported. How? Those coalminers had worked under an award that did not allow casuals to work in the black-coal industry. The CFMEU then negotiated an enterprise agreement that included casuals who were grossly underpaid. Their employers and the Fair Work Commission went along with this, even though the better off overall test was not satisfied. This legal requirement was boldly sidelined and breached. The union entered into a secret agreement with the employer to not represent the workers seeking a remedy with the employer. The union signed away its rights to protect workers. It was part of the shabby agreement.

As a former underground-coalface miner and union member and as a former coalmine manager and coal-mining executive, I was absolutely stunned and disgusted at the bold exploitation of Australian workers. I was determined. I remain determined, and now I'm encouraged. Yet, after six years, those coalminers still have not received their fair compensation. One Nation will continue to be the only party that pushes for repayment to those coalminers of their stolen wages.

When I first met with workers in the Hunter, way back in 2019, I drafted three aims for guiding our work that I anticipated would push us against roadblocks from the perpetrators of Australia's largest wage theft. I will state these aims again: to recover the lawful and moral entitlements of casual coalminers; to stop these abuses across the coal industry; and to expose and punish the guilty. These three aims continue to guide us. Why does this Labor government continue on a path that ignores those ripped-off coalminers? Who are they protecting? Labor is protecting union bosses and what is one of the largest donors to Labor election campaign funds—the CFMEU, now the MEU. Labor is protecting the world's largest foreign multinational labour hire corporations supplying casual workers to government contracts, costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. This is big money. Labor is protecting the world's largest multinational mining corporations, lacking the integrity and nous to negotiate legal agreements with workers. Labor is protecting its Fair Work Commission.

Despite these huge and powerful forces, One Nation is making progress in giving casual miners tangible hope and the real possibility of compensation. The Fair Work Act is not fit for purpose. Industrial relations needs to return to protecting workers and employers, particularly small business. But it must protect workers. Workers are no longer protected in this country under Labor. One Nation is the only party now protecting workers.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Despite all my years in this place, it never ceases to amaze me that some of the rhetoric we hear in these debates inflames uncertainty, fear and despair amongst people who might be driving along listening to this conversation—and there's so much of it that's nonsensical and absolutely totally incorrect. You'd think that contributions in this place would be directed at the intent of this place's existence—to serve the Australian people. Instead, we listen to diatribes that attack unions.

Acting Deputy President Sterle, it's no surprise to you, as a very significant leader in the union movement yourself before you came to this place, and with your continuing association with the Transport Workers Union, that unions do very different things in different communities. I'm very, very proud to be associated with the SDA union, which is affectionately called 'the shoppies union'. What we're discussing here in this legislation goes directly to people who are in a shop right now serving somebody, at 7.30 at night—and they'll still be serving them down at Coles Manuka at 10 o'clock tonight. And they're working those hours at penalty rates because they need the money for their family, their studies and their future. They are putting themselves out. They are working unsociable hours to contribute to our community, to the wealth of the nation, to the success of enterprise in our country and to their future through gaining wages that reflect the unsociable nature of the hours they're operating.

I'm sure you've worked a few unsociable hours yourself, Acting Deputy President Sterle. I certainly have, particularly as a retail worker when Friday night trading came into New South Wales. Happily, I was a member of the SDA, in my years of training to be a teacher, and they represented me. So instead of all of this union bashing nonsense that I have to put up with from those opposite—who simply don't understand the moral, the spiritual and the physical and practical need of having representatives for workers—I stand here in concert with you and others who want to serve the Australian people, and as a member of the Labor Party here in this place, to say that this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, should pass. This bill is a fair movement towards protecting the rights for proper payment for people who are working unsociable hours.

Might I say that it's not a new thing that I'm standing up here and doing—defending unions, defending Australian workers and defending decent small businesses who pay properly, who don't need legislation to make them pay their superannuation guarantee and who don't need a law to actually pay proper penalty rates. These are people who want to employ people, grow their business and do it the right way. They're on our side as well. They don't want to be undercut by the shysters who take away superannuation, decide whether they pay it or not is optional for them. They are people who say: 'Penalty rates? You should just be grateful you got a job, mate. Show up unsociable hours. I don't care about your family. I don't care that you've got an eight-year-old at home unsupervised.' That's the kind of situation that is happening in our country, and we saw it documented in the work and care report. I see Senator Pocock here. Women, predominantly women, in the retail sector in particular were saying they had managers who were so overblown in their sense of self-importance that they refused to adjust shifts to acknowledge the reality that the women had children that they needed to care for at home. The managers just didn't care.

That's why, under the Albanese Labor government, we are rectifying a whole litany of failures with the objective of reducing Australian people's wages in relation to the cost of living. I've sat in this chamber when the finance minister for the Liberal and National parties actually said that low wages were a design feature of how they were going to run the economy. He said it out loud. I'm pretty sure he didn't realise what he was saying, but he actually belled the cat, and we have, on record, that that's what he wanted—low wages. The Albanese government is about fair and decent wages and conditions for all Australian workers.

That's why this bill should pass. It's a bill that will protect the penalty rates of 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers in this country. These are our fellow citizens, serving the public, in hospitality and retail predominantly, working irregular hours, unsociable hours. For that, Australians designed a compact and the concept of penalty rates—some compensation for stopping your social interaction in the normal hours. The people who are going to oppose it, for goodness sake, I bet aren't working on a Sunday. I bet they're not down at Coles at Manuka putting in their hours at 10 o'clock at night. Maybe they didn't ever have to. Maybe they have no compassion or empathy for the Australian people. I cannot understand why anyone would vote against this bill. Anyone in their right mind, anyone with a sense of fairness and decency, would support what this bill will do. This benefits 2.6 million of our fellow Australians who rely on penalty rate entitlements to help them make ends meet, to pay their bills and to support their families. They're counting on us to deliver for them.

The vehicle that allows the government to make these changes is the Fair Work Act. It was written in 2009, and I know a lot of people compare the technology of today back to 2009. It was a different kind of phone that we were on, then. It was very different in shape and capacity, along with so much in our world that's changed. That's why amendments to legislation occur—because the world changes. This amendment to the Fair Work Act 2009 will lock in the protections that are necessary to ensure that penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be cut or reduced. Very importantly, when bargaining is going on—are we going to raise wages or change things in our workplace?—we want to make sure that these penalty rates and overtime rates cannot be traded away for terms that leave workers with less take-home pay. This is essentially a protection against those who would rip off their own workforce by taking money from the workers so that they can just have some more profit themselves and ignore the impact of penalty rates and overtime on the sustainability of the finances of decent working Australians.

One of the challenges that this amendment to the Fair Work Act 2009 seeks to address is that the system as it stands allows penalty rates and overtime rates to be rolled up into a single rate of pay, leaving many workers worse off. We've seen this practice occur. When protections are weak, as they were in 2017, penalty rates are cut, and the people who felt the impact of that during the Liberal-National governments were workers in retail and in fast food. They still have that flashing light going on the main drag at Kincumber, when I drive by at 11 o'clock, and are still serving Australian people at that time. We have all of these convenience opportunities in our modern economy, and people who are working in retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacies provide a vital service to us. When you need that bottle of baby Panadol at nine o'clock at night and you drive 25 kilometres to get it, somebody is there keeping those doors open so that you can get what you need. We not only want these services; we need them for the workforce that is moving around our country.

Right now, employers in retail, clerical and banking sectors actually have cases before the Fair Work Commission. That is the commission that oversees the Fair Work Act and the rules that apply. Sadly, there are employers in the clerical sector, in the banking sector and in the retail sector who want to erode penalty rates. With the passage of this bill, the Albanese Labor government will prevent that from occurring. I guess it comes down to your fundamental belief about what penalty rates actually are. Some people just think they are a bonus. I don't understand the mentality of some people who don't want to work those hours but think that it's okay for other people to do it and that those people shouldn't receive any recompense. We are firmly of the view that there needs to be a recognition, not just as in, 'Thank you very much for staying open,' but in payment for the unsociable hours that are worked by retail and hospitality staff, by shift workers and by essential services staff, who keep this amazing country that we call home running. People who work on weekends and public holidays, people who work stacking the shelves through the night, and people who are up very early in the morning to keep everything moving around in our economy—they don't receive penalty rates as a bonus; they receive them because of the nature of the hours that they are working. Award-reliant employees who are impacted by cuts to penalty rates are disproportionately women, and they are also young people under 35, part-time workers and casuals—all of these people who are often in precarious employment and who stitch together enough hours in response to the economy in their area. They rely heavily on the extra that they get when they put themselves and their families out to work at unsociable hours.

This is a very simple, fair and workable bill. It is going to provide clarity without complexity for those who seek to use the Fair Work Act.

The reforms that we're proposing here, and that I hope the Senate will support, do not act retrospectively. They will allow employers to continue to meet their current award obligations and nothing more. I want to reassure people who are aware of, understand and are interested in the enterprise bargaining frameworks that enterprise bargaining remains available for businesses seeking flexibility and productivity gains, including arrangements on penalty rates. But that will always occur with the oversight of to guarantee fairness in such an outcome, because, sadly, there are just far too many shonks out there, who, for some reason, believe their right to abuse an Australian worker is some sort of God-given right. In fact, it's almost this sort of ascendancy script: 'Well, I'm the boss, so I'll take all the profit. You're just my lackey, and you don't deserve fair pay.' How do people sleep at night when they diminish their fellow Australians in such an egregious way?

I wish it wasn't the case, but sadly what I've described is a reality in certain places—not in every workplace but in far too many. That is why we have to have this legislation—to stop the shysters, to stop the shonks and to stand up for ordinary hard-working Australians who don't want anything more than a fair go and need a government that understands that and will put in place the necessary guardrails through legislation to ensure that people get a fair go, nothing more, nothing less. I say to Australians: if you work late nights, if you work early mornings, weekends and public holidays, you deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and this bill ensures that for you. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 and, in doing so, recognise fairness, sacrifice and an important role penalty rates play in people's lives within our industrial relations system. I'd like to have my name associated with the good senator's contribution tonight. This bill delivers on the Albanese Labor government's key election commitment to protect the penalty rates of around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant workers. The reform will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate protection to ensure that penalty rates and overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced or substituted by another term that would reduce an employee's take-home pay.

I note that employers in the retail, clerical and banking sectors currently have applications before the Fair Work Commission to trade away penalty rates of lower paid workers who rely on modern awards. I'm someone who did various jobs before I came to this place. In fact, in younger days with a young family, you work on a Sunday night, because that actually brings in a bit more income, or you have a second job when you're starting up when you're first married, so you can actually save a deposit and buy a home. I worked as a checkout chick as my second job, and I loved it because I got to talk to people. Penalty rates, for those people that rely on it—if you've ever struggled, as I have, to support a family, then you actually do truly understand—make a huge difference in the hospitality industry. No question about that.

Penalty rates have long stood as a cornerstone of Australia's industrial relations landscape, ensuring that workers who sacrifice their weekends, their nights, public holidays; get up early in the morning; and do shiftwork receive an appropriate compensation for their time, because their time is valuable. Nowhere is the significance of penalty rates more apparent than in the retail sector, where workers are often required to serve on the front lines, away from their families, while much of the country enjoys leisure, community events or time with their loved ones. There are 1.3 million retail workers across Australia, representing nine per cent of the working population. This is a significant number of hardworking Australians, so it is fundamentally important that we reflect on what we value in our society. At their core, penalty rates are designed to acknowledge the personal and social sacrifices made by workers who must labour outside of the standard Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five routine.

I remember that back during COVID people were singing the praises of those who worked on the front line. Retail workers copped a lot of crap. They did. When they were limiting what you could buy at the supermarket, people were a bit hostile. They were a bit worried, and we honour them. Well, the best way to honour those workers and others who rely on penalty rates is to pass this legislation. For retail workers, these unsociable hours are not a rare exception but a routine reality. The retail sector is uniquely positioned as an industry intimately connected to the rhythms and rituals of daily life, serving customers during weekends, late at night and especially on Sundays and public holidays, when the majority of the population seek rest, relaxation and recreation. For many Australians, Sunday is set aside as a time to gather with family, attend religious services or simply recharge for the week ahead. Public holidays are similarly valued as an opportunity to celebrate significant civil or cultural events. Retail workers, however, are often required to forgo these precious moments, standing behind counters, stocking shelves or assisting customers while all the while their own families gather without them. That deserves compensation.

Retail work is undeniably frontline work. Retail employees are the face of businesses, interacting with hundreds and sometimes thousands of people over a shift, and big business needs to be reminded of that fact. Retail workers manage not only the flow of goods and provision of services but also the emotional labour that comes with customer service. This is especially pronounced during busy periods like Christmas, Easter or the Australia Day long weekend, when stores are bustling and the pace is relentless. The COVID pandemic, as I said earlier, further highlighted just how essential and how exposed retail workers are to our communities, day in, day out. Retail workers serve communities during times of crisis, ensuring the continued supply of food, medicines and other essentials. Despite such vital services, the reality of retail work often comes with modest pay and limited job security. Penalty rates, therefore, are not merely a bonus; they are a necessary form of recognition and reward for the additional burdens carried by those workers across the country.

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, formerly known as the SDA, have been at the forefront of defending the rights of retail, fast food, warehousing and pharmacy workers across Australia. Over the years, the SDA have fought tirelessly to protect penalty rates, recognising their central importance to the livelihoods of workers who already face one of the most demanding and least appreciated occupations in the work that they do and the role that they play in our economy. We know unions are very strong at advocating for their members, but they are there to help safeguard these entitlements at times when there is significant political and business pressure to reduce or remove them.

So I acknowledge the hard work of the SDA branches across the country. I particularly acknowledge the national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, and the secretary of the Tasmanian branch, Joel Tynan. Their commitment to retail workers is unwavering, and we know that they have a number of campaigns going on in relation to the pay for people who are adults in every way except when it comes to their pay. At 18, they can have the same responsibility in retail, they can sign up to go to war and they can buy alcohol, but they don't get paid an adult wage until they're 21.

That's why unions are so important in this country, because they stand up for workers and give them a voice. As an individual, you don't have the same capacity to speak for yourself as when it's done in a collective fashion. Through campaigns, negotiations and collective action, the SDA continue to champion fair compensation for retail workers.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 8 pm—sorry, Senator Polley—the debate is interrupted.