Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this motion moved by the member for La Trobe. I am surprised to hear the member for La Trobe talk about secret views within the coalition, about a secret agenda to return to Work Choices, mentioning one single member of the coalition who had a certain view at a certain time in a certain context, and wrapping a giant conspiracy theory around the issue of penalty rates.

I was listening to the member for La Trobe, and I would like her to indicate where current coalition policy is attacking the issue of penalty rates; is saying that penalty rates are not an important part of the workplace landscape and family income; is saying that penalty rates do not in some way make up for the time spent away from children, from partners and for working unsocial hours. I see this as creating problems where none exist. Maybe it is an opportunity for the member for La Trobe to clarify her own stance on this issue, even though it does contradict that of her colleague the Minister for Tourism who is on the record as stating his concern for the tourism industry by the imposition of higher penalty rates when he claimed:

I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this point in time.

I do not know if the member for La Trobe and members opposite have taken a walk down the main streets of their suburbs, of their regional towns, of their capital cities on a Sunday or a public holiday in areas where tourism should be alive and well, but in fact is struggling badly.

If so, they would have seen it is a fact that coffee shops and cafes may be closed, that tourism outlets cannot afford to open perhaps because of the penalty rates they have to pay workers, that people who otherwise might be providing a vibrant activity on a weekend or a public holiday are not carrying out that activity. We would simply say that is part of a landscape that you must take into account as members of the government and as members of parliament and you must say, 'We need to take account of that and we need to listen to the concerns that are being expressed to us.' That does not translate into a secret agenda to remove penalty rates. It just translates into members on this side of the House recognising the pain that the small businesses they represent are experiencing and indicating that Fair Work Australia, as the independent quasijudicial body in this space, does have a role and a responsibility to take into account everybody's views in the submissions that are made to it, in the cases that are made to it and in the analysis it makes of what is actually going on in the workplace.

We do stand by the independence of that independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, to make the necessary declarations and statements and note all of the indications that exist around the modern awards process. It is vital that we strike that balance between compensating someone appropriately for their time when they can do work outside mainstream hours and ensuring that business does maintain its viability. There are businesses in this country that cannot afford to open on Sunday—restaurants, corner stores and clothing boutiques—and the real downside of this is that there may be people who are losing an employment opportunity as a result.

Regrettably, this government has overseen an increase in the number of people languishing on unemployment benefits, people who would be grateful for any opportunity to work. This comes from a government that, in the 2011-12 budget, promised an extra 500,000 jobs. As with so many promises from this Labor government, we are able to bear witness to yet another broken one with Labor failing to deliver. This is what the government should be focusing on: getting people off unemployment benefits and into paid work is really the priority. In particular I am gravely concerned by the high number of unemployed young people in this country. The youth unemployment rate for those looking for full-time work is 25.1 per cent, according to the most recent ABS data. That is an average of one in four, and there are some areas where youth unemployment exceeds 40 per cent. In Melbourne—and I am not saying it is in the member for La Trobe's own electorate, but it is not far away—youth unemployment does exceed 40 per cent.

I say to those opposite: please do not avoid this topic like the plague; this is what we should be focusing on. None of us wants to see a hefty portion of the young generation consigned to the unemployment queues. Many of these young people have just given up on getting a job at all. Those sectors that historically have hired larger numbers of teenagers are reluctant to hire, facing ongoing uncertainty—and retail is a prime example where employers are reluctant to hire. Government changes to apprenticeship incentives for part-time employees will further hinder employment opportunities for young Australians.

Those opposite should be looking at the big picture instead of seeking to distract with a debate on penalty rates when responsibility for the setting of these rates rests with this government's own creation, Fair Work Australia. We in the coalition do accept that Fair Work Australia is the independent umpire and we remind those opposite of this. The coalition remains adamant that the determination of modern awards rests with Fair Work Australia now and will continue to do so under a future coalition government. Certainly Fair Work Australia have a duty to ensure that they consider all the facts and the ramifications when setting the minimum wage and linked penalty rates. I have confidence that they are aware of their responsibilities at the broader level and I would like to see some indication from members of the government that they have the same faith in Fair Work Australia's process for setting modern awards including penalty rates.

If you go out into the community—and members opposite should be doing that and I am sure they are because we do need to stay in touch with what is happening in our small businesses, in our part-time working communities and with our students and with our families—you will see that increasingly businesses may be employing people for cash. This is where businesses would otherwise not be able to open or would refuse or choose not to open—like mum and dad businesses on the weekend—because they cannot pay the penalty rates that are scheduled.

But they may be employing people for cash. The cash economy is alive and well. That is not a good thing. It is not a good thing for the employment security of those it employs. It is not a good thing for long-term wages. It is not a good thing for the award setting process, the modern award system that Fair Work Australia is the custodian of. What it is is an indication that people are unable in many instances to work under the present system, in an economy that is struggling against increasing business uncertainty, that has such little confidence in the present government to deliver the right economic conditions for their prosperity, that is reluctant to employ people and that does not want to take that extra step to give a young person a go. Whether it be an apprenticeship, a traineeship, or someone on the long-term unemployed list, we rely so much on businesses to step up and help us create opportunities for this group of young people that are doing it so tough because the environment where they might otherwise just get a go does not exist.

In conclusion, it is fine for the member for La Trobe to bring this debate on penalty rates to the chamber today, but I would urge her and her colleagues to recognise the wider issues associated with a very flat employment market, particularly with youth unemployment—never mentioned, never discussed and apparently never understood by this government. They need to demonstrate that they do have confidence in their own independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, and that they will support a submission process from every sector of the community to that independent umpire with an outcome that results in benefits both for employers and employees.

See this speech in context