Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we go again, with another typical Labor scare campaign. It is threatening and it is making workers out there who are doing a good job scared for their penalty rates. People need to be scared for their penalty rates because of what the unions have done to them. Let us have a quick look here. We heard the opposition leader in his speech say, 'When you negotiate on behalf of workers, it's about making them better off overall.' Really? Let us see what the Fair Work Commission had to say about that in a decision last year, on 31 May 2016, in Hart v Coles Supermarkets Australia. At paragraph 33 of that decision the Fair Work Commission—Vice President Watson, Deputy President Kovacic and Commissioner Roe—said, about the idea that unions make people better off overall:

Taking into account all of these matters we are not satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT—

the better off overall test—

For some employees, particularly those who work primarily at times which attract lower penalty rates under the Agreement when compared to the Award, the loss in monetary terms is potentially significant. The potential loss is likely to be of significance for part-time and casual employees. We have considered whether or not the other benefits of the Agreement when compared to the Award can make up for this deficit. We are not satisfied that a consideration of all benefits and detriments under the Agreement results in each employee and each prospective employee being better off overall under the Agreement compared to the Award. It follows that we are not satisfied that the Agreement passes the BOOT.

That is not the Liberal Party; that is the Fair Work Commission, stacked with Labor Party commissioners, saying that workers are worse off under a union agreement. Why are they worse off? Because they have been sold out for union memberships and union fees. That is the simple reason.

You only have to look at the EBA for those poor old KFC workers who get zero penalty rates on the weekend under a union agreement. Their union agreement says, at clause 40.2:

… the employer undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join—

the union—

… All employees, including new employees at the point of recruitment, shall be given an application form to join the Union together with a statement of the employer's policy.

What young kid, 15 or 16 years of age, going to their first job, when told their employer 'positively promotes the union' and 'recommends they join' and given a form to sign, before they actually get the job and before they earn a dollar, is going to say no? Not one. What does that allow the unions to do? It allows them to get a money trail into their pay packet, where these young workers have money ripped off out of their pay to go straight into the union coffers. For the privilege of that union fee, they are not even getting a single cent of penalty rates, and you mob over there say nothing. You are silent, dead silent.

The other issue with this penalty rate decision is that it is not compulsory. Many small businesses have already decided they will pay the higher rate of pay. There is no reason that they will cut rates of pay just because of the Fair Work Commission decision. Many companies have come out and said exactly that. The retailer Lush, with close to 600 employees, have said that they are happy with their workforce, that they are happy with the rates of pay they are giving them and that they are not going to make any cuts, because they value their employees. I say that this decision of the retailer Lush—and we give them credit for it—will be repeated by company after company, by small business after small business.

Ultimately, this decision is about having a level playing field for both small business and large business. The other side like to talk about inequality. The greatest inequality is when a small business is forced to pay 50 per cent more in salaries than a large business. That is the greatest inequality. It stops many young workers from actually getting— (Time expired)

See this speech in context