House debates
Monday, 27 March 2017
Private Members' Business
Workplace Relations
12:39 pm
Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
Talk about scaremongering! The member for Petrie drew my attention to an interesting photograph here of the member for Longman standing outside a Coles supermarket saying, 'Thank you for working over Easter.' I wonder if the member for Longman has read through the Fair Work Commission's full bench decision on Hart v Coles Supermarkets of 31 May 2016. In that decision made by Vice President Watson, Deputy President Kovacic and Commissioner Roe—three members all appointed by the Labor Party—what did they say about the Coles deal on penalty rates? They said:
For some employees, particularly those who work primarily at times which attract lower penalty rates …
And why do they attract lower penalty rates? Because the unions have taken away their penalty rates. It goes on:
… under the Agreement when compared to the Award …
So here is the Fair Work Commission saying that workers at Coles get less than what is under the award. It goes on:
… the loss in monetary terms is potentially significant. The potential loss is likely to be of significance for part-time and casual employees.
Where were the Labor Party and the member for Longman? Were they complaining about this deal between Coles and the shop assistants union? Where were they? The Fair Work Commission found that this agreement makes low-paid workers worse off, and we had complete and utter silence from the Labor Party.
What the unions have done is create all these dodgy deals with the largest employers in the country, and the reason they did it is simply so they can get the union fees. So you have these poor employees at Coles working below the award rate, and what do they get for that privilege? They get money taken out of their pay by the union—not even voluntarily. It is taken out automatically by their employer. Is it any wonder these dodgy deals have been done?
This has created a situation where you have a massive unfair competitive disadvantage being faced by small businesses. I will give you a few examples. A family-owned takeaway employing someone on a Sunday under the current award rate pays $29.16 an hour. But under the agreement negotiated by the unions the same worker doing the same work at KFC, where their money is taken out by the union, gets paid only $21.19 an hour for that privilege. That is just one example.
Another example is a family-owned newsagency. They are forced to pay $37.05 under the award, but Officeworks pays $30.05. A family-owned pizza takeaway pays $28.48 on a Sunday under the award, but under the great deal the unions have struck Pizza Hut workers get $20.35—about a 50 per cent difference in cost because of the great deal the unions struck! It goes on and on and on.
Here is another one: the Red Rooster agreement approved by Fair Work Australia. These are weekend rates:
All work performed on a Saturday or on a Sunday during ordinary hours shall be subject to the following penalty rates …
And there is a thing here for Queensland. Guess what it says for Queensland, Member for Longman. What penalty rates do they get? What do they get on a Sunday? Zero—a duck egg. How does someone become better off if they are getting zero penalty rates on a Sunday under a union agreement? How are they possibly better off? We have seen the Fair Work Commission say these are nothing other than dodgy deals where the actual employees are worse off.
Because of this massive competitive disadvantage small business face, many of them are simply not opening their doors. How can you compete in a highly competitive market if you are forced to pay your staff 50 per cent more than the companies that you are competing against? This is the disadvantage that small businesses face, and that is why they are not opening on a Sunday. The unions have taken that away.
No comments