Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the retail trade industry is the second largest employment category in Australia;

(b) one third of workers in the retail trade industry are between 15 to 24 years of age;

(c) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates in the retail trade will disproportionately affect young people;

(d) the take home pay of young retail workers will be severely hit as a result of the FWC's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for young retail workers;

(e) cutting penalty rates for young retail workers increases cost of living pressures as many are studying during the week; and

(f) young retail workers will have to work longer hours for the same pay, with less time to study;

(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and

(3) calls on:

(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and

(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.

The cut to penalty rates will hurt more than half a million Australians, and many of those hurt will be young Australians working in shops, supermarkets and department stores. These are sons and daughters. We have a duty to offer them a better start in life, not a harder one, but we do not seem to be making a good fist of it. Houses are more unaffordable than they have ever been. Reliable and affordable public transport is next to non-existent in regional communities. Education is falling behind internationally. Apprenticeships are in steep decline. Healthcare costs are rising sharply. As for jobs, those that have not been automated are being casualised and contracted out, with exploitation becoming the norm rather than the exception. And now, for those young people who are in work, many in the retail sector, there will be a cut to penalty rates for working Sundays and public holidays, days that most of us get to take off and spend with family and friends.

There are some in this parliament, and certainly some in the corridors of big business, who seem to believe that a proper wage should not matter to young people, that somehow work for young people is all about gaining experience and character building and that a wage is some sort of bonus. When did we start pretending that being paid is not the primary motivation of being employed? When it comes to pay, young people get a pretty raw deal. The younger you are, the less you earn, even if the work you do is the same as someone over the age of 21.

Let's not forget that in Australia you are not an adult worker until you are 21. You can vote at 18, go to war at 18 and die for your country at 18, but you are not an adult worker until you are 21. A 15-year-old casual retail assistant earns $10.94 an hour. That rises to $17.50 an hour on Sundays and to $24.06 on public holidays. This is a low wage already, yet it is about to go even lower because of the Fair Work Commission's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates—a decision backed by those opposite.

Young people between the ages of 15 and 21 do not work just to earn a little pocket money. Many of them work to put food on the family table or to support themselves while studying. That was my own experience. I lived at home with my mum throughout high school, but my 24 hours every weekend at Hungry Jack's for nearly seven years helped my mum, a school cleaner, with groceries and bills. I paid for my own car and my own petrol, my own clothes and, ultimately, my own text books and other university expenses. But, despite all that, I had the luxury of living at home with a mum who cooked and cleaned and did my laundry. Many thousands of other young people are fending for themselves on wages that are already low. They cannot afford $77 a week to be stripped from their weekly pay.

The Conversation reports that as many as 40 per cent of young people rely on penalty rates to survive. The member for Gilmore told her local paper that this decision was a gift because it opened the door for more hours of employment. Can I say to the member for Gilmore that it is not a gift to be told to work 10 hours tomorrow for the same pay that you receive for eight hours today. That is not job creation; it is a pay cut.

The young people of this country deserve better. They deserve respect for the work that they do and the contributions they make and they deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, just like every other Australian worker. This parliament has a chance to stand behind the young people of this country. It can, and it should, vote to pass the amendments to the Fair Work Act that the Leader of the Opposition moved in the House this morning. These are amendments that will protect Australians' pay from being cut.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to second the motion.

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

I greatly appreciate the member for Lyons's concerns about young people and their penalty rates. But I ask the member for Lyons: where were you when those union officials from the shoppies' association were cutting all their penalty rates? You talked about how you were previously employed at Hungry Jack's.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was.

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

And you were getting penalty rates?

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure I was.

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

Do you know what the penalty rates are at Hungry Jack's at the moment?

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no idea.

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

They are a duck egg: zero on a Sunday. Do you know why? Because they have been ripped off in dodgy deals by the Labor Party.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Here we go! The member for Lyons might like to explain to us: how is someone who only works on a Sunday better off overall if they do not get any penalty rates at all? How are they better off? It is a complete and utter nonsense, and this nonsense has been exposed by the Fair Work Commission. They said the dodgy Coles' agreement that was signed up by them was found to not pass the better-off-overall test. By who? By the Fair Work Commission themselves. And what were these things traded off for? What were they really traded off for?

They were traded off for greater union control and greater union power. Let's go through the KFC National Enterprise Agreement. What did they trade off their penalty rates for? KFC workers, who get a ducat on a Sunday, were ripped off by the unions, and this is what they were ripped off for:

The employer—

which is KFC—

undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the Union).

It says:

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 15-year-old kid who has that form shoved under his desk before he starts is not going to sign it? Of course he is going to sign it. And what happens when he signs it? Firstly, he gets zero penalty rates, but, even worse than that, it gives the unions the opportunity to raid his pay packet.

This is clause 41.4:

The employer undertakes, upon authorisation, to deduct union membership dues as levied by the union in accordance with its rules …

They are the union's rules—so the union decides how much it will deduct from the pay of these poor workers that you guys are so concerned about. What an absolute farce! What a pack of hypocrites you lot are, talking about young people. It goes on:

Such monies collected will be forwarded to the appropriate branch of the union at the beginning of each month …

What an outrage! It is unbelievable. And where does that money go? Who was the biggest receiver of the Labor Party funds of the shop assistants' union? It was you lot! Your election campaigns are financed by taking money out of the youngest employees—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons might like to direct his comments through the chair.

A government member: Hughes.

Hughes. My apologies, and no reflection on the member for Lyons.

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

Thank you, Chair. The point that I was making is that here we have the youngest workers in the country earning some of the lowest wages because their salaries have been deducted from and they get zero penalty rates on a Sunday because of union deals. Worse than that, the unions are able to put their hands into those kids' pockets and pull out their union fees, and for what? Hallelujah—they get their penalty rates cut. What an absolute disgrace!

We know why the Labor Party are so upset about this and why they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth, which is that this does not affect workers from Coles, or Woolworths, or Big W, or Target, or K-Mart, or David Jones, or McDonalds, or KFC, or Pizza Hut, or Red Rooster, and so on and so on. It affects none of those workers, because they have already been done over by their own unions, having their penalty rates ripped off them. We have a situation in the country that is even worse. We have a small business that might want to employ someone like the member for Lyons, who used to work at Hungry Jack's. He might say, 'I could give you 26 bucks an hour,' but he is not allowed to. An independent business could say to the poor worker getting $21 an hour: 'We want to employ you at $26 an hour. We want to give you more money. We want to give you a raise.' And do you know what? Under current legislation they cannot do that, because they are all stitched up by the Labor Party. You guys, we are going to talk about these penalty rates for as long as we want, because you are a pack of hypocrites on this. (Time expired)

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an extraordinary performance, wasn't it? It is hard to follow such wilful belligerence, but I will try. Some of the talk about working in the retail industry made me a bit wistful and nostalgic about my days as a trolley collector. I worked for a contractor who contracted to Coles. I worked on the award and I did not get any of my penalty rates, because the contractor decided not to pay them. I looked at the front of Coles every day as I brought the trolleys in and I thought, 'I wish I could be under their enterprise bargaining agreement.' That is what I thought, because I knew the reality of the situation. And the fundamental structure of these things has not changed.

The honourable member talked about the award and he talked about enterprise bargaining, and we need to have a few facts about this. Nearly all of these agreements are voted on by workers, so what happens with an enterprise bargaining agreement—

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

The member for Hughes might want to listen instead of belligerently shouting at people the whole time. He shouts down Sky, he shouts in the House—shout, shout, shout. He might just want to listen. All of the workers on these enterprise bargaining agreements vote to either accept the agreement or reject the agreement. Now, what worker would vote for less pay and less conditions? Answer: no worker would. There is a democratic vote at the start every one of these enterprise agreements and guess what?

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

No, that is not true. There is actually a comparison document between the award and the enterprise bargaining agreement. It has to be put there by law. It has to be in both agreements and the award, and it has to be in the lunch room. They have to have two weeks to consider the agreement. There is a whole series of steps. There has to be consultation by both the company and the union with the workforce and then the workforce votes in a secret ballot. Workers are not going to vote for an agreement that does not lift their wages and conditions. Let me tell you something about Coles. When I started as a union official with Coles, they had 80 per cent casual and 20 per cent permanent staff. But, if you go to any Coles across the country now, they have 80 per cent permanent and 20 per cent casual staff. That is because most of the workers are on permanent part-time contracts.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

No, actually, that is not true. I have actually got the rates here, so let's listen to them. The retail award hourly rate is $19.44 and at Coles it is $21.93. Now, you might say, 'What about Saturdays?' On Saturday, the retail award is $26.25 and at Coles it is $27:41. Then we get to Sunday, it is $29.16 and then we get to Coles where it is $32.89. There it is in black and white. I can read out the casual rates for you too, if you want. Do you want the casual rates?

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

Come on!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A casual employee under the award gets $24.30 and under Coles they get $27.41. So, it does not matter what rate you go on, or on what day, it is always higher because it is an enterprise bargaining agreement. The workers have worked for and voted on it.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Yes, you can have the comparison document. That is why most of the workers want this agreement. They want the 2015 agreement because it provides pay rise after pay rise and better conditions overall. That is because it is an enterprise bargaining agreement.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Because the Fair Work Commission had rocks its head when it made that decision, I do not mind telling you. They turned their back, and you should not be celebrating this, they turned their back on 20 years of enterprise bargaining and they should not have done that. If you want to talk about small business not having access to these rates, let me tell you they did. In South Australia, the SDA did a deal with Business SA. It was a template agreement that was offered to all small retailers. Do you know how many of them took it up? Zero. Because it lifted their labour costs up and it lifted the conditions up.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

No, all they had to do was avail themselves of the opportunity. But they did not, because what the SDA negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements do is lift wages and conditions for workers. That is why workers vote for them and that is why small-business operators avoid them like the plague.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking about this motion, it is very important to make two key points at the outset. Small business creates jobs in Australia, especially in regional Australia, where I am from. It is clear that small business, from what we can see, has welcomed the independent decision of the Fair Work Commission. The coalition understand these points very clearly. We know governments, unions and others do not create jobs—employers do, especially small business employers. We will always stand up for the small businesses who want to expand, create jobs and keep those jobs in place, or stand up for the unemployed who want to have an opportunity and the underemployed who simply seek more work hours. We have heard from many small shops and retailers who have traditionally found it too expensive to open on a Sunday. This decision to modify Sunday penalty rates will help them now to open their doors, compete on a level playing field with big business and, most importantly, create more jobs than ever before. That is essentially what the Fair Work Commission concluded in making its decision on minimum penalty rates, which also takes into account modern retail shopping trends where many more customers want to shop and where more people want to work on Sundays, especially young Australians.

This has been an independent decision on employment awards and conditions made by the Fair Work Commission free of any suggestions of political interference so as to ensure such decisions are evidence based, not political. The commission has spent years, we know, studying the evidence, receiving submissions and interviewing witnesses. It has carefully considered the views of unions and employer organisations alike.

Let's just remind ourselves of the history of the commission and its reviews: set up by the Gillard Labor government in 2009; tasked by Labor to review awards by the same Labor government in 2013; and specifically required to consider penalty rates as part of that process by the Labor workplace relations minister, now opposition leader, Bill Shorten, in 2013. Of course it was Labor who appointed all members of the commission who made this penalty rates decision. I note the former Speaker said they must have had rocks in their head and yet they appointed them.

For the opposition leader and his Labor team now to not accept the result is absolute hypocrisy and political opportunism in its worst form. Those opposite should drop their blatant political games and recognise the position of small business throughout this country who themselves recognise the opportunities that the Fair Work Commission decision opens up for them, their communities and, most importantly, their employees, who will have more access to more work, should they wish or, in the case of others, new jobs where they have not existed previously.

In my regional electorate of Groom, this is exactly what small businesses, especially retailers, who create and sustain jobs, have said to me. They are saying they recognise this as an independent decision. For some, it will mean no change to the penalty rates they pay; for others, it will mean they can open when they could not beforehand therefore providing new jobs that do not currently exist.

The Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce has provided me with feedback at their own instigation about local businesses who are experiencing that planning going forward whereby they can now take up opportunities for themselves, their employees and new employees that have not existed before in retail, as we are discussing here in the chamber today, but also in hospitality and other services.

They recognise their small businesses as the engine room of our regional economy, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission, as originally established by the Labor Party, now means that they can provide more jobs, more opportunities and provide the benefits to our community that the Labor established and appointed Fair Work Commission itself recognised would flow. Thank you.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this important motion. The proposed changes to penalty rates approved by the Fair Work Commission—and still, I have got to say, unopposed by the Turnbull Liberal coalition government—is an absolute devastating blow to 700,000 workers around the country.

These 700,000 workers could lose up to $77 a week from their pay cheque. As we have heard today from other speakers in this place here and downstairs, this is money that could be used to pay for food, to pay for schools, for kids for their shoes, the electricity bill, the rent et cetera

In my electorate of Hindmarsh, it would affect over 12½ thousand people who live in my electorate alone. These are people who are already earning low wages and give up their valuable Sundays and public holidays to work. Protecting penalty rates goes hand in hand with protecting workers' rights.

Why is this important?

It important because we know workers are the engine of our society. They are the ones who absolutely get the economy going—money going around, paying for their day-to-day living et cetera. As I said, they are the engine of our society and our economy. That is why it is important.

According to research undertaken by the Economic Policy Institute,

Improved worker rights have been shown to offer a solid foundation for strong and stable economic growth by supporting demand and stabilizing local currencies and banking systems.

The research tells us that this is not only morally correct; it also makes good economic sense to ensure that workers have good conditions, are paid the proper wages and are renumerated for giving up a very important weekend without their families, without taking the kids to sport or perhaps not going to the church services that they may regularly go to on Sundays. That is why it is important to ensure that they are rewarded on these days because they are working when the rest of us are enjoying everything else. It is morally correct, and, as I said, it also makes good economic sense. The research finds that better workers' rights result in high productive growth, thus leading to faster economic growth. Also, improved workers' rights tend to result in a better distribution of income among workers and between different companies and firms. As the benefits of faster growth are more evenly distributed, local demand is stronger and more stable, thus reducing the chance of a financial crisis.

As opposed to what the Liberal government would have us believe, it is not just unions that are fighting for penalty rates; even the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, has, in recent years, found that the argument for higher wages stifling employment does not stand up. In 2006, the OECD concluded, after an exhaustive examination of research literature, 'The level of the minimum wage has no significant direct impact on unemployment,' and 'highly centralised wage bargaining significantly reduces unemployment'. Penalty rates are an absolute fundamental part of protecting the rights of workers, especially ensuring that workers receive fair compensation, as I said earlier, for giving up their weekends and public holidays to work.

Those that work on weekends and public holidays are usually low-income workers, part-time workers, students and, perhaps, part-time mums that top-up the family budget to ensure that they keep the bills paid and to make a little bit extra to get the kids some extra clothing or for that outing once a week or once a month. It is very important. To penalise these workers, who often earn lower than average wages and who are often on casual and precarious employment conditions, is a very low blow indeed.

This brings me to the other compelling argument for protecting penalty rates. It is morally correct, as I said earlier. I believe you can judge a country on the way it treats its most vulnerable, and kicking them when they are down has been the habit of this particular government. It is not a very nice way to treat anyone. I know that a country I want to live in is one that is fair and respects its workers. This is why I join my Labor colleagues on this side in calling on the government members and senators to stand up with us to protect low-paid workers, take-home pay and support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It is the only fair thing to do.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to speak against this motion today. I have long advocated for the reduction of penalty rates, and I refuse to be a hypocrite like the Leader of the Opposition. Leichhardt is the electorate most highly dependent on tourism. It is responsible for 20 per cent of employment, and it is a seven-day-a-week industry. Tourists want to have a meal, go shopping and hit the nightclubs regardless of what—

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your reference to the opposition leader might be considered unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Tourists want to have a meal, go shopping and hit the nightclubs regardless of what day it is. A lot of people also choose to work on weekends, they might be university students or mums who can only work that day because dad is at home with the kids. Around Australia, the nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday work week is becoming less and less relevant. The Fair Work Commission's proposed changes to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, in my view, are long overdue.

Critically, the impact of these changes should not be overexaggerated, as Labor is intent on doing. They are only very minor changes and will apply to just 2.8 per cent of employed Australians. Rates will be reduced by either 25 or 50 percentage points, bearing in mind a casual hospitality worker receives double time and three-quarters on public holidays. With the changes, a casual pharmacy assistant who earns $38.88 an hour on a Sunday would now earn $34.02 and a full-time bartender earning $31.87 an hour would now earn $27.32. These are still good wages for an eight-hour shift on a Sunday. A casual shop assistant will earn more than $270 a day and $388 on a public holiday. Do not forget that, thanks to the union-sanctioned enterprise bargaining agreements, employees at fast-food chains and major hotels already earn less than the award. So they will not be affected. Staff who are paid higher than the award also will not be affected. This is common in my electorate, where the market dictates wages—so that, if you want a top-notch head chef, you pay accordingly.

The biggest impact is going to be on small businesses and mum and dad operators. If you own a cafe with six permanent staff working on a Sunday, you will save about $30 an hour, which is a full-time wage for one person. So you might decide to have a well-earned day off and pay an additional employee to cover that shift or you could put an extra worker on on a Saturday night so you can provide a better service. In light of the high rates of youth unemployment in my region, it might also mean that you can take on a trainee or an apprentice.

In Far North Queensland, the proposed benefits for a small business have been welcomed. Will Nevile, from Wharf One, told the Cairns Post recently:

It will certainly increase our ability to put on more people. In the current situation the consumer gets less amenity, staff get less work, the government gets less tax and businesses get less turnover. I fail to see a winner.

In its submission to the Fair Work Commission, Pillow Talk managing director Heath Goddard said that the store generally caps hours worked by any given employee on a Sunday to five hours. The Cairns store is one that would likely benefit from being able to provide more hours of work to existing staff or take on new staff. Dean Pollock, from the Discount Drug Store in Atherton, told the Fair Work Commission that he was considering ceasing his Sunday trading altogether as the wages were 'simply too expensive'.

Craig Squire, chef director of Ochre Restaurant and Catering, already pays his staff higher than the award rate. He says that their total wage bill as a percentage of turnover has increased by about four per cent in three years, and he is the only one who has not had a pay rise. This is an all too common scenario. While penalty rates on Sundays are 'higher than is ideal', Craig points out that the biggest impact came from the Fair Work Act 2009, which introduced penalty rates for Saturdays. And I did not see any objection about that decision! For a mixed restaurant and catering business, Saturday is the busiest day with the highest cost for wages. Interestingly, there has been a reduction in Saturday rates for the restaurant industry. About 18 months ago it went down from time and a half to time and a quarter. Where was the outrage from the unions then? I did not hear a word, not a whisper, from them.

I say that Fair Work's proposal is a step in the right direction. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry states:

The modestly reduced Sunday rates still represent a decent wage, but one which is more affordable for small and family businesses.

And that is what this is all about. This is all about small family businesses being able to trade at a time that their customers want them to trade and to be able to do it by employing more people and actually having a break for themselves. So I certainly oppose this motion before us today.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Lyons which is before the House today. Recently I have spoken in the House about issues of generational unfairness which are increasingly impacting on young Australians. This government have continued to attack young Australians from all angles—letting housing affordability get out of control, watching the youth unemployment rates skyrocket and attempting to slash income support for those under 25 at the same time as the cost of living continues to rise. Their sustained attacks—and we have incurred more today—on penalty rates are just another stark example of their unfair attacks on young Australians.

As the member for Lyons' motion notes, the cut in penalty rates in the retail trade would disproportionately affect young people, with one-third of these workers aged between 15 and 24. Just today I met with Matt, a young man from my electorate who is down here campaigning and making people aware of how these decisions will affect him. He is a casual at Spotlight in Wollongong. He moved to Wollongong from Orange to study but was not able to get income support, so he has to work. Matt tells me that his wage barely covers his cost of living. Over half his wage goes in rental costs, and he will lose $70 for every Sunday that he works. That is a big hit on his take-home pay.

Young Australians are already dealing with a changing workforce. Like Matt, they are increasingly required to work irregular or unreliable hours. They are forced to take whatever they can get, no matter whether that is enough to support them for study or for their living costs. Many are just making ends meet. Costs of living continue to increase. Housing stress is a real issue. The cost of getting a good education through university or TAFE continues to rise and, in fact, under government policies we potentially see that increasing even further.

The government wants to know why young Australians are so disenfranchised from politics and are turning towards protest parties or donkey votes. This is why. These continued attacks and this clear lack of understanding of the challenges facing their generation are why. All this government can do is to tell young people to get a good job that pays good money, and then it takes action to slash the wages of the jobs that young people do have.

One of my constituents even told me he believed the government has a vendetta against his generation. Young people think Malcolm Turnbull is so unkind that he would deliberately try to make life harder for them. Who could blame them, when the Prime Minister continues to look to their support structures to prop up big business and investors, who are proposed to get generous corporate tax cuts? Instead of looking at the generous benefits extended to the top end of town, he looks at how he can gouge money from the bottom, from those already struggling under the weight of the mess that has been created. In my electorate, one in seven workers are facing a cut of up to $77 per week. That is more than 10,600 people who will be worse off because the government thinks their time with families is not valuable enough to earn them penalty rates.

Another one of my constituents shared with me her story from when her husband was working weekends just to make ends meet. For a young couple with a small child, the penalty rates he received for working every Sunday meant the difference in them being able to pay the bills and put food on the table. She said it saved them from having to turn to services such as the Salvation Army, and she rightly pointed out the pressure that will be put on these services when families such as theirs can no longer rely on their penalty rate income to pay the costs of living. This was not a choice they made because they did not care about time with their family on the weekend; it was something they were forced to do to survive, something they felt lucky to be able to rely on, and they were unsure what they would have done otherwise. For those who are already at risk, relying on penalty rates and paying the price of time away from their families is what helps them meet their weekly budget. To cut this from them is to attack their capacity to provide for their families.

I note that the member before was talking about the importance of small business. I reiterate and confirm my recognition of the importance of small business in my electorate, and I tell you what: a lot of their customers are the very people we are talking about, who are going to see their disposable income significantly cut from these decisions.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former small business owner myself in the retail space, I can assure you governments do not create jobs; employers do. Our job as a government is to establish the right framework and environment to allow people to build their own lives and forge their own paths. As a matter of fact, in my regional, rural and remote electorate of Maranoa, an electorate encompassing more than 42 per cent of Queensland, many small shops, pharmacies, takeaways and hotels have simply found it too expensive to open on Sundays.

The Fair Work Commission is an independent arbitrator. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition himself set up the rules for the Fair Work Commission's inquiry and review into modern awards every four years, and he even appointed the independent umpire to make the decisions. This was not some fly-by-night inquiry either. In more than two years, the Fair Work Commission pored over more than 5,900 submissions and interviewed 143 witnesses to reach its position. It balanced the views between unions, employer organisations and many experts when it came to reviewing the modern awards for retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy. Of course, this decision only affects employees not covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement. The reality is that employers whose employees are covered by EBAs negotiated between unions and employer representatives have been benefitting from these EBAs, while small business has been slugged with higher wages.

It really does surprise me that the opposition leader refused to now accept the Fair Work Commission's pragmatism and common sense in deliberating over extensive sources evidenced—instead, seeking to play all sorts of games to contradict his previous commitments. True to form, the opposition leader has reneged on his promise to respect the decision. That is because it is politically convenient for him to do so. He lacks the courage and conviction. Sadly, like the ACTU's new secretary, Sally McManus, he thinks politically convenient subjectivity should be a key ingredient of good governance in this country. Forget democracy, forget the separation of powers on which our system of government relies. I think there would be complete and utter anarchy across this country if the goalposts were allowed to mean different things to different people.

Leaving aside the opposition leader's complete and utter hypocrisy, I will explain why this is a great thing for the people in my electorate—not only for the business owners but also for the employed and unemployed people living in regional and rural communities, in particular, who feel the effects of unemployment. The review of the penalty rates has, effectively, handed businesses the opportunity to extend their trading hours and bolster services to the local communities they support. For a lot of regional, rural and remote towns, Sunday looks like an old western ghost town. That is not to say that residents and travellers alike do not have a demand for the local cafe or pub on a Sunday. It is just that the burden of wages, coupled with unpredictable customer numbers, means that opening on a Sunday is a risk they need not take.

On this point I would like to home in on, specifically, tourism. Last year's Tourism Australia reports revealed the increasing number of tourists to my part of the world, outback Queensland. These tourist numbers comprised interstate and international tourists. Tourism has found a big economic pillar for Maranoa, through the drought, and I believe this decision will keep people coming to the country towns for years to come. If they have a newsagency, a cafe, local shops and a pub to stop at, they will get a real sense of our community spirit.

I call on the opposition to respect their promises and look toward the opportunities small business can provide one and all.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.