Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a delight it is to be able to follow Senator Farrell in this debate. The decision by the Fair Work Commission in relation to penalty rates for shop assistants is 150 per cent, exactly what he claims Senator Seselja was on as a young man—and he says, 'What a great deal the union had organised for him'! You see, what has happened is that, since the days of Senator Seselja, the penalty rate has increased by 150 per cent to 200 per cent, determined by the independent Fair Work Commission established by Labor under Labor's Fair Work Act. All five appointees of this review panel were appointed by Labor and it was headed up by the former assistant secretary of the ACTU—you could not get it more Labor than that—and it determined that that 200 per cent penalty rate should be brought back to that which Senator Farrell just praised as being the appropriate level, namely 150 per cent. So isn't that an interesting observation by a former SDA official.

But the real crux of this debate is that the Fair Work Commission, an independent body as it is, which has to make a determination every four years and review penalty rates, has come to the conclusion that the current rate for shop assistants mitigates against the unemployed and the underemployed gaining employment opportunities. That is a matter that needs to be taken account of, especially when we know that there are over 1,088,000 underemployed Australians and about 700,000 unemployed Australians, of whom about 300,000 are young people. So the Fair Work Commission determined that this is an opportunity to get more people onto the ladder of employment.

Anybody who understands anything about employment knows that if somebody is in gainful employment their mental health, their physical health, their self-esteem and their social interaction are all improved—and not only those individuals but everyone else in their household. Study after study has shown that. That is why it is such an important good for the individual, socially and economically, to get as many people into employment as possible.

What we have in this country, and we have had it from day one, is a commission that determines what is a fair thing and you balance up. So the Fair Work Commission, having determined a penalty rate of 200 per cent, has now realised that that penalty rate is too high and mitigates employment opportunities, and has therefore reduced it back to 150 per cent, which it was, as confirmed by Senator Farrell, the mover of this motion himself.

Another thing that the Labor Party contributors to this debate will never tell you about are the enterprise bargaining agreements union officials do away from the modern awards where they have traded away penalty rates. That is the truth of the matter.

Mr Shorten was a master at it, when he dudded to the Chiquita mushroom workers, when he dudded the Cleanevent workers and when he dudded the Unibilt workers with the Australian Workers' Union. And, sure, in getting rid of some of those things he also just happened, on the side, to negotiate a $75,000 deal for a campaign manager for himself from Unibilt, and things of that nature—all revealed by the royal commission—there, black on white, for all to see.

The important thing to understand with this penalty rate regime is that the Fair Work Commission has now determined that, when you put that aside, the vast majority of people are not employed under award conditions but under enterprise bargaining arrangements negotiated by the union movement and the employers.

Let us have a look at what big unions and big business negotiate in relation to wages for a Sunday. If my family were to operate a bed and breakfast, I would have to pay my staff on a Sunday $10 an hour more than staff employed at a five-star hotel negotiated by a trade union. Can you see why Labor always loves big unions and big business?