David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Work is one of the most fundamental of human activities. It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of the dignity of gainful employment, providing independence and security for individuals and families. A lot of the debate around workplace regulation depends on who is seen to be more important: those with a job or those who do not have a job but want one. For myself, I am emphatically in the latter camp. Getting a job should always take priority. There is nothing wrong with seeking to improve the terms and conditions for those with a job, but this should not come at the expense of those who do not have one.

Nobody needs reminding that small business is a major driver of our economy and the largest employer group in this country. It is therefore surprising that we do not do more to enhance this engine room of economic activity. In fact, it seems at times we go out of our way to stifle entrepreneurial enthusiasm with red tape and regulation. Many of these regulations are aimed at assisting those who already have a job. Onerous unfair dismissal laws, rules on how to conduct job interviews, holiday loading that pays more for not being at work and penalty rates are just a few examples. The effect of these regulations is to discourage employment growth. They stop people from getting a job in the first place. Our industrial relations regime inhibits the enthusiasm of business, particularly small business, to employ more people.

The Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015 is intended to encourage important and overdue reform in this area. I introduced the bill, and it is co-sponsored by Senator Day. The purpose of the bill is to improve the viability of small businesses operating in the restaurant, retail and tourism industries. It seeks to reduce regulation overseeing the relationship between small businesses in these industries and their employees. In the context of all the barriers facing small business it is a baby step. But it is at least a baby step in the right direction. It does this by removing any requirement that small businesses in these industries pay penalty rates unless the work is on a public holiday, the work is in addition to ten hours of work in a day or the work is on a weekend and in addition to 38 hours of work over a seven-day period.

The bill recognises the changing employment market in the 21st century. We no longer live in the world that existed when penalty rates were first introduced. Pubs used to shut at 6 pm. Dining choices were limited. Shopping ceased at noon on Saturdays. Sporting events were held almost exclusively on Saturdays. Today's world, in many ways, operates 24/7. We now shop all weekend. We dine out from breakfast through to late into the night, and the breadth and depth of dining choices has grown significantly. Tourism services for both domestic and international visitors have also blossomed such that tourism is now the fastest growing sector in the economy. The revolution in retailing, restaurants and tourism has provided numerous job opportunities to hundreds of thousands of Australians.

But now we are stalling because we are locked into old labour market thinking. Businesses and entrepreneurs are pulling back, shrivelling under the dead hand of government regulation. To continue the evolution of these important industries we need to recognise the changed circumstances of the 21st century and recalibrate, adapting to the lifestyle choices of both customers and employees. Indeed, recalibrating now, recognising that change is needed, is preferable to the fate of numerous industries that refused to do so and are no longer in business.

Right now in Australia, many retail, restaurant and tourism businesses are choosing to close their businesses on Sundays and public holidays rather than open to trade at a loss. Employers will not run their businesses as a charity. If the law does not provide a framework where a small business can reasonably operate at a profit, they will choose not to open or choose not to employ. There are two losers from this: those who are willing and able to work in those businesses and their customers. It is ludicrous that businesses are being forced to restrict trading hours, and therefore job opportunities, because regulated pay rates deny profitable trade. Any business, other than a sole trader, that restricts trading hours is closing off a job opportunity for someone.

The accounting firm Deloitte recently reported that 49 per cent of businesses in the fast food sector reduce their hours of operation when penalty rates apply. They also reported that a large number of these businesses have decreased their numbers of employees due to the impact of penalty rates. For restaurants and tourism in particular, weekends and late evenings are when people choose to use their services. These businesses are penalised for operating at a time that best suits their customers. They cannot escape this high cost regime and in most cases cannot charge sufficiently more to offset the imposition of penalty rates. For businesses in this bind, penalty rates threaten the viability of their entire business. This is a problem not just for people employed in retailing, restaurants and tourism but also for people who are not employed but who could be.

People not employed obviously do not receive a penalty payment of any kind. They receive nothing—no wage, no dignity of employment and no opportunity to progress. Penalty rates of up to 275 per cent are certainly appreciated by those who are paid such rates, but they are worthless if you do not have a job or if you are never offered shifts that pay such rates. It is a problem that particularly affects the young and low skilled. The retail, restaurant and tourism industries not only are big employers overall but particularly employ a lot of young and low-skilled workers. Unemployment amongst the young is at alarming levels in some areas.

The changes proposed in my bill will provide employment opportunities for a great number of people. Importantly, they will also improve the viability of businesses in the retail, restaurant and tourism industries, giving security to existing employees. While my bill might reduce the take-home pay of some current employees, there will be others who get more because their hours increase and plenty more who start earning a take-home pay. Given the high job mobility in these sectors, it is unlikely anyone will be worse off for long.

Those who feel disinclined to support these reforms should be aware that many of the people who work in these businesses want to work after traditional work hours or on weekends to accommodate studies or the work patterns of their partners. Far from feeling penalised for working early or late shifts or weekends, it is the first choice for many. Indeed, the transcripts of the 2012 Modern Awards Review conducted by the Fair Work Commission make interesting reading on this. They show that many employers find it easier to find employees for weekend shifts than for Monday to Friday nine to five shifts. They outline instances where employees nominate on their job application forms when they wish to work during the week. In many cases times are chosen to fit in with their studying and to avoid formal class hours. These transcripts confirm that many employees in retail, restaurants and tourism are young, with limited skills, and highly mobile, changing jobs to suit their current needs. Many employees state that if they could not work on weekends they could not work. While receiving penalty rates is welcome, it is not the primary motivator for many of them. Clearly, for many it is not a burden to work on weekends or after traditional business hours but an opportunity.

Finally, my bill is consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act. These are the promotion of flexible modern work practices and efficient and productive performance of work; the promotion of social inclusion through increased workforce participation; the consideration of the likely impact of modern award arrangements on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and the consideration of the special circumstances of small- and medium-sized businesses. My bill promotes these objects. The current penalty rates regime does not.

The Fair Work Act does not properly address the special needs of small business. It is time for modest reform to improve the effectiveness and suitability of penalty rates, particularly in the small business context. Adoption of the changes in the bill will benefit our tourism industry, one of our biggest employers and a huge success story. The bill reflects a 21st century mindset that recognises changing lifestyles and the needs of both customers and employees. It is a modest reform and I commend it to the Senate.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015. Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, I give notice to the whips that I probably will not take my full 20 minutes in this presentation. I know it is 11 o'clock and you will be looking for a break, so I will relieve you of your chores there.

I will start off by saying that setting the minimum wage and penalty rates remains the province of the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission is currently undertaking a review of penalty rates in some modern awards as part of the first four-yearly review. Hearings have commenced this month in the commission about this matter and are scheduled to continue until December 2015. A decision will follow then.

I have some problems with penalty rates. Let me explain. I have listened to John Laws for decades in the shearing shed and on the farm et cetera. John Laws has a saying that 80 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. This is the situation that we are facing now. I know that prior to changes that were made, thank goodness, to conditions for juniors, businesses had to employ a school student—say, someone who was 14 years old—for a minimum of three hours. It was crazy. They would get out of school and start work at four o'clock and the shop would close at 5.30. It is 1½ hours work for a 14-year-old. All of my three children had jobs when they were 14.

You do not pay three hours to a school student for 1½ hours work. So what would happen? I know businesses that would say: 'We'll pay you so much per hour. Work 1½ hours, and every two days there are your three hours.' They were actually breaking the rules. I know businesses who have said: 'Come and work for me for 1½ hours and I will pay you so much cash. We will not put it through the books.' They were cheating the system. I know businesses who have simply refused to employ schoolchildren on that basis. This is what happens. That three-hour minimum pay has now been changed, thank goodness, to give the young ones an opportunity to work—to learn a work ethic, go to work, earn some money and learn how to manage money as well. Thankfully that has been changed. It is a great scheme.

I know for a fact that businesses that open on Sunday, for example—it might be a coffee shop—do not pay the award, because they simply cannot afford to. They might pay $30 an hour cash. They cheat the system. It is wrong. They say, 'If we have to pay the full award, we cannot make a profit.' So what do they do then? They do not open of a Sunday; they say, 'There's no point in opening on a Sunday.' As Senator Leyonhjelm said, these small businesses are not charities. What is the point of opening your doors and bringing your staff in and losing money? People who run businesses are well aware that that is not very good business.

Go out to a country pub on Easter Monday—a little pub in a country town—and have a look at who is working behind the bar: the proprietor and his wife. They do not employ casual labour on Easter Monday because of the cost. It is amazing that—and I brought this to the attention of Ged Kearney from the ACTU; that was a few years ago now—$47 an hour is the casual rate on a public holiday for someone 21 years and over; add workers compensation plus superannuation and you are looking at $55 an hour.

Take the IGA store out in a small country town; say it opens Easter Monday—a public holiday. They do not have enough customers to cover the wages of their casual workers at $55 an hour. The profit margin on sales is not there. So what do they do? In some cases they cheat the system and pay cash, or they simply do not open their doors.

I have been a firm believer all my life, especially in public life, in fairness. Life is about fairness. I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay—or, to put it the other way, a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We are seeing a situation where small businesses will not open because they cannot make a profit for the day, especially on Sundays and public holidays, or they will cheat the system, or, as I said, just simply close their doors.

A recent report of new research suggests that nearly 40,000 extra Sunday jobs and public holiday jobs would be created if the penalty rates in the restaurant industry were reduced on those days. In its submission to the Fair Work Commission's review of modern awards, Restaurant & Catering Australia argues that the original reasons for higher penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays are becoming less relevant and that the current requirements are undermining the ability to open businesses to meet consumer needs, reducing shifts and hours and making it difficult for businesses to make profits. So there is research saying that almost 40,000 extra Sunday and public holiday jobs would be created. That would be a good thing.

I realise that people should be paid some sort of bonus for the inconvenience of working on a Sunday which, traditionally, is a day of rest; some bonus is fine. But, as I said, as to a small business being able to afford $55 an hour for a casual worker 21 years and over on a public holiday: to me, that is far too expensive. That is a huge cost of business, and, as I said, businesses either do not open or they may choose to cheat the system and pay cash—which does occur; I know that occurs.

Small business needs to be given some sort of boost—to be able to look towards a level playing field—because small business does it tough. Many, many businesses start each year and many, many businesses fail, especially new businesses.

That is why I am a big supporter of an amendment adding an effects test to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. I have been involved in business, and I have seen what farmers go through when they supply big business—I have seen the bullying. Senator Sterle and I did a joint press release just a couple of weeks ago—a Labor senator and a Nationals senator on the same ticket—about big business wanting to pay their truckies in 90 day and 100 day payments. That is an absolute disgrace. Senator Sterle and I have written, in the one letter, to the chair of the road transport remuneration tribunal asking them for a ruling that all transport contractors be paid in 30 days. I say that because the truckies have to pay their workers in seven days and pay their accounts in 30 days, especially their fuel—and your truck is not going to operate very well without fuel in it! So that is unfair; the big end of town is bullying.

I will give you an example. You might get a contract for a big company and you go and lease three new prime movers—three new Kenworths, say—with B-double trailers, and A and B trailers. You would have payments to make each month. So say it is a good contract and all is going well, and then two years later you go to renew your contract and they say, 'Yes, we will pay the same rate—minus 10 per cent, or we are going to pay you in 90 days.' That is unfair. That is why we need this section 46 effects test, to give small business a go.

The reason I am passionate about this matter is that we live in a free enterprise economy. What does that mean? It means that you can seek wealth in any way you wish, so long as it is legal. That is a great thing we have in our country. You can leave school, or go and get a tertiary education if you wish, or go out and get a trade and start your own trade business—your own plumbing business, your own building business, your own carpentry business, your own bricklaying business or whatever. It is a great thing that people can choose the way they make their living. But it is not very good when you start up a small business and, because of the forces against you, you are squashed out of business. And I have seen it all my life. If you start a business and you are successful and you are a threat to the big businesses and they cannot get rid of you, what do they do? They buy you out. You see it all the time.

So I hope the Fair Work Commission takes into consideration the submissions and thinks about the small business costs, because, if they do not, as Senator Leyonhjelm has said, the small businesses will not open on Sundays or public holidays. They will say, 'What's the point of going and opening our coffee shop, or our restaurant, and losing $500? We might as well stay at home and not lose the money.'

As I said, if you go to a pub on a Sunday or public holiday, have a look at who is running the bar and have a look at who is in the kitchen doing the cooking. It is usually the publican—it might be a male publican and his wife, or vice versa; a lady may be the licensee and run the pub—and their partner doing the work, so they do not want to employ someone. The point is then: the jobs are not there. People are not getting a job. People are not getting paid. People are not working. That is the worst scenario you can have.

So I think there is a lot of sense in what Senator Leyonhjelm was putting forward. I do hope that the Fair Work Commission takes this in as it does its review, up to December, and considers keeping businesses afloat—keeping the doors open—and, most importantly, keeping people employed.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that Labor opposes the Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015. I have to say: I always find it quite galling that politicians on a base rate of $200,000 stand up in here to tell workers on $30,000 a year that they should not have access to penalty rates. I just find that absolutely galling. Many of the politicians who are in here would not have a clue what it is like to battle to put food on the table. They would not have a clue what it is like to have to depend on penalty rates to be able to pay their mortgage and bills and to get their kids off to school. When you are on $200,000 a year as a base rate, like Senator Leyonhjelm, I suppose it is okay to stand up and deal with penalty rates in a theoretical manner and to say that everyone is going to be better off if they rip penalty rates away from working people.

Penalty rates have been in this country since about 1900. The penalty rates system has been there to do a number of things. Firstly, to provide support for workers and to give workers a financial benefit for working hours outside the normal hours. You will hear arguments from business that there are no 'abnormal' hours, and that it is a 24/7 operation that businesses have to deal with. That might be true, but the problem we have is that penalty rates are so important for so many people that to do what this bill does would probably end up costing the government more than any productivity and improvements that they claim they would get from removing penalty rates, because it would push more low-paid Australians onto government support and government welfare.

Why would you do that? So that some little coffee shop that has a bad business model and is established in an area where they cannot operate effectively can operate seven days a week and exploit working people, not pay an award minimum and not pay a penalty rate. As I came in I heard Senator Williams talking about some business—I did not get the full gist of it—that was operating illegally. If they are operating illegally, I say that Senator Williams should give the name of that business to the Fair Work Commission. We should get it fixed up. We should get the pay fixed up for the workers in that area.

I just do not accept a proposition from well-paid politicians doing the bidding of business in this country that ordinary Australians should lose access to a decent standard of living. This is being treated in here as some academic exercise that would be send off to the Productivity Commission so that the bean counters and the academics of the Productivity Commission, who have never had to rely on penalty rates in their lives and who are well-paid public servants, will make a determination about a waitress in a small restaurant somewhere in the country. They will determine in their theoretical view that if they reduce wages, conditions and penalty rates it will increase the productivity and wealth in the country. I just do not buy it—that some boffins sitting down in the Productivity Commission know everything about everything in this country. They do not. They have no idea what it is like to be a blue collar worker, battling away to send their kids to university. They have no idea what it is like to battle to pay their mortgage. They have no idea—not a clue—what it is like to live off $30,000 a year. They have no idea what it is like to be a cleaner in this parliament and to be told by this awful government—and it does not matter who the leader is—that they should have their pay and conditions cut to clean the toilets of politicians, who earn a $200,000 base rate. It is absolute nonsense from the Productivity Commission. It is absolute nonsense from these appeasers of the business community, sitting across the chamber in this place.

I do not have to go back too far for people to understand what a coalition government is about. A coalition government is about appeasing business. A coalition government always tries to deliver for those people who fund their election campaign coffers and fill their election campaign coffers up. Whether the money is given legally or given in a brown paper bag in the front of a Bentley up in Newcastle, it does not matter. They try to look after that big end of town that looks after the coalition.

So, when you hear them talking about penalty rates, when you hear them talking about more flexibility, when you hear them talking about economic improvement and when you hear them talking about sending things off to the Productivity Commission, let me tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, what it is all about: it is all about cutting wages and conditions so that the top one per cent can be better off and the bottom 40 per cent can please themselves. That is what this government is all about. It does not matter if they put a smart-looking leader in and get rid of their former leader; they will still be the same. They will still be about cutting wages and conditions of ordinary workers in this country. That is what Work Choices was all about. I do not have to go back that far to when they were saying to workers in Spotlight that for a 2c per hour wage increase an individual agreement should remove their penalty rates, their leave loading and their public holidays. What kind of nonsense is it?

Senator Leyonhjelm comes in here on his $200,000 base rate and flippantly says that there are no implications—no negative implications—for cutting the penalty rates of millions of hardworking Australians. I simply believe that Senator Leyonhjelm is doing what he always does—that is, he basically does the bidding of the Liberal Party on this issue. This is part of it—the push out and getting the debate out there. The Liberal Party are still too scared to say what they actually mean, which is that they want lower wages, poorer conditions and to get rid of penalty rates. We know that because that is what they defended and that is what they did during the Work Choices era. Senator Leyonhjelm has been sent out to run that line.

I cannot understand the attitude of the National Party, who have in their electorates some of the poorest paid people in the country. These are the people who will suffer more than anyone else, but the National Party does some deal to get billions of dollars; they hold the Prime Minister to ransom and say that they will not form a coalition unless he gives them billions of dollars so they can get their snouts in the trough. They do not care about penalty rates getting ripped out of their constituencies. Wouldn't it be better for the National Party to care about some of the poorest people in their electorates now and again—just now and again—and stop being the doormat of the coalition, stop going out there and mouthing all the lines that the Liberal Party feeds them on penalty rates? How can you hold your head up high in your local communities when you do not care about the poorest people there, when you simply go for the economic theory and the economic extremism of the coalition that attack workers' wages and conditions on the basis that the economy, in some theoretical way, will benefit from sending some people into abject poverty? It is unacceptable and they have to be called out on it. And it is not just the National Party—it is a range of coalition MPs in rural and regional Australia who have electorates where some of the poorest people reside; people on award wages who depend on penalty rates to maybe once a year get a week's holiday or send their kids off on a school excursion. This is what it is all about. They are doing this simply to appease their business bankers so they will fund their election war chests.

The most vulnerable people are in that rural and regional area; the most vulnerable people are in the exact area that Senator Leyonhjelm and the coalition want to rip penalty rates away from. People in the service industry, in retail, are really battling. There are people like the cleaners in this place who come in and clean the toilets of the politicians, and then they leave that work in the middle of the night and they are up the next morning to do another job so that they can send their kids to school, put some clothes on their kids' back and put some food on the table. They do this work because they get some penalty rates now and again. What is being pushed here is the economic theory that says with lower wages you will create more jobs and people will be better off. That would not have been the case in my situation when I was a blue-collar worker in the power industry in New South Wales. We had two kids; I was working in regional Australia, in Muswellbrook; and we had one income coming into the family. I needed my penalty rates. I needed penalty rates to pay my mortgage, I needed penalty rates to take my kids for a holiday once a year—a very modest holiday, let me tell you—and I needed penalty rates so we could go to the movies. We never, ever went to a restaurant. A treat for us was to get a pizza. A treat for us was for me to pick up some Kentucky Fried Chicken on the way back from Newcastle to Muswellbrook. That was a treat. That was something I could not afford to do every week. These people over here who argue for cutting penalty rates would never understand that. Maybe one or two of them have done it tough now and again, but they would never systematically through their life have had to survive on 30 grand a year. Senator Brandis pays that for bookshelves and books. He probably spends more on books every year than some poor people earn. That would be right, Senator Brandis, wouldn't it—you spend more on books than the cleaners would earn? Yet they come in here and they vote to take away penalty rates and they vote to take away conditions from workers.

Even the academics have had a look at this, and the analysis that has been done by the University of South Australia into unsocial hours and penalty rates says it all. It says:

If we consider that those who relied on penalty rates for their household expenses were at some financial risk if those rates of pay were not available, there are a range of groups at potential risk. Simply as a function of their greater likelihood of financial reliance on penalty rates, women, workers with combined household incomes below $30,000, and employees—

listen to this, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—

in rural or regional locations were at greatest risk.

This is not the ACTU saying this; this is not my old union, the AMWU; this is not the Labor Party; this is not the Greens. This is academic analysis undertaken by the University of South Australia Centre for Work+Life. We hear the argument that it is only retail people those people opposite want to take these benefits off, but we know that the coalition want to take penalty rates off every worker in the country. The study says that the people who rely on penalty rates are labourers. They require penalty rates to fund their households, according to the report, as do workers on permanent or ongoing contracts. I am sure Senator Williams will listen to this:

Finally, workers in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, and in electricity, gas, water and waste services, were likely to have their household finances affected by a removal of penalty rates for working unsocial hours.

There you go. We have had the National Party in here saying, 'Get rid of penalty rates' but it is the people in agriculture and in the forestry and fishing industries who are amongst the most vulnerable to penalty rates being cut.

It beggars belief that these well-off coalition politicians can walk in here and just ignore the social consequences of what they are arguing about. The social consequences are massive. For many workers, when they come under financial strain and are constantly under financial strain, it is not just an issue that they are under financial strain; there are personal relationship issues. It means we see more alcohol abuse and more family violence when people are battling to get a decent life and a decent wage coming in. Yet this mob, this rabble that call themselves a government, simply come in and run the Productivity Commission line, run the bosses' line and say, 'Let's cut the penalty rates' without having an iota of understanding of not only the financial implications but also the social implications of destroying a decent base for families to live on in this country.

So Labor will not have a bar of Senator Leyonhjelm's bill while he is doing the bidding of the coalition. We will not have a bar of a two-tier penalty rate system in this country. We will not have a bar of this rabble of a government trying to cut the rates of pay and conditions of workers in this country. The top one per cent will always be okay. Politicians will be okay: they do not have to worry about penalty rates. But the cleaners, the agricultural workers, the fishery workers, the waitresses, the waiters—they are the ones who would do it tough; they are the ones whose families will be in absolute destitution if they lose their penalty rates. And that is the academic analysis as well as the analysis that I present now.

The new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, was in a debate about two years ago on the ABC on the issue of penalty rates. The bosses were there saying, 'Cut the penalty rates.' What did our new Prime Minister say? He said, 'Business are making a powerful point.' 'We've got to have a sensible and informed debate', said Mr Turnbull. 'We can't have places closing on the weekend.' We heard the National Party running the same line. 'Maybe rates have to be looked at. Maybe we have to have to have a hard-headed and open-eyed discussion. Maybe we should have some consultation on this. Maybe the penalty rates should not be so high.' I am paraphrasing what our current Prime Minister says. That is code for getting rid of penalty rates—from a multimillionaire who would not understand what it means to an ordinary worker. He is a person who flips his policy positions to suit his personal ambition. The personal ambition this Prime Minister should have is to defend penalty rates in this country and maintain a decent life for ordinary workers, for rural workers, for regional workers and for agricultural workers in this country.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We debate the Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015 at a time in our country when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is too big, at a time when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is continuing to grow. We now have a bill before us that will further accelerate the growth of the gap between the haves and have-nots in this country. Penalty rates have been around for over 100 years in this country. They are in place for a very good reason. They are in place to recognise and compensate people for working unsocial hours that the majority of Australians have free. Most Australians are free during these unsocial hours that are worked by some to play sport, to go out and have a few beers, to spend time with their family, to do some volunteering in their community, to do some gardening—to do many of the things that mean so much to so many Australians. Yet some Australians spend an awful lot of their lives working while many of the rest of their fellow countrypeople are free to enjoy some of the benefits of living in this country.

Penalty rates recognise and compensate people for the impact that working unsocial hours has on their lives and the lives of their families and the impact that working unsocial hours has on their personal health and on their sleep patterns. That is why penalty rates have been around for so long in Australia. According to United Voice, about 1.5 million Australian workers receive penalty rates; 48.1 per cent of the workforce are entitled to penalty rates for a public holiday; and 4.2 million, about 44 per cent of the workforce, are entitled to penalty rates for a weekend if they work then. There are about 870,000 Australians who usually work on Sundays in their main job. It is true that not all of those workers would receive penalty rates, but for many the Sunday shift provides the boost financially that they need to make ends meet.

A reasonable question to put to the Senate is: how many of us who are elected to this place have had to regularly work the unsocial hours that currently attract penalty rates? How many of us have had to choose between putting food on the table and paying the rent, paying the school levies and the range of other pressures on ordinary Australians? I think the answer is that some of us have had to face those challenges in our lives but many, many have not.

Overwhelmingly, this legislation would impact on young people, students, low-income workers and people with insecure casual work. Those are the kinds of people who most depend on penalty rates to make ends meet. In our country the majority of casual workers are women. So many Australian women and their families depend on penalty rates and would be financially devastated if penalty rates are cut. This bill would hurt tens of thousands of women—nurses, cleaners, hospitality staff—who work unsocial hours and are rightly compensated for it. And any cuts to penalty rates would be a body blow for young people across this country—including students, who often study full time during the day and work in the hospitality sector at night to make ends meet.

We currently have very high housing prices. Housing affordability is one of the key issues facing our country. We have wages growing slowly. We have many tens of thousands of young people working in retail and hospitality who depend on penalty rates to support themselves and their aspirations for the future. This bill would undermine one of the fundamentals of the Australian way of life, and that is 'the fair go'. We as a country have always supported the fair go, and this bill seeks to chip away at the margins of that ethos. It is hard not to be persuaded by Senator Cameron's arguments around some of the motivations behind introducing this legislation. It is hard not to see Senator Leyonhjelm as someone who has allowed himself to be persuaded to stick his head above the parapet to see if it gets blown off or someone who has potentially allowed the Prime Minister's office to lower him into a coalmine in a canary's cage to see whether he falls silent.

As our member in the House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, has said, the Greens will always fight any attack on penalty rates, the minimum wage and rights at work. He has also said that the Liberals can expect to fight another election on penalty rates and Australians rights at work. We will defend penalty rates and we will be very happy to campaign on it at the next election.

Let's look at a case study by United Voice that was released last year. An adult waitress at a cafe or restaurant is paid only $16.85 an hour for her work from Monday to Friday. But if she works one of her ordinary shifts on a Sunday she makes $25.28 an hour instead. If her Sunday penalty rates are scrapped, her weekly wage would drop from just over $695 a week before tax to $640.20—a wage cut of just under $55 a week or $2,862 over a full year. A cut of just under three grand to what is already an extremely low salary is going to have a massive impact on this adult waitress's capacity to support herself, to invest in the future of her children and to have aspirations for a better life—to properly educate her kids through to higher education opportunities and to follow some of the dreams that we in this country hold so dear.

This bill is framed as having an intention of taking some off the pressure of small businesses. There is a very strong argument that we need to do more to take pressure off small business in this country. But this legislation is not the answer. It goes about its intention in entirely the wrong way. There are many, many ways that we can take the pressure off small business without having to erode rights and penalty rates for workers. That is why the Greens want to support lower tax rates for small business, that is why we voted in parliament to support the government's 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes for small business. But we would go further than the government did in that policy area. We want to expand tax breaks for small business and provide extra funding and legislative powers for the National Small Business Commissioner. We also want to introduce an effects test, which would assist small business and provide them with a more level playing field on which to compete with big business and the top end of town.

I also want to reflect on something else that Senator Cameron said in his contribution that is very hard to argue against. In fact, I would strongly support Senator Cameron's contention that the introduction of this legislation may end up costing Australia more than it delivers in productivity gains. That is because, as Senator Cameron pointed out, if you cut the wages and conditions of some of Australia's lowest-income earners, they are going to put more pressure on essential public services—you can expect to see a blow-out in government costs in areas like our health system, mental health support, family support, our justice systems and our correction systems, just to name a few. This is something that we all need to consider. So not only are there strong moral and social arguments against this legislation there are also extremely strong fiscal and economic arguments against it.

The Australian Greens have been proud to support penalty rates. We have always fought to protect penalty rates from attacks that are generally led by the conservative side of politics and often at the behest of their big business mates at the top end of town. The Greens have led the Senate in calling on the Abbott government to exclude penalty rates and the minimum wage from the Productivity Commission report because we feared they would use it as an excuse to resurrect attacks on the pay and conditions for Australians at work, and we repeat that call for the new Turnbull government. Unfortunately, the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, ignored the Senate's call, and there is a real fear now, and a real possibility, that the dead, buried and cremated Work Choices legislation is set to rise again like a phoenix from the ashes with a brand-new salesman—this time in Australia's new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.

Australians deserve some clarity from the Liberal Party on this issue. Is Work Choices still dead, buried and cremated, or are there the stirrings of life in the ashes? That is a fundamental question that is yet to be answered by our new Prime Minister. Anyone hoping to cut penalty rates in this country can expect to have to fight hard as we move towards the next election. Anyone hoping to cut fundamental rights at work for Australians can expect to have to fight hard at the upcoming federal election. We are not going to have any part of this legislation. We will proudly retain our strong defence of penalty rates in this country because we understand that, overwhelmingly, the people who get penalty rates in Australia are people who are overwhelmingly struggling to make ends meet. They are people who work hard. They are people who make sacrifices to work unsociable hours. They are people who sacrifice opportunities for leisure, opportunities to spend time with their family and opportunities to play a stronger role in their communities.

They sacrifice those opportunities because they have a financial imperative to do so—because they want to be able to aspire to a better life for themselves, they want to be able to aspire to a better life for their families and they want to be able to aspire to a better life for their children. The sacrifices they make by working unsociable hours are made so that they can dare to dream of a better life for themselves and so that they can meet some of the pressures that come onto every low-income worker in this country, whether those be paying the school levies, paying the rent or paying the mortgage—or it may be as simple as putting a decent feed on the table every night for their families. Those are the day-to-day struggles of so many people in this country. Their capacity to deliver on those imperatives and to deliver on those aspirations would be put at significant risk and, in fact, would ultimately be undermined by legislation of this kind.

The Greens are part of a vital line of defence against attacks on penalty rates. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone else in this place who is prepared to be part of that line of defence. We say to all Australians: we always have and we always will fight any attack on penalty rates. This legislation fits very squarely into that category as an attack on penalty rates. Even the sponsors of the legislation, I think, would not argue against that characterisation. As I said, we will not have any part of it. We have not had any part of it in the past. We will not have any part of it today. We will not have any part of it going forward.

It is a significant factor in the future of this country that inequity is growing. I encourage those amongst us who take an interest in history to have a look through historic civilisational decline. You will find two common factors around civilisational decline in human history. You will find ecological collapse and you will find a large and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. We are facing both of those challenges. We are facing ecological disruption on a planetary scale and, in many jurisdictions in the world, we are facing a widening gap between the haves and have-nots. Today, I do not have time to go into what some of the social and security ramifications of those trends might be, but it is writ large in the history books that, as legislators and as leaders, we will ignore those at our peril.

So we will not have any part of this legislation. We think it is punitive in effect. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone else in this place who is prepared to be part of the line of defence against this kind of attack on some of the most disadvantaged, marginalised and hardworking people in our country.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame that the Greens continue to establish an approach which is often close-minded and inflexible. They usually speak in very strong ideologies, without the acceptance or consideration of new ideas or different viewpoints in this chamber. I find it particularly ironic that that is their stance, given that they often talk about wanting to embrace the modern economy and the modern world. Indeed—through you, Mr Deputy President—Senator McKim made a fine first contribution to this place just the other week and talked about how we now have a new sharing economy, with new abilities for each of us to be engaged in our economy, through apps like Uber, Airbnb, Freelancer—all of those elements. I might be corrected, but I do not think an Uber driver is getting penalty rates, I do not think somebody selling their home on Airbnb and works on a Sunday is getting penalty rates and I do not think somebody who is consulting and offering their services on Freelancer is getting penalty rates.

I find it quite ironic that on the one hand the Greens say we should adapt to the modern world and we should embrace new areas of innovation, but on the other hand they are the staunchest defenders of the conservative view—a view that I must say I do not necessarily disagree with—that Sundays should be a day of rest and contemplation. As I said, I do not necessarily disagree with that. Before I respond further on this bill, I want to correct what I view is an incorrect implication by Senator McKim that somehow this country is becoming more unequal. It is not. We are very fortunate in Australia that we have a progressive income tax system and a strong family tax benefit system. The evidence is clear that, over the past 10 or 15 years, including through the Howard government and the Rudd government, that, largely, the gap between the haves and the have-nots, as Senator McKim described them has remained remarkably stable. That is not true in all other parts of the world—I accept that completely—but we should not seek to always draw parallels with the United States of America. We are a different country. We have different welfare systems and we have different laws to the United States of America, and well may that remain so, because we have a very strong country that should be defended.

This bill does not go in particular to those broad issues about inequality. It is a bill to provide greater flexibility for some businesses in how they negotiate penalty rates. I will say at the outset that I do not support this bill, and I will go through reasons why, but I am not going to reject it in the kind of ideological and close-minded approach that we just heard from Senator McKim. I want to credit my colleagues and senators for bringing forward this bill and bringing forward an approach which has clearly sought to deal with some issues that particularly face small businesses in our hospitality industries. There is no doubt that our current award based system is making it difficult for some small businesses to hire people on Sundays and to employ people on public holidays. If you go to the tourist areas of Queensland, to the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast—I am a senator for that region—you will often find cafes and restaurants closed on those days because, in their view, they cannot afford to pay their workers and justify opening. We need to find a balance. This debate should be about a balance. We should find a balance between wanting to ensure that we give people an opportunity to have a job, work on those days and earn an income for their family and being properly compensated for the fact that they are working on public holidays or Sundays. I agree with that, Senator McKim. I absolutely agree that they should be solemn days as much as possible.

I do want to say from the outset that the idea that Sunday should be a day of rest is not one that has always been the case through history, but it is one that has obviously been a long-held tradition in Western societies. The word 'Sunday' itself does not reflect through its etymology a day of rest. It obviously means 'a day for the sun'. It comes from pagan cultures which often had a cult of the sun and often worshipped the sun. Indeed, there was a day for all of the planets and the various names of the seven days of the week generally accord with different planets in the Roman planetary system. Sunday was another day that was dedicated to a heavenly object. It had a sacred place, but it was not necessarily a day of rest in the Roman world, at least not until Emperor Constantine. Those who are familiar with Roman history in this place would know that Emperor Constantine was the first openly Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. It was he who established the practice that Sunday should be a day of rest. I think it is worthwhile quoting what Emperor Constantine said on 7 March 321 AD:

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

Even at the very first inception of the notion that Sunday should be a day of rest, there was a conception that some practices, some work, could still be performed given its nature and the common-sense view that you could not simply leave the farm for a day and have a day of rest when essential work needs to be done. Even Emperor Constantine recognised that.

While I am not in the corner down there that represents the Nationals, may I say that is just another reason why we should hold our famers in high regard in our community—they do not usually get a day of rest, and they certainly do not benefit from penalty rates at any time. They have to work when the sun is up, when the cows need milking, when the grain needs harvesting or when the sugar needs planting. At any time they have to work and they do not receive any of the protections and benefits of our award system. They do something that is more essential than almost any other work that we do, and that is to provide food.

This bill is not about the production of food; it is about the service of food in supermarkets and in cafes and restaurants—our hospitality industry. This bill is saying that those industries should be allowed to have different arrangements for penalty rates on Sundays. Again, there is some rationale for that—just like the grain must be planted on whatever day of the week is the best, providing someone with bacon and eggs for breakfast is often best done on a Sunday. Cafes and restaurants often have to, and do, open on a Sunday because it is the day of the week that the rest of us are lucky enough to have off and go to the shops, do our shopping or spend the Sunday morning reading the papers and having a cup of coffee. In that respect their activities are not dissimilar to those of farmers, and maybe some greater degree of flexibility is warranted.

As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot support this bill for a couple of reasons. First, in this case I share Senator McKim's conservatism that we should try, as much as possible, to keep Sunday a day of rest and reflection and particularly to have time with family. Public holidays as well play an important role in our society. They are often a time of coming together as a nation to do things that are not necessarily related to work and to reflect on how lucky we are to be Australian and how lucky we are to have had people go before us to protect this nation and make it what it is today. I do not disagree that there should be some recognition of that and some reward for those people who otherwise cannot have those days of reflection—be they nurses, doctors, firemen or, indeed, people who perhaps do less crucial work but nonetheless still very beneficial work in brewing a coffee or serving lunch. They deserve some reward for that.

The tradition of ensuring that this day remains a day of rest is one that is close to the heart of our parties that often fly the flag for these conservative values. I, as a National Party senator, quote Menzies cautiously, although I am not going to quote him actually. I remember reading a biography of Robert Menzies and I was very interested in his work practices. His biographer, AW Martin, wrote that in the 1920s:

He estimated that at this time his weekly hours of work would average not less than eighty. The Melbourne courts sat from 10.30am to one o'clock and from 2.15 to 4.15 in the afternoon. Menzies' habit was to work at his desk long into the night and to get up as late as court or conference obligations permitted.

He would also have a routine and the demands of his wife and children meant that they lived a 'very quiet life'. Almost always Menzies took Sunday off, to rest and spend time with his family. Though they sometimes went to church, they took no part in wider church activities. Sunday was a day for reading and occasional picnics and outings.

I long for those sorts of days—Sundays are the new Mondays for us in politics sometimes. It would be perhaps a better and more considerate community if we did take more time. I certainly should take more time to spend with my family and reflect on life, and pause. While there is a somewhat Christian origin for the day of rest on Sunday, actually all of us human beings yearn to have some time away and some time to reflect. If we are able to have that time every week it will usually make us better and more productive people.

I would like to speak further on this bill but I have only half a minute remaining. My final comment is that while I welcome the senator's consideration and creation of this idea, I do think it introduces a level of bureaucracy that is unneeded. We do have a Fair Work Commission process in place to decide penalty rates and weigh up these issues, there is a review of those. I think introducing a piece of legislation which deals specifically with only a couple of sectors and especially with few businesses is too much red tape and we should let the Fair Work Commission decide and balance these issues between days of rest and meaningful reward.

Debate interrupted.