Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (12:36): I thank the shadow minister for his circular questions. Ultimately, the proposition he's putting forward is that penalty rates shouldn't be in awards. Effectively, his questions about the impost that penalty rates are on HR departments, as well as his proposition about how bad penalty rates are and how difficult they make things, go to the substance of this bill.

The basic question in the amended bill before the House is: do you support protecting penalty rates and overtime rates in the award safety net or not? That is a simple proposition, and all the scenarios he's put to me in the questions suggest that, deep down in his heart, he would love nothing more than to strip penalty and overtime rates from all awards and every workplace in this country.

That is a shameful proposition. If that is what is in his heart of hearts, he should have the guts to get up to the dispatch box and say he's opposing this bill. Is he going to oppose this bill?

Does he oppose this bill? He said that he agrees with penalty rates, but, in the proposition of every single one of his questions, he has argued against penalty rates and against overtime, saying that they make it complex. Is it his proposition that no small business in this country should ever have to pay penalty rates?

That is what he's putting to the House. I will answer that question. I disagree with that proposition.

I think hardworking Australians deserve penalty rates, particularly those who rely on the safety net and the modern award. So I'm going to repeat this for the shadow minister, because he's a little slow at catching up. This provision does not require any extra impost on small business.

There is no extra impost whatsoever. What this provision does is protect what is currently happening. So I will repeat it again for him.

If you're a small business and you pay under the award and you're paying penalty rates, then you just keep doing it. If his proposition is that that is terrible for small business, then he is putting to the House that he disagrees with paying penalty rates. He doesn't support penalty rates.

There's no other conclusion that you can make. The shadow minister has got to have the courage to either get up, vote against this bill and say he disagrees with penalty rates or actually back what the Australian people agreed to at the election, and that is the protection of their penalty rates. Mr Tim Wilson: Point of order on relevance: I did ask a series of specific questions, which is specifically— The SPEAKER: The relevance provisions are not for now.

Mr Tim Wilson: The point of order is that the minister actually isn't answering the very specific questions I asked. The SPEAKER: I thank the member. The minister is in continuation.

Ms RISHWORTH: One of the questions he effectively asked was: are paying penalty rates terrible for small business? I am answering that question—I am answering that question very, very clearly. We believe that people should get penalty rates that rely on the award.

We are taking steps to protect those penalty rates. This isn't a proposition that hasn't been widely consulted. Of course, I have widely consulted, including with COSBOA and a range of different small business and larger employer organisations.

Ultimately, though, the shadow minister is having difficulty understanding the results of the election. We put this proposition clearly to the Australian people, and they endorsed this proposition. Australians who are our lowest paid workers should not go backwards.

They shouldn't have less take-home pay in their pockets. This is what this provision is protecting here, and the shadow minister and the Liberal Party and the National Party need to front up and actually make a decision: do they support people's take-home pay going backwards, or do they want to preserve it? (Time expired)