Page 1214 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
rate for all employees employed under the retail award from 200 per cent to 150 per cent inclusive of casual loading for casual employees. The ACT government does not support these claims or any variation to the current penalty rate scheme. Furthermore, the ACT government will not support claims that would serve to jeopardise the standard of living of Canberrans.
The debate around the four-year review has, of course, not been confined to submissions to the Fair Work Commission. Coles Supermarkets Managing Director John Durkan has also publicly called for a reduction in Sunday penalty rates. This call for a pay cut for people on very modest wages, I should point out, comes from a man who has an annual remuneration package of at least $4 million. This man pulls home more per fortnight after tax than the vast majority of his employees take home annually before tax. And he wants to cut their pay!
Penalty rates have been a feature of the Australian industrial relations system for over 100 years. They were established just after federation, in 1909, by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They form part of the economic foundation of our standard of living, which also includes the minimum wage, pensions, public transport, accessible education, universal health care and social welfare that is there when you need it.
The Productivity Commission’s recent call to reduce Sunday penalty rates represents a further attempt at erosion of this social contract. It represents a reduction in the entitlements of territory workers that this government will not support.
Paying workers penalty rates for working over the weekend and public holidays does benefit business in the long term, because it will increase disposable income for some of our lowest paid workers, which, in turn, will be spent in and stimulate our local economy.
The vast majority of workers who would be subject to these changes to penalty rates do not come from the big end of town or from high-paid professions. It is not bankers, CEOs or politicians like us in this place who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. Instead, reduced penalty rates are going to directly affect those workers who earn relatively low wages—and their families as well. These changes to penalty rates would be felt by people who work in cafes, hospitality, entertainment, restaurants and retail. They would be felt by full-time students, low-income families and single parents who are trying to manage the complex challenges of income stability and child care. The majority of workers who regularly receive penalty rates are financially reliant on them. On average, they have a household income of $60,000 or less, with penalty rates contributing significantly to this amount.
If pay is reduced for these people, if penalty rates are cut for these people, millions of people will have less money to spend. They will eat out less, go to the cinema less, buy coffee less and spend less in local small businesses. Many of the workers who work on weekends rely on penalty rates to pay their rent, their mortgages and bills to put food on the table. If they have any money left over for recreation or non-essentials, it is certainly attributable to penalty rates. A reduction in penalty rates is asking some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video