Page 897 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
industries are on enterprise bargaining agreements that already have reduced penalty rates. But the head of hospitality union United Voice, Jo-anne Schofield, has corrected the record on this, confirming that the vast majority of workers in the hospitality sector are in fact covered by the award, not an enterprise agreement, meaning that these cuts would have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable workers.
Looking at the latest household income and labour dynamics in Australia survey data, we can estimate just how severe the effect of this decision may be in Canberra. From this data we know that around 60 per cent of all people employed in the retail trade industry spend some hours of their weekend at work, while around 75 per cent of those employed in the food and accommodation industry do the same. That means up to 18,700 people in the ACT may be affected by this decision, with the burden falling disproportionately on our youth and, again, in many cases on women.
When we look more closely at some of the data on who receives penalty rates, an even clearer picture emerges of the impact and severity of these cuts. The Australian work and life index is a national survey of work-life outcomes of working Australians undertaken by the University of South Australia’s Centre for Work and Life. The centre’s October 2014 report, which others have referred to, Evenings, nights and weekends: working unsocial hours and penalty rates, found that employees whose combined household income was at or above $90,000 were less likely to receive or rely on penalty rates, and more likely to continue working without those payments. Those with household incomes below $30,000 were more likely to rely on penalty rates and less likely to continue working if penalty rates were not offered. Employees in rural or regional locations were generally more likely to receive and rely on penalty rates.
In terms of employment demographics, employees on casual contracts, sales workers, machinery operators and drivers, and employees in mining, retail trade, accommodation and food services, as well as the arts and recreation services, were more likely to work any type of unsocial hours.
Single employees, Mr Assistant Speaker, were more likely to receive penalty rates than couples. Sole parents, as I think you may have mentioned, were more likely to rely financially on penalty rates, followed by couples with children, child-free couples and single employees with no children. Of those employees who received penalty rates for working unsocial hours, more than one in three relied on penalty rates for household expenses and more than half would stop working non-standard hours if penalty rates or additional pay were not offered. Younger workers are more likely to work weekends only, evenings and weekends, or any type of unsociable hours compared with total workers.
What this all adds up to is that the impact of this decision will be most keenly felt by low income households, sole parents and parents in general, as well as young people in our communities. Unlike those on this side of the chamber, who are standing up and fighting for Canberra’s jobs and pay, those opposite have welcomed this attack on some of our lowest paid workers. I know other members have already quoted member for Brindabella Andrew Wall, but I will quote him again:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video