Senator FIELDING (Leader of the Family First Party) (2:40 PM) —I move amendment (4) on sheet 4744 revised:

This amendment is in respect of overtime, penalty rates and shiftwork allowances. This is an important issue. It is probably worth going back to the original reason why overtime and penalty rates were introduced many decades ago. The issue is that they were part of the first paid work and family initiative. They were designed to act as a disincentive for employers to request their employees to work antisocial, long hours. We know that today these issues are also being used for purposes other than the original intent. For example, they are used by some to top up low pay and there have been some problems with them being used inappropriately, either by employees or employers, to try and top up low pay, because it is very hard to make ends meet.

The second issue is that for some businesses, especially small businesses, penalty rates or overtime allowances can hinder some of their expansion plans. It is not guaranteed that those things will be there for all; only for some, as they are to start with. Every hour and every day of the week is treated exactly the same. When I ask people on the streets about whether working at 2 am is the same as working at 2 pm, they say, ‘No, it’s not.’ They are concerned about what this bill will do in that regard. So the Family First amendment is about protecting that for all workers and not just some.

Going back some time, Family First proposed an inquiry into the very issue of overtime and penalty rates because we understand that they are not only serving the original intention but also causing a couple of consequences that were never intended. As I said before, they are being used to top up low pay and they are also acting as a disincentive for some small businesses. Those two issues themselves do not mean that we should just throw them out, because the original intention of the allowances and penalty rates was to ensure that there was some disincentive in the process so that employees were not requested to work long, antisocial hours and to make sure that working at 2 am was treated differently to working at 2 pm. That is the issue at hand here.

It is a real issue for most Australians who understand that at some stage down the track they may be presented with an individual agreement without those issues and they find out that they will lose eight hours pay a week because the overtime allowances are not there any more. The little luxuries in life, like going to the movies on the weekend or going down to the local pizza parlour could be compromised for some. I understand that for a lot of people this may not be the case, but some, who are in their current position because of awards or because someone has been able to negotiate enterprise bargaining agreements for them to level the playing field, will not be in a position to try to bargain for things like overtime allowances and penalty rates.

Family First’s concern is that, while we understand that overtime and penalty rates are causing some problems, the original intent and purpose of them is still legitimate and they are still needed. Before we throw them out, I think we should make sure we have something in their place. The Family First amendment goes towards making sure that, when agreements are struck, overtime and penalty rates are at least comparable to the awards that otherwise would be in effect.

I think this is more than fair and reasonable. As I said, people are surprised when they find out that eventually these could be taken out and that they have to bargain to get them back. That may work for some. You and I, Madam Temporary Chairman Crossin, may be able to bargain for those things, but a lot of people will not be in that position. So I ask all the senators to think and use their consciences—which they would do in all cases, but I ask them to do so in this case in particular—as to whether it is right that these things will be taken out before we replace them with something else? I say the answer is no, and I encourage senators to vote with me on this issue and vote for the Family First amendment.