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

Campbell argued that penalty rates are fundamental entitlements, not bonuses, and are vital for workers in retail and hospitality. Campbell stated the bill amends the Fair Work Act to ensure the Fair Work Commission cannot reduce penalty or overtime rates when varying modern awards. Campbell highlighted the urgency of the legislation due to active employer applications seeking to remove these rates, which would financially harm low-paid workers.

Miller-Frost described penalty rates as fair compensation for unsociable hours and a lifeline for vulnerable workers. Miller-Frost argued the bill closes loopholes that allow penalty rates to be rolled into single pay rates, which often disadvantage employees. Miller-Frost stated the legislation provides certainty for workers and small businesses by preventing destabilising award changes while maintaining the Fair Work Commission's independence.

Reid argued that penalty rates recognise the sacrifices workers make by giving up weekends and holidays. Reid stated that cutting these rates would reduce consumer spending and harm local economies, whereas fair pay supports productivity and wage-led growth. Reid explained that the bill adds section 135A to the Fair Work Act, establishing a principle that penalty and overtime rates must not be reduced in modern awards.

France argued that major retailers are attempting to scrap penalty rates, which would harm hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers. France cited research showing no evidence that cutting penalty rates creates jobs, noting instead that it reduces take-home pay and economic activity. France stated the bill protects workers in sectors like retail and banking, ensuring they are fairly compensated for working outside standard hours.

McBride highlighted the personal impact of penalty rates on workers in her electorate, noting they provide financial stability and support mental wellbeing. McBride argued the bill is urgent to prevent the Fair Work Commission from approving award variations that reduce take-home pay. McBride stated the legislation strengthens protections by applying a principle that prevents award terms from substituting penalty rates if they result in lower remuneration for any employee.

Kearney argued that penalty rates are essential for survival, not luxury, particularly for low-paid workers in care and hospitality sectors. Kearney stated the bill enshrines protections against employer attempts to strip away entitlements through award reviews. Kearney emphasised that the legislation balances power by ensuring negotiations meet the better-off overall test, preventing tricks or loopholes that disadvantage workers.

lead

Jarrett supported the bill as a commitment to protecting penalty rates for 2.6 million award-reliant workers, noting that these employees are often women, young, or casual. Jarrett argued that penalty rates compensate workers for inconvenient hours and that removing them would harm industries such as retail, hospitality, and aged care. Jarrett cited specific examples of financial losses for workers without these rates and criticised the opposition for supporting cuts. Jarrett linked the protection of penalty rates to broader government efforts to improve real wages and reduce cost-of-living pressures.

minister

Rishworth stated the bill introduces a principle ensuring penalty and overtime rates cannot be reduced or substituted unfairly in modern awards. Rishworth clarified that the legislation does not impose new costs on small businesses or alter existing employer obligations, countering claims of negative impacts. Rishworth explained that the bill preserves the Fair Work Commission's role and does not require a blanket review of all awards. Rishworth emphasised that productivity gains should come from enterprise bargaining rather than reducing worker entitlements.