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

Mulholland argued that penalty rates are essential for the survival of low-paid workers, not optional perks. Mulholland shared personal experiences of wage theft and emphasized that cutting these rates would harm economic demand and fairness. Mulholland rejected arguments that reducing penalties boosts productivity, stating such policies create inequality rather than prosperity.

Pocock supported the bill as a necessary defensive measure but criticized it as insufficient for modern workplaces. Pocock foreshadowed an amendment to introduce a legal entitlement to work remotely for up to two days weekly where reasonable. Pocock argued that flexible work arrangements benefit productivity, gender equity, and the environment, and should be legislated nationally.

Sharma opposed the bill, claiming it infantilizes workers by denying them agency and flexibility in negotiating their terms. Sharma argued the Fair Work Commission already has adequate powers to protect penalty rates and that the bill creates unnecessary regulatory burdens for small businesses. Sharma stated the legislation risks undermining flexible working arrangements and contradicts government goals of improving productivity.

Whiteaker highlighted the importance of penalty rates for over a quarter of a million workers in Western Australia, particularly in retail and hospitality. Whiteaker cited specific wage figures to demonstrate how penalty rates support living costs and argued that previous cuts under Coalition governments failed to create jobs. Whiteaker stated the bill protects essential workers from having their wages eroded through backdoor mechanisms.

Roberts supported the bill but raised concerns about broader failures in the Fair Work Act, specifically regarding wage theft in the coal mining industry. Roberts alleged collusion between mining companies, labour hire firms, and unions to underpay casual workers, resulting in billions in lost wages. Roberts criticized the government for not adequately compensating affected workers and protecting union interests over worker rights.

O'Neill defended the bill as a fair measure to protect workers in retail and hospitality who work unsociable hours. O'Neill argued that penalty rates are compensation for social sacrifice and are vital for low-paid employees, particularly women and young people. O'Neill stated the legislation prevents employers from trading away these entitlements and ensures fair pay for essential services.

Polley supported the bill, emphasizing the role of penalty rates in compensating for personal and social sacrifices made by workers. Polley highlighted the importance of unions, particularly the SDA, in defending these rights for retail and hospitality workers. Polley argued that the legislation honors frontline workers who keep communities running during weekends and holidays.