Question Time AU

Bill Debate · In Committee

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025; In Committee

Senate · Wednesday 27 August 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

Senator Maria Kovacic moved an amendment to introduce exemptions for the Fair Work Commission, arguing the bill imposed undue regulatory burdens on small businesses and restricted employee flexibility. Minister Murray Watt opposed the amendment, asserting that the legislation protected award-reliant workers from penalty rate cuts without adding new obligations for employers. The debate centered on the bill's impact on small business viability, the absence of a regulatory impact statement, and the validity of individual flexibility agreements. Kovacic raised concerns about negative impacts on productivity, while Watt defended the government's record and commitment to election promises.

Outcome

The Senate reported progress on the bill.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Maria Kovacic (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Senator Kovacic argued that the bill creates significant regulatory burdens for small businesses, which already spend substantial time on compliance. Kovacic contended that the legislation undermines the independence of the Fair Work Commission and restricts employee choice by preventing negotiated arrangements that might suit individual circumstances better than standard penalty rates. Kovacic raised concerns about the retrospective application of the bill to existing award terms and the potential for unintended consequences, such as discouraging working-from-home arrangements due to recordkeeping complexities. Kovacic moved an amendment to provide carve-outs and exemptions to address these issues.

Government response

Murray Watt (Minister for the Environment and Water) ALP QLD

Minister Watt stated that the government consulted with stakeholder groups, including small business representatives, during the drafting process. Watt argued that the bill preserves existing conditions rather than imposing new obligations, ensuring that penalty rates cannot be removed from modern awards. Watt maintained that the legislation is not retrospective, as any changes to awards would operate prospectively from the date of a commission decision. Watt emphasised that the bill protects low-income workers, particularly women, while still allowing employers and employees to negotiate different terms through enterprise bargaining agreements or individual flexibility agreements.

Opposition response

Maria Kovacic (Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Liberal NSW

Kovacic questioned why the government did not conduct a regulatory impact statement or consult the Productivity Commission, given evidence of compliance costs for small businesses. Kovacic argued that the bill could reduce flexibility for workers and create confusion regarding retrospective application and annualised salaries. Kovacic highlighted warnings from various business groups that the legislation might hinder productivity and increase administrative burdens. Kovacic sought commitments to model the bill's impact on small businesses and employee earnings, which the Minister declined.