Bill Debate · In Committee
Senate · Thursday 28 August 2025
Continued from Wednesday 27 August 2025.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate considered amendments to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 during committee stage. The Coalition moved amendments to exclude small businesses and mandate a regulation impact statement, arguing the bill imposed unnecessary burdens and risked unintended consequences. The Greens proposed amendments to broaden flexible work rights for all employees and ensure workplace determinations did not result in less favourable terms than existing agreements. The government opposed all amendments, maintaining that the bill’s scope was strictly limited to protecting penalty rates in modern awards and that existing laws already addressed flexibility and bargaining fairness. All five amendments were defeated.
All five amendments were defeated, with divisions resulting in votes of 25-34, 26-33, 27-32, 12-29, and 13-30 against passage.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Ciccone opened the committee consideration of the bill and the first amendment moved by Senator Kovacic. Ciccone noted that the committee was proceeding to examine the legislation and the proposed changes in detail. His contribution served to formally introduce the stage of debate and the specific amendments under consideration.
Government response
Watt clarified that the bill was not retrospective and would not override existing award arrangements. Watt explained that the legislation applied a new principle to future award variation applications, ensuring the Fair Work Commission could not approve reductions in penalty rates or rolled-up rates that failed to properly compensate employees. Watt stated that the government supported flexible working arrangements but opposed the amendments because they fell outside the bill’s specific focus on penalty rates. Watt argued that existing provisions in the Fair Work Act already protected workers’ rights regarding flexibility and intractable bargaining.
Opposition response
Kovacic argued that the Coalition supported penalty rates but believed the bill imposed excessive regulation on small businesses and limited employee flexibility. Kovacic cited Senate inquiry evidence suggesting the legislation might compromise the independence of the Fair Work Commission and create unintended consequences. Kovacic moved amendments to exclude small business employees from the bill’s provisions and to require a regulation impact statement within six months of commencement. Kovacic contended that the bill did not practically safeguard penalty rates as intended and risked creating additional challenges for employers.
Brockman called the question on the first amendment moved by Senator Kovacic, which sought to exclude small business employees from the bill’s provisions. Brockman facilitated the procedural step to put the amendment to a vote.
Pocock moved amendments to extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to all workers, not just those with specific caregiving responsibilities or disabilities. Pocock argued that the current law was outdated and that flexibility should not be a privilege reserved for particular groups. Pocock contended that the government was prioritising political advantage over workers’ interests by rejecting these changes.
Waters criticised the Minister’s response to Pocock’s questions as inadequate, arguing that the amendments simply extended existing rights to work from home. Waters challenged the government to support the amendments if they genuinely supported flexible work arrangements, suggesting the opposition was driven by political rather than policy reasons.
Pocock moved further amendments to ensure that workplace determinations made during intractable bargaining could not include terms less favourable than those in existing enterprise agreements. Pocock cited examples where employers were using legal loopholes to reduce conditions for firefighters and public sector workers. Pocock urged the government to support the amendment to prevent workers from going backwards during bargaining disputes.