Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (16:10): What a delight it is to be able to follow Senator Farrell in this debate. The decision by the Fair Work Commission in relation to penalty rates for shop assistants is 150 per cent, exactly what he claims Senator Seselja was on as a young man—and he says, 'What a great deal the union had organised for him'! You see, what has happened is that, since the days of Senator Seselja, the penalty rate has increased by 150 per cent to 200 per cent, determined by the independent Fair Work Commission established by Labor under Labor's Fair Work Act. All five appointees of this review panel were appointed by Labor and it was headed up by the former assistant secretary of the ACTU—you could not get it more Labor than that—and it determined that that 200 per cent penalty rate should be brought back to that which Senator Farrell just praised as being the appropriate level, namely 150 per cent. So isn't that an interesting observation by a former SDA official. But the real crux of this debate is that the Fair Work Commission, an independent body as it is, which has to make a determination every four years and review penalty rates, has come to the conclusion that the current rate for shop assistants mitigates against the unemployed and the underemployed gaining employment opportunities. That is a matter that needs to be taken account of, especially when we know that there are over 1,088,000 underemployed Australians and about 700,000 unemployed Australians, of whom about 300,000 are young people. So the Fair Work Commission determined that this is an opportunity to get more people onto the ladder of employment. Anybody who understands anything about employment knows that if somebody is in gainful employment their mental health, their physical health, their self-esteem and their social interaction are all improved—and not only those individuals but everyone else in their household. Study after study has shown that. That is why it is such an important good for the individual, socially and economically, to get as many people into employment as possible. What we have in this country, and we have had it from day one, is a commission that determines what is a fair thing and you balance up. So the Fair Work Commission, having determined a penalty rate of 200 per cent, has now realised that that penalty rate is too high and mitigates employment opportunities, and has therefore reduced it back to 150 per cent, which it was, as confirmed by Senator Farrell, the mover of this motion himself. Another thing that the Labor Party contributors to this debate will never tell you about are the enterprise bargaining agreements union officials do away from the modern awards where they have traded away penalty rates. That is the truth of the matter. Mr Shorten was a master at it, when he dudded to the Chiquita mushroom workers, when he dudded the Cleanevent workers and when he dudded the Unibilt workers with the Australian Workers' Union. And, sure, in getting rid of some of those things he also just happened, on the side, to negotiate a $75,000 deal for a campaign manager for himself from Unibilt, and things of that nature—all revealed by the royal commission—there, black on white, for all to see. The important thing to understand with this penalty rate regime is that the Fair Work Commission has now determined that, when you put that aside, the vast majority of people are not employed under award conditions but under enterprise bargaining arrangements negotiated by the union movement and the employers. Let us have a look at what big unions and big business negotiate in relation to wages for a Sunday. If my family were to operate a bed and breakfast, I would have to pay my staff on a Sunday $10 an hour more than staff employed at a five-star hotel negotiated by a trade union. Can you see why Labor always loves big unions and big business? Senator Polley: We know why you want to give $50 billion to the big end of town, big businesses! Senator ABETZ: Because big business can put the family company out of business and the big unions love it because they have a more fertile ground in getting union members out of big businesses, because the close relationship that exists between worker and employee in a small business is such that the union movement basically cannot penetrate that market. And so, if I were to run a family bed and breakfast on a Sunday, I would have to pay my staff $10 more than the five-star hotel in the city. If I were to run a family chicken shop, I would have to pay my staff $8 an hour more than the multinational KFC down the road. How do the union officials over there justify that wage disparity? Why do they not come in here with motions condemning the union deals done with multinationals like KFC? And KFC is not the only one. If I had a family owned hamburger shop, I would have to pay workers $8 an hour more than the multinational McDonald's. Senator Polley: You're just cherrypicking! Why don't you tell the real truth? Senator ABETZ: Where is the ranting and raving of Senator Polley about the poor McDonald's workers in the City of Launceston that are being denied this extra $8? Senator Polley: Why don't you explain why you want to give $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town? Senator ABETZ: Or, indeed, if I were a family greengrocer, I would have to pay my staff $5 an hour more than the local Woolworths down the road. Or, if I were to run a family pizza business, I would have to pay my workers $8 an hour more on a Sunday than the multinational Pizza Hut. Or, if I were to run a clothes shop— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): Senator Abetz, resume your seat for a moment. Senator Polley, I notice you are on the list to speak, and you will have the opportunity. I assure you that you will be heard with respect and quietly. Please resume, Senator Abetz. Senator ABETZ: Thank you for that protection, Mr Acting Deputy President Back. You see, the Australian Labor Party do not like hearing the undisputed facts. Can they dispute these wage rates where workers on union-organised enterprise agreements are being paid less in the big businesses in town as opposed to the small businesses? I will not be dissuaded from pursuing this issue. An independently run clothes shop open on a Sunday has to pay their worker $7 an hour more than David Jones. A family bookshop has to pay their worker $8 an hour more than Target. A family newsagent has to pay $7 an hour more than Officeworks. A family bottle shop has to pay their worker $7 an hour more than Dan Murphy's. A family hardware store has to pay their worker $5 an hour more than Bunnings—and so the list goes on. The union officials that make up the benches of the Australian Labor Party have spent their lives trading away penalty rates. They have spent their lives setting up the Fair Work Act. They have spent their lives stacking out the Fair Work Commission with Labor appointees. Now they have the audacity to turn around to the Australian people and say that somehow the Turnbull Liberal-National Party government is denying people their just wages. Senator Polley: They are! You are! Senator ABETZ: Senator Polley foolishly interjects and says, 'You are.' Well, since day one from the formation of Australia, we have had an independent industrial commission—and so it ought to be independent. Indeed, when Mr Shorten, the man that traded away penalty rates for his workers on a number of occasions, was asked on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April 2016 if he would abide by the decision of the Fair Work Commission if they were to reduce penalty rates. He answered, 'Yes'—not once, not twice but three times. Three times he said he would accept the decision—a decision which now puts penalty rates back to where they were a few years ago when Senator Seselja was a young man. It is a penalty rate regime that Senator Farrell embraces. So basically what has occurred is that the penalty rates went up from 150 per cent to 200 per cent. On reflection the Fair Work Commission said: 'This is cutting too many people out of an employment opportunity. We should reduce it back to 150 per cent.' When you have an independent industrial umpire, it stands to reason that sometimes you will agree with their decision and other times you will not agree with their decision, but you have to protect the integrity of the umpire. When they determined that the penalty rate should be 200 per cent, did you have the sort of outrage from the small-business community? They said, 'We don't agree with the decision, but, you know what, it's the umpire's decision and we will pay accordingly.' But now we have a leadership of the Australian Labor Party and of the ACTU that is willing to say to the Australian people, 'If you don't like a law, you can break it.' That is what the new ACTU secretary said in recent times: 'If you don't like a law, just go and break it.' The Labor senators in this place were given the opportunity to vote on a motion supporting the rule of law in this country, and they denied leave. They denied, with the Greens and others in this place, a proper debate on this issue. So when you come to industrial relations and the Australian Labor Party, you see that they speak with forked tongue. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. They will say that penalty rates have to be protected, but then busily negotiate away the rates for their own deals. And then they have their own convoluted deals, where money somehow finds its way into union pockets. This is a very important debate for our nation to have. Do we want the unemployed, the underemployed, the consumers of Australia to have greater opportunities? We on this side say yes, and we accept the umpire's decision. What is more, this will also alleviate the burden on some small business people who are either unable to open their businesses on weekends and compete with the multinationals because of the union wage deals, or they do work on a weekend and ensure that they and their family are all embracing the business on the weekend because they cannot afford to pay people. This decision will enable them to employ the unemployed and the underemployed, and that will be a huge social good for each and every one of them. In relation to police, nurses, firemen: their penalty rates are, of course, protected. Penalty rates are not being abolished; they are simply, by this decision, being adjusted by Labor's own independent umpire.