❓ Question regarding the potential reduction of penalty rates for retail employees during the first five days of work, following a recommendation from the Small Business Development Corporation. The Minister's response deflects by criticising the previous Liberal government's consultation practices and offering a nuanced view on penalty rates.
AnsweredQoN 778Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the report by the Small Business Development Corporation, the Government’s lead agency in providing policy advice on small business matters regarding retail trading hours. I specifically refer to the corporation’s recommendation No 5, which states that if the State Government decides to deregulate trading hours, it should make a consequential amendment to the Shop and Warehouse (Wholesale and Retail Establishments) State Award to ensure that penalty rates are not paid to employees within their first five days of work in a seven-day period. The Government’s policy advisory group is saying that there will be no penalty rates within the first five days. Will the minister support a change to the main retail industry award in this way to reduce penalty rates? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. It went down a few different avenues. First of all, in terms of the various presentations and advice that have come forward to the review that is currently being conducted of retail trading hours, government agencies and many small and large businesses across the community put in submissions - 1 300 submissions - so that the Government could be well informed of the impact that any change, were one announced, would have on various sectors. This is in stark contrast with what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. When the member was in government, did he have any consultations before making changes? Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for his question. It went down a few different avenues. First of all, in terms of the various presentations and advice that have come forward to the review that is currently being conducted of retail trading hours, government agencies and many small and large businesses across the community put in submissions - 1 300 submissions - so that the Government could be well informed of the impact that any change, were one announced, would have on various sectors. This is in stark contrast with what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. When the member was in government, did he have any consultations before making changes? Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
I thank the member for his question. It went down a few different avenues. First of all, in terms of the various presentations and advice that have come forward to the review that is currently being conducted of retail trading hours, government agencies and many small and large businesses across the community put in submissions - 1 300 submissions - so that the Government could be well informed of the impact that any change, were one announced, would have on various sectors. This is in stark contrast with what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. When the member was in government, did he have any consultations before making changes? Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for his question. It went down a few different avenues. First of all, in terms of the various presentations and advice that have come forward to the review that is currently being conducted of retail trading hours, government agencies and many small and large businesses across the community put in submissions - 1 300 submissions - so that the Government could be well informed of the impact that any change, were one announced, would have on various sectors. This is in stark contrast with what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. When the member was in government, did he have any consultations before making changes? Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
I thank the member for his question. It went down a few different avenues. First of all, in terms of the various presentations and advice that have come forward to the review that is currently being conducted of retail trading hours, government agencies and many small and large businesses across the community put in submissions - 1 300 submissions - so that the Government could be well informed of the impact that any change, were one announced, would have on various sectors. This is in stark contrast with what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. When the member was in government, did he have any consultations before making changes? Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Would you answer my question? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Did the member consult anyone when changes were made in 1994 or 1996? No. Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr P.D. Omodei: We didn’t deregulate trading hours! Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: There’s my answer: we didn’t deregulate trading hours. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Liberal Party allowed total deregulation for all small businesses and, to my knowledge, there was no consultation. It then set up two precincts. It consulted for about a week before it brought in the tourist precincts. The Opposition is suggesting that a Government that listens and talks to people across the community - all the stakeholders - should somehow take just one point of view and override all the rest. The Government will not do that. It will take on board all the advice. That is very different from what the Liberal Party did when it was in government. The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
The other part of the question was about the impact of penalty rates. Clearly, penalty rates are a factor. However, the issue currently being faced in this State and across other parts of Australia is that of people working excessive hours. People are being asked to work quite unreasonable hours; that is, either the total span of hours or the unsociable hours that impact on them and their families. Therefore, I am strongly supportive of penalty rates, because penalty rates require that people who work those unsociable hours receive a penalty in compensation, which often means that those people will simply say that they do not want to work those unreasonable, unsociable hours, but someone else will be brought in because the penalty rate will attract that person. There is certainly a benefit in penalty rates, and I support them. However, I acknowledge that in some areas the penalty rates may be considered excessive, and there is therefore a need to review them. Our Labour Relations Reform Bill indicated clearly that there was a need to review a range of awards and arrangements. When major inefficiencies do not stand up to good public policy, there is a reason for change. I put it clearly on the record that I believe there is a place for paying penalty rates; however, when they impinge in a very unfair or harsh way, we must consider whether they can be modified.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.