Tony Abbott says cutting penalty rates will create jobs, but voters disagree

Extract from The Guardian

Coalition says ‘all voices will be heard’ in review of workplace relations as poll shows voters doubt lower weekend pay rates will create jobs

Retail leaders say the wages system is making it impossible for the sector to compete. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Lenore Taylor, political editor

Friday 23 January 2015 16.54 AEST

Tony Abbott has backed the argument that lower penalty rates will create more jobs for young people prepared to work on weekends but said his government would take any new policy to the next election.
Recent research shows a large majority of voters do not accept the contention from business and employer groups that there would be more jobs if penalty rates were lower. The union movement is preparing a major campaign against any changes to penalty rates or the minimum wage as a result of a Productivity Commission review.
Interviewed on Sydney radio on Friday, the prime minister said he thought the lower penalty rates would allow more businesses to open on weekends, providing more jobs.
“If you don’t want to work on a weekend, fair enough don’t work on a weekend. But if you do want to work on a weekend, and lots of people, particularly students, particularly young people, want to work on a weekend, you want the places to be open to provide jobs,” he said, pointing out that the hotel he uses in Melbourne closed its restaurant on Sunday night because it couldn’t afford to pay penalty rates and that he had found it difficult to find a bottle shop open over Easter for the same reason.
“I don’t begrudge people the money … but in the end there is a balance that has to be struck here and my preference will always be in favour of more jobs,” he said.

But the Abbott government faces an uphill task convincing even its own supporters to back a reduction in penalty rates on the grounds it will create jobs, research suggests.
A poll by Essential Media suggests a large majority of voters do not buy that argument.
The poll, taken in mid January, found that 81% of voters said people working outside normal hours should receive a higher rate of pay, including 69% of Liberal and National party voters. A slightly lower majority – 68% – opposed the idea of cutting weekend and public holiday rates for workers in retail and hospitality, including 53% of Coalition voters.
But only 18% of voters (32% of Coalition voters) believed that lower weekend penalty rates would mean businesses employed more workers – 63% (including 50% of Coalition voters) thought businesses would simply make bigger profits.
The government insists “all voices will be heard” in the Productivity Commission review. The workplace relations minister, Eric Abetz, said the government was “asking the Australian people to … be part of the discussion to ensure we get the very best workplace relations system that we could possibly have”.
The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, claimed the review was “a new front in [the government’s] war on fairness”, and the outcome – which the government has promised to take to the next election – was a foregone conclusion.
“Australians rely upon penalty rates for a significant part of their income,” Shorten said. “The government has an agenda to attack the minimum wage and penalty rates. Does anyone in Australia seriously believe Tony Abbott when he says he doesn’t want to reduce pay and conditions ... Australians didn’t come down in the last shower.”
The Productivity Commission chairman, Peter Harris, has promised the inquiry will be evidence-based and take into account the social impacts of any proposed changes.
“We know people hold passionate views about workplace relations,” he said. “I’d like to emphasise that the commission is open-minded and our approach will be evidence-based and impartial.

“We know that a workplace relations system goes beyond its important economic impacts, and will take account of the human and social elements of what is at stake. We are required by our legislation to account of benefits to the community as a whole, and not any particular interest group.”