House of Representatives

Monday, 3 June 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 19
Krokodillos has been operating now for seven years.
Greg and Sarah now need to spend more time with
their seven-year-old daughter, Madison and they have
had it on the market for a long time. Greg and Sarah
work every day and every night. They work it
themselves to make a living. But the work-life balance
is clearly not there and they cannot spend time with
their daughter. I know that they would love to be able
to take on more staff so that they have more quality
family time, but they have limited opening hours and
have to pay penalty rates to staff for every one of
those. When people go out for a meal and a drink late
at night, they expect people to be working and
businesses to be able to offer their products at a price
that they are prepared to pay. We need to create an
environment where small businesses are able to
provide those jobs—because, at the end of the day,
they are the only ones that will.
The Fair Work Amendment Bill came up for debate
recently, and penalty rates formed a key discussion
point. I note the secretary of the trades and labour
council said in a speech on 6 February, 'We are asking
the government to enshrine penalty rates and weekend
work legislation to protect it forever'. I have seen many
businesses in my electorate close down and the
heartbreak and financial and emotional stress that
follows. Unfortunately, this motion demeans the Fair
Work Commission and its role as the so-called
independent umpire. The minister has indicated that
the government would not countenance any reduction
in penalty fees. Therefore, if the Fair Work
Commission rules that way, as the minister has
signalled, it will be perceived that the Fair Work
Commission is being monstered by the minister. I am
very sympathetic to the concerns of businesses but, at
the end of the day, it is a matter for the Fair Work
Commission to determine, and I hope that it will take
into account the very real impact that they are having
on small businesses.
Debate adjourned.
Department of the Treasury and Department
of Finance and Deregulation
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:42): I move:
That this House expresses full confidence in the:
(1) Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance
and Deregulation;
(2) Treasury Secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson and Finance
Secretary, David Tune; and
(3) following words by Treasury Secretary, Martin
Parkinson: ‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the Secretary
of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this
right—were PEFO [the Pre Election Economic and Fiscal
Outlook] to have been released on the 14th of May, it would
have contained the numbers that were in the budget.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens): Is the
motion seconded?
CHAMBER
Mr Windsor: I second the motion and reserve my
right to speak.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I am all for vigorous debate in
this chamber, as I hope we all are about the ideas
facing our nation, but there has been a recent trend
where rhetoric has drifted a long way from reality.
That is why on the motion last week we got the House
to move a confidence motion and see the House of
Representatives and every single member in this House
support with full confidence the science community of
Australia and the advice that man-made climate change
is real.
Likewise, today is a chance for the House of
Representatives to express in full its confidence on the
work of the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Finance and Deregulation and end this
game of rhetoric in the public domain, somehow
questioning the advice that is received from the best
that we have got in this country on advice around the
budget, around PEFO and around forecasting and
estimates. It is a problem that, culturally, we seem to
be getting more and more into. Only today the
candidate in my electorate was questioning the
estimates from the New South Wales and the
Commonwealth education departments. We are seeing
questioning of the corporate plan of the National
Broadband Network. We are seeing ASIO's work being
questioned.
Again, I am all for full debate in this chamber, but it
is drifting off our job if we are attacking those who
cannot respond, who are working in an apolitical way
and providing the best advice possible, and saying that
it is all being done for some sort of political
expediency. Public servants are just that—they are here
to serve the public in this country—to serve the public.
They are not here to serve one political persuasion or
the other; they are here to do the job of providing the
best possible advice they can without fear or favour. I
would hope that this chamber accepts that,
acknowledges that, respects that and endorses that
ongoing work regardless of temperatures raising over
the next three or four months with regard to elections.
My colleague next to me, the member for New
England, and I, on the back of the 2010 election, saw
this firsthand with the departments of Treasury and
Finance. All the election promises were put on the
table. There was a break of the conventions around
elections, where, thankfully, the leaders of both
political parties agreed to allow us access to Treasury
and Finance, and we witnessed firsthand the very best
in this country working through all the election
promises made and providing advice, without fear or
favour, at a very difficult time and, in many cases, with
personal consequences to these senior public officials.
They did it without bias. They sat with the leadership
teams of all persuasions, argued the toss, and then put