This sounds sensible to me. Whether the current parliament will support the Bill is anybody's guess. As the Senator says, there has been a lot of talk about jobs - there hasn't been much of any action. If they reckon they have created over 330,000, they really should be explaining why unemployment is still so high: is it because of their stubborn refusal to restrict immigration, perhaps? Is it because they don't have the guts to force bludgers to work by withholding the dole? Is it because they keep importing "refugees", with no work ethic, no English - 95% of them are still on the dole and family benefits after 5 years: it is not too much of a jump to think that they will be in the same position for the rest of their lives; that's why they came here, for the welfare benefits. There is much more to our high unemployment rate than how much people who are willing and wanting to work are paid.

ttbn, i hear where you & the article are coming from but disposable income for luxuries like eating out will continue shrinking as the cost of living continues to rise along with unemployment. Our entire economy is economically unsustainable & you are right migration & dole bludgers is the biggest problem. as well as having only 3 productive industries.

hey why don't we push the basic wage down to $5.00 a hour that will create employment?
That fact is this is nothing more then a money grab by employers. weekend penalty rates have been in place for many years.While our industries that are facing external competition for lower wage areas may have some grounds to argue the industry your talking about doesn't.
While it might be trendie to think we all live in a 24/7 lifestyle these days that fact is we do not. Most of us still work during the week and have weekends off.
What I would like to understand is if coffee shops and restaurants have been able to cope with penalty rates in the past what has changed to make is difficult now.
I suspect that it's all to do with certain fast food chains now producing a decent cup and maybe the rise of home coffee machines.

So nothing really has change just another example of greed.

This is the first time a rational approach has been made as regards to workers and wages. We do not need the likes of Howard or Abbott to force change. We need proper and amiable discussion.

The life and times of working hours have changed, and there is room for discussion, without recommendations or bullyboy tactics of saying this is the only way. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

Different working times need to be confronted at a time. 24/7 Shift workers, weekend workers,

Young people are common weekend workers. A person is supposed to be able to earn a living with 38 hours work / week at their appropriate wage scale for age.

That being the case there is a case for weekends being paid at those same rates as long as that person has the opportunity to complete 38 hours / wk. Instead of Monday to Friday @ 38 hrs. You have Wednesday to Sunday @ 38 hrs.

With out the weekend penalty rates, there must be room for higher wages for the 38 hour / wk workers.

Different persons would like to work at different times, Saturday or Sunday is for sport or family. And others would prefer to have weekday free time. It can be a matter of choice for workers. So long as the workers were the predominant feature in discussions, and not the wants of employers.

Any changes must be all about the workers.

A problem can be an over supply of venues that service weekend patrons, at the expense of workers.

David has an approach that may become meaningful discussion.
Our PM is coming up with a plan also.

The proposed changes are far too minor and still in principle embrace the concept as if it is legitimate for a third party to dictate to two other people regarding the private deals they make between them.

That "times have changed" is a lame excuse: it is a universal, moral and eternal principle that forcing oneself on others is wrong.

Even the excuse that "it would help the economy" has been criticised here, sighting that a healthy economy cannot be based on cafes and restaurants - what a pity it was even raised! Suppose just for a moment that having a minimal wage and penalty rates were good for the economy - could that presumed benefit to the economy ever justify the prosecution by the state against two persons who freely agree between them that one would provide the other with work while the other will provide the first with money, but less money then designated by government?

Who the hell are they to interfere in other peoples' lives?

Yuyutsu the problem also comes down to what does freely actually mean.

I've worked in wages positions doing shift work and in office positions were two people doing the same work can be paid very different amounts based on the economic cycle they were hired in and their ability to negotiate.

We know that when it comes to these negotiated positions that women over overwhelmingly fail worst then men. However when there is a award in place women and men get the same, is that fair?

I know in many work places it's actually a rule not to discuss your salary package as it can cause mayhem.