Skip to content Skip to main navigation

You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!

Marcus Paul 14 August 2015 98

cashier at till retail

So this debate has reared up again. Penalty rates.

Depending on which side of the argument you might be – I believe something needs to be done, and soon.

The rates (some upwards of $50 per hour) are quite simply unsustainable in the long term if we need a strong and growing small business sector.

However, this new push for an overhaul of penalty rates comes with a twist.

The latest discussion paper recommends making a distinction between penalty rates for medical and emergency workers and those for the retail and hospitality workers.

So, the question is – should emergency workers keep shift penalties, while taking from restaurant and retail workers? Is it a case of there now being no difference between Saturdays and Sundays?

Also, some argue that if workers have to front up for their job on a Sunday, then they should be adequately compensated.

To be honest, and hopefully without any disrespect, there is a big difference between a nurse administering treatment and a fashion store worker selling a shirt, even if both are working the Sunday shift.

One thing is certain in this debate. Unions will fire up, and phrases like ‘work choices’ will fly around. All of this will mean nought to your average struggling local small business owner, who has been complaining loud about affordability for such a long time.

Many I speak to say they can no longer open on a Sunday, or if they do, they won’t bring in staff at all instead working themselves or roping in family members to help.

It’s tough all round, and the number office and shop vacancies in our town centres is testament to this.

Would a change to penalty rates be a quick fix? Probably not but it might just help.

Should Canberra workers continue to receive weekend penalty rates?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Marcus Paul is the host of Canberra Live 3pm weekdays on 2CC.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
98 Responses to You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!
Filter
Order
Maya123 12:57 pm 14 Aug 15

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

recyclewarrior said :

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

Can you please explain your logic of why you consider working hours on Sunday are more unsociable than working the same hours on Saturday.

Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.

But as good and loyal corporate vassals we would not want to at all inconvenience the “needs” of business. Corporations have feelings too, and they feel their employees are selfishly putting themselves ahead of their owners who have so generously looked after them.

If the company can send their employees emails after hours telling them not to show up Monday, the least the employees is give their all as cheaply as possible over the weekend.

“Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.”

That still doesn’t explain why Sunday should get more pay than Saturday. Other people might find Saturday more convenient to see their family, or Thursday, etc, or whatever the person individually considers convenient. It would be impossible to cater for everyone’s personal, individual preferred day off. If Sunday isn’t convenient for you don’t take a job that involves Sunday work. There were jobs I didn’t apply for if they weren’t convenient to my lifestyle, even though the job looked a good one. There has been no suggestion here that people won’t still get a couple of days off a week and that people will be forced to work seven day weeks.

There has been no suggestion because that has nothing to do with people being able to get together on a common day off, or being compensated for the deprivation of normal social contact. I waited when I was a student and the only reason I did the graveyard shift and weekends, leaving me a physical wreck, was the money.

You keep saying over and over that you only did odd hours a long time ago and only briefly.

That was the choice you made, even sacrificing pay to quit weekend work, and does not help your case that people who really have no choice, because of their jobs, should not be compensated.

rubaiyat wrote, “There has been no suggestion because that has nothing to do with people being able to get together on a common day off”

Then why did you write, “Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.”

rubaiyat wrote, “You keep saying over and over that you only did odd hours a long time ago and only briefly.”

I mentioned it twice. Hardly, to quote you, “over and over”, and only then in response to comments from you such as, “So you admit it is all theory for you. You never actually did it.”
I had to work the odd day on the weekend and evening (more commonly than weekends) right up to my retirement, as my job demanded it, (so hardly “a long time ago” in my working life), but I don’t hide the fact this was not everyday and my core hours were weekdays.

I have still to see a convincing argument as to why Sunday should be paid more than Saturday.

rubaiyat 11:57 am 14 Aug 15

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

recyclewarrior said :

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

Can you please explain your logic of why you consider working hours on Sunday are more unsociable than working the same hours on Saturday.

Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.

But as good and loyal corporate vassals we would not want to at all inconvenience the “needs” of business. Corporations have feelings too, and they feel their employees are selfishly putting themselves ahead of their owners who have so generously looked after them.

If the company can send their employees emails after hours telling them not to show up Monday, the least the employees is give their all as cheaply as possible over the weekend.

“Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.”

That still doesn’t explain why Sunday should get more pay than Saturday. Other people might find Saturday more convenient to see their family, or Thursday, etc, or whatever the person individually considers convenient. It would be impossible to cater for everyone’s personal, individual preferred day off. If Sunday isn’t convenient for you don’t take a job that involves Sunday work. There were jobs I didn’t apply for if they weren’t convenient to my lifestyle, even though the job looked a good one. There has been no suggestion here that people won’t still get a couple of days off a week and that people will be forced to work seven day weeks.

There has been no suggestion because that has nothing to do with people being able to get together on a common day off, or being compensated for the deprivation of normal social contact. I waited when I was a student and the only reason I did the graveyard shift and weekends, leaving me a physical wreck, was the money.

You keep saying over and over that you only did odd hours a long time ago and only briefly.

That was the choice you made, even sacrificing pay to quit weekend work, and does not help your case that people who really have no choice, because of their jobs, should not be compensated.

Maya123 11:20 am 14 Aug 15

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

recyclewarrior said :

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

Can you please explain your logic of why you consider working hours on Sunday are more unsociable than working the same hours on Saturday.

Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.

But as good and loyal corporate vassals we would not want to at all inconvenience the “needs” of business. Corporations have feelings too, and they feel their employees are selfishly putting themselves ahead of their owners who have so generously looked after them.

If the company can send their employees emails after hours telling them not to show up Monday, the least the employees is give their all as cheaply as possible over the weekend.

“Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.”

That still doesn’t explain why Sunday should get more pay than Saturday. Other people might find Saturday more convenient to see their family, or Thursday, etc, or whatever the person individually considers convenient. It would be impossible to cater for everyone’s personal, individual preferred day off. If Sunday isn’t convenient for you don’t take a job that involves Sunday work. There were jobs I didn’t apply for if they weren’t convenient to my lifestyle, even though the job looked a good one. There has been no suggestion here that people won’t still get a couple of days off a week and that people will be forced to work seven day weeks.

JC 10:14 am 14 Aug 15

rubaiyat said :

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

curmudgery said :

Oh what a wonderful world some people live in! I am bemused to see how much gobbledegook some people can extrapolate from a post.

This thread is about penalty rates, business opening hours and vacant buildings in Canberra and my post, if you care to read it slowly, simply points out that there are factors affecting people that are not of the employers making or responsibility nor under their control.

No it isn’t.

As the title quite clearly says: “You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!” with a photo of a barista employee demonstrating who this about.

Your take on this clearly demonstrates that no matter what is said you only see the “needs” of business, and the needs of the vast majority, the employees, the ones actually being discussed, don’t even exist.

curmudgery said :

It goes on to suggest that if a proposition isn’t cost-effective, business owners are unlikely to do it (and nor would you). It doesn’t mean that the business, as someone suggested, is going broke. What nonsense.

Next, the income on ‘good’ days is amortised over the whole trading period i.e. good trading days offset the bad trading days (they’re the days when you’re in your cubicle checking your horoscope). Did you know that the rent, wages and utilities don’t fall on bad trading days? No, they don’t. Do you see how that works?

Now that is so obviously wrong, it makes me wonder if you are really in business or just someone who fantasises they are part of the cigar smoking end of town.

Businesses selectively employ and distribute their staff, services and products as they see fit. They put on staff when they are needed and reduce them when they are not. This puts the burden on staff who are not paid for down time but expected to be on call to meet the employers needs.

Even the rent and utilities are not uniformly distributed. Utilities are run as needed and rent is not uniform. As in the case of supermarket aisles and display space where there is prime space going right down to basic non-earning storage which is changed to meet expectations.

Funny I just read what you wrote and it sounds to me like you agree with the post your replying to, especially when he said “amortised over the whole trading period”. You example is a perfect example of that.

Amortising is the paying off of the initial cost or debt of the business over a period of time and has nothing to do with the variable and manageable costs of labour and utilities.

Whilst it may not have been the technically correct choice of terms, the context that the poster was using the word in made it quite clear that he was referring to spreading the cost of business over the whole week.

rubaiyat 9:47 am 14 Aug 15

JC said :

rubaiyat said :

curmudgery said :

Oh what a wonderful world some people live in! I am bemused to see how much gobbledegook some people can extrapolate from a post.

This thread is about penalty rates, business opening hours and vacant buildings in Canberra and my post, if you care to read it slowly, simply points out that there are factors affecting people that are not of the employers making or responsibility nor under their control.

No it isn’t.

As the title quite clearly says: “You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!” with a photo of a barista employee demonstrating who this about.

Your take on this clearly demonstrates that no matter what is said you only see the “needs” of business, and the needs of the vast majority, the employees, the ones actually being discussed, don’t even exist.

curmudgery said :

It goes on to suggest that if a proposition isn’t cost-effective, business owners are unlikely to do it (and nor would you). It doesn’t mean that the business, as someone suggested, is going broke. What nonsense.

Next, the income on ‘good’ days is amortised over the whole trading period i.e. good trading days offset the bad trading days (they’re the days when you’re in your cubicle checking your horoscope). Did you know that the rent, wages and utilities don’t fall on bad trading days? No, they don’t. Do you see how that works?

Now that is so obviously wrong, it makes me wonder if you are really in business or just someone who fantasises they are part of the cigar smoking end of town.

Businesses selectively employ and distribute their staff, services and products as they see fit. They put on staff when they are needed and reduce them when they are not. This puts the burden on staff who are not paid for down time but expected to be on call to meet the employers needs.

Even the rent and utilities are not uniformly distributed. Utilities are run as needed and rent is not uniform. As in the case of supermarket aisles and display space where there is prime space going right down to basic non-earning storage which is changed to meet expectations.

Funny I just read what you wrote and it sounds to me like you agree with the post your replying to, especially when he said “amortised over the whole trading period”. You example is a perfect example of that.

Amortising is the paying off of the initial cost or debt of the business over a period of time and has nothing to do with the variable and manageable costs of labour and utilities.

dungfungus 8:05 am 14 Aug 15

gooterz said :

Most casuals already get 20% casual loading. This covers them working weekends and late and night odd hours.

You have to look at Sunday pay and age based awards together. You end up with middle management putting on cheap 14 year olds on the Sunday to save money. At least if it was an even playing field they’d be able to put regular staff on the Sunday and improve services.

The 15 year olds that work Sundays would work for less anyway. They’re there to earn some money but get experience. The ones who’ll benefit is the actual adult employees that will get increased wages.

I think you may be confusing the loading that higher hourly rate that casual workers get to compensate for no holiday pay loading and other indemnities that permanent workers get.

JC 11:53 pm 13 Aug 15

rubaiyat said :

curmudgery said :

Oh what a wonderful world some people live in! I am bemused to see how much gobbledegook some people can extrapolate from a post.

This thread is about penalty rates, business opening hours and vacant buildings in Canberra and my post, if you care to read it slowly, simply points out that there are factors affecting people that are not of the employers making or responsibility nor under their control.

No it isn’t.

As the title quite clearly says: “You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!” with a photo of a barista employee demonstrating who this about.

Your take on this clearly demonstrates that no matter what is said you only see the “needs” of business, and the needs of the vast majority, the employees, the ones actually being discussed, don’t even exist.

curmudgery said :

It goes on to suggest that if a proposition isn’t cost-effective, business owners are unlikely to do it (and nor would you). It doesn’t mean that the business, as someone suggested, is going broke. What nonsense.

Next, the income on ‘good’ days is amortised over the whole trading period i.e. good trading days offset the bad trading days (they’re the days when you’re in your cubicle checking your horoscope). Did you know that the rent, wages and utilities don’t fall on bad trading days? No, they don’t. Do you see how that works?

Now that is so obviously wrong, it makes me wonder if you are really in business or just someone who fantasises they are part of the cigar smoking end of town.

Businesses selectively employ and distribute their staff, services and products as they see fit. They put on staff when they are needed and reduce them when they are not. This puts the burden on staff who are not paid for down time but expected to be on call to meet the employers needs.

Even the rent and utilities are not uniformly distributed. Utilities are run as needed and rent is not uniform. As in the case of supermarket aisles and display space where there is prime space going right down to basic non-earning storage which is changed to meet expectations.

Funny I just read what you wrote and it sounds to me like you agree with the post your replying to, especially when he said “amortised over the whole trading period”. You example is a perfect example of that.

JC 11:49 pm 13 Aug 15

gooterz said :

Most casuals already get 20% casual loading. This covers them working weekends and late and night odd hours.

No it isn’t. Casual pay is there to help cover you for not having holidays, no sick leave, not having any guarantee of shifts, far easier to sack etc.

Odd hours, split shifts, weekends are remunerated through penalty pay.

rubaiyat 11:18 pm 13 Aug 15

Maya123 said :

recyclewarrior said :

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

Can you please explain your logic of why you consider working hours on Sunday are more unsociable than working the same hours on Saturday.

Currently Sunday is about the only day we can get to see our children or them to see each other.

But as good and loyal corporate vassals we would not want to at all inconvenience the “needs” of business. Corporations have feelings too, and they feel their employees are selfishly putting themselves ahead of their owners who have so generously looked after them.

If the company can send their employees emails after hours telling them not to show up Monday, the least the employees is give their all as cheaply as possible over the weekend.

gooterz 9:56 pm 13 Aug 15

Most casuals already get 20% casual loading. This covers them working weekends and late and night odd hours.

You have to look at Sunday pay and age based awards together. You end up with middle management putting on cheap 14 year olds on the Sunday to save money. At least if it was an even playing field they’d be able to put regular staff on the Sunday and improve services.

The 15 year olds that work Sundays would work for less anyway. They’re there to earn some money but get experience. The ones who’ll benefit is the actual adult employees that will get increased wages.

Maya123 9:31 pm 13 Aug 15

recyclewarrior said :

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

Can you please explain your logic of why you consider working hours on Sunday are more unsociable than working the same hours on Saturday.

recyclewarrior 7:05 pm 13 Aug 15

If the public want to shop 24/7 they have to be prepared to pay for the privilege of doing so. If you run a business and cannot price your stock so it covers proper wages for staff working unsociable hours then perhaps it is the customer who should pay a premium price for the article they wish to purchase on a Sunday, be it shoes or food rather than the worker being penalized. If that doesn’t work then the business does not open those hours and the customer has to accept they need to change their expectations of 24/7 availability.

girlygirl 2:20 pm 12 Aug 15

Maybe you’re right and there is no difference between Saturdays and Sundays. Let’s put Saturdays and the higher Sunday rate then.

rubaiyat 10:00 am 10 Aug 15

chewy14 said :

You mentioned the US specifically because of their industrial relations and lower protection for workers such as low or no minimum wages. No one has suggested moving to anything like the US system and I specifically have said that if penalty rates are dropped, the normal rate should be raised to compensate.

The Australian System is an arbitrated, negotiated, minimum pay rate with compensation for aditional burdens placed on employees.

Taking that away, in whole or in part IS a movement towards the American system of management dictating to staff, with a largely unrestrained fist inside the glove to back it up.

The example of the USA is constantly raised by those who see it as the other man’s fields always being greener but never really looking at the whole picture or specific details of what that means.

Economic prosperity is actually built on a broad distribution and reward for effort, which circulates back into the economy as the middle and lower classes spend their wages.

America’s post Reagan shift to strip wealth from the lower and middle classes and move it under the mattresses of the rich, which is where it gathers dust, has been the single greatest cause of America’s economic decline, as those rich have also manipulated the tax system so their accumulated wealth dries up the government income that they mine.

Their parimonious attitude to “Big Government” doesn’t stop them freeloading off taxpayers’ subsidies and government contracts or sending the chidren of the poor into senseless mismanaged wars that vanish unbelievable quantities of money into the hands of military contractors or other major corporations who clean up the fiscal spill.

rubaiyat 9:33 am 10 Aug 15

curmudgery said :

Oh what a wonderful world some people live in! I am bemused to see how much gobbledegook some people can extrapolate from a post.

This thread is about penalty rates, business opening hours and vacant buildings in Canberra and my post, if you care to read it slowly, simply points out that there are factors affecting people that are not of the employers making or responsibility nor under their control.

No it isn’t.

As the title quite clearly says: “You want me to work Sunday? Then pay what’s fair!” with a photo of a barista employee demonstrating who this about.

Your take on this clearly demonstrates that no matter what is said you only see the “needs” of business, and the needs of the vast majority, the employees, the ones actually being discussed, don’t even exist.

curmudgery said :

It goes on to suggest that if a proposition isn’t cost-effective, business owners are unlikely to do it (and nor would you). It doesn’t mean that the business, as someone suggested, is going broke. What nonsense.

Next, the income on ‘good’ days is amortised over the whole trading period i.e. good trading days offset the bad trading days (they’re the days when you’re in your cubicle checking your horoscope). Did you know that the rent, wages and utilities don’t fall on bad trading days? No, they don’t. Do you see how that works?

Now that is so obviously wrong, it makes me wonder if you are really in business or just someone who fantasises they are part of the cigar smoking end of town.

Businesses selectively employ and distribute their staff, services and products as they see fit. They put on staff when they are needed and reduce them when they are not. This puts the burden on staff who are not paid for down time but expected to be on call to meet the employers needs.

Even the rent and utilities are not uniformly distributed. Utilities are run as needed and rent is not uniform. As in the case of supermarket aisles and display space where there is prime space going right down to basic non-earning storage which is changed to meet expectations.

chewy14 9:23 am 10 Aug 15

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat wrote, “If you want a USA lifestyle, move there and take the rough with the smooth.”
On most subjects normally I like what you write and consider your writing sensible, but on this subject you are getting carried away and silly.
I have not read anywhere of any suggestion to drop the basic hourly rate, so not a good comparison. Only to drop the Sunday rate to the basic rate. If market forces are otherwise, a higher rate will be paid. From Wikipedia I read the following, “The American federal government requires a wage of at least $2.13 per hour be paid to employees that receive at least $30 per month in tips.”
I don’t believe anyone has suggested, or you have any facts that suggest that Australian wages will be dropped to $2.13 an hour; your “USA lifestyle” suggestion.

Yeah but who wants to have a reasonable debate when you can chuck cute strawmen around?

A strawman within the strawman!

Who mentioned Australian wages dropping to to $2.13 other than Maya123?

The strawman argument itself is a strawman in itself. A classic case of if we are not slavishly copying the Americans in practice we are mouthing all their half informed language.

I argue for everyone to actually think and act for themselves. That step begins with using your own language and words, not copying and pasting set phrases from the online desert of ideas.

btw 11 American states do not even have a minimum wage, to allow for the possibility of no wages at all and the eventual return of formal legislated slavery once all this post Civil War insanity is finally over.

You mentioned the US specifically because of their industrial relations and lower protection for workers such as low or no minimum wages. No one has suggested moving to anything like the US system and I specifically have said that if penalty rates are dropped, the normal rate should be raised to compensate.

rubaiyat 9:00 am 10 Aug 15

chewy14 said :

Maya123 said :

rubaiyat wrote, “If you want a USA lifestyle, move there and take the rough with the smooth.”
On most subjects normally I like what you write and consider your writing sensible, but on this subject you are getting carried away and silly.
I have not read anywhere of any suggestion to drop the basic hourly rate, so not a good comparison. Only to drop the Sunday rate to the basic rate. If market forces are otherwise, a higher rate will be paid. From Wikipedia I read the following, “The American federal government requires a wage of at least $2.13 per hour be paid to employees that receive at least $30 per month in tips.”
I don’t believe anyone has suggested, or you have any facts that suggest that Australian wages will be dropped to $2.13 an hour; your “USA lifestyle” suggestion.

Yeah but who wants to have a reasonable debate when you can chuck cute strawmen around?

A strawman within the strawman!

Who mentioned Australian wages dropping to to $2.13 other than Maya123?

The strawman argument itself is a strawman in itself. A classic case of if we are not slavishly copying the Americans in practice we are mouthing all their half informed language.

I argue for everyone to actually think and act for themselves. That step begins with using your own language and words, not copying and pasting set phrases from the online desert of ideas.

btw 11 American states do not even have a minimum wage, to allow for the possibility of no wages at all and the eventual return of formal legislated slavery once all this post Civil War insanity is finally over.

rubaiyat 8:42 am 10 Aug 15

BenjaminRose1991 said :

As a person working in retail, I like penalty rates however I echo the remarks made about penalties between Saturday and Sunday. I do not support Sunday penalty rates, Weekend penalty rates should be equal across both days. A “Weekend Penalty” should be something attractive to staff but not insane. Time + 25% sounds good to me being someone in retail.

A Vicious cycle is in effect. Sunday rates create the financial motive to restrict trading hours, fewer trading hours means less customers leading to lower sales leading to tightening the hours to ensure the day is a break-even one. Lather-Rinse-Repeat.

What fewer hours, what restricted trading hours? Staff are working public holidays AND longer hours.

Supermarkets are about the only area that even vaguely could be considered to usefully open the really early and late hours and even they have given up the graveyard shifts because the public didn’t agree and didn’t show up, amply showing that the “need” did not exist.

As has already been said we have a huge surplus of retail outlets, and businesses are casting about for things THEY CAN CHANGE or BLAME. The poor staff who are sent into battle the void of shoppers, who thankfully have found a limit to their pointless consumption, are the ones who are supposed to make the sacrifices on management’s behalf.

BenjaminRose1991 7:00 pm 09 Aug 15

As a person working in retail, I like penalty rates however I echo the remarks made about penalties between Saturday and Sunday. I do not support Sunday penalty rates, Weekend penalty rates should be equal across both days. A “Weekend Penalty” should be something attractive to staff but not insane. Time + 25% sounds good to me being someone in retail.

A Vicious cycle is in effect. Sunday rates create the financial motive to restrict trading hours, fewer trading hours means less customers leading to lower sales leading to tightening the hours to ensure the day is a break-even one. Lather-Rinse-Repeat.

farnarkler 12:22 am 09 Aug 15

So it would appear we’ll be heading the way of the US for restaurant/cafe/bar staff. They’ll be relying on tips.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site