Bass ALP federal candidate Ross Hart says any change to penalty rates is economically unsound. An interesting observation. If he's right, then that is the end of the debate. If he's wrong, there should be a debate about change; a debate based on innovation and some lateral thinking, which assists both employers and employees.

Former prime minister John Howard lamented that his biggest political blunder with WorkChoices was to initially take out the safety net for employees. So, to learn from that experience, any debate about penalty rates has to start from a position that says: employees should not be any worse off than they were before any change. They should suffer no diminution of their rights.

In our news columns on Wednesday Mr Hart and Bass Liberal MHR Andrew Nikolic indulged in a political stoush over the issue. It was an unedifying exchange that had nothing to do with penalty rates and far more to do with their looming battle for Bass at next year's federal election.

They can forget the politics. As a community we should be able to intelligently weigh up whether this line item on an employer's balance sheet is counter productive and an obstacle to employment, or whether it is fair compensation for employees who are asked to work odd hours and weekends.

Penalty rates is an issue for the employed. It is irrelevant to the unemployed, who perhaps can't get a job because the added cost is a sufficient burden on employers, especially small business, to limit the option of extra staff.

If it's a bit of both, good for one side but not the other, how do you produce a win-win? What are the possible trade-offs? We know what unions and employers think. What do employees think?

The debate has started, and is worth having.