Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The honourable member must be surprised to find himself asking questions like this, given that my answers invariably involve quoting him! The case for company tax cuts was made very eloquently by the Leader of the Opposition in this place only a few years ago, when he said, 'Everybody knows that cutting company tax increases investment, productivity, employment and jobs.' He made the case. He said, 'Everybody knows that's good Labor policy.' The member for McMahon was so enamoured of cutting company tax he wrote a book about it. Their hero, Paul Keating, was, of course, a master at it too. The Labor Party have not advanced one position in this question time today that is not 180 degrees of the position they took a year or so ago.

Turning to penalty rates, we have heard again and again from the Leader of the Opposition how important it is to defend the independent umpire. He has waxed eloquently about the independent umpire for years and years—on television, in doorstops and on radio. It is mother's milk to him. He defended the independence of the independent umpire against the Liberal Party and the National Party. We were on a unity ticket with him then. We agreed that we should respect the decisions of the independent umpire. But now he wants to abandon it, just like he wants to abandon his views on trade. He used to be a free trader; he is now a protectionist. He used to believe in cutting company tax; now he wants to increase it. He used to believe that the decisions of the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, should be respected; now he wants to abandon it.

We have seen a complete backflip by this Leader of the Opposition. On the Fair Work Commission, I will take the opportunity to add to my answer to a question from the member for Sydney. The Fair Work Commission—the honourable member can study the decision herself, of course—concluded that:

There is no evidence before us which shows the number of retail workers who usually work on Sundays, by gender.

That was their decision. Their conclusion as far as hospitality workers was, as I indicated earlier, that there were somewhat more male workers receiving penalty rates than female workers. But the conclusion that they made was that their decision was entirely in conformity with the modern award objective of ensuring equal remuneration— (Time expired)

See this speech in context