Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is trying to pretend and say that there is nothing to see here, and then he gets onto his great friend, the independent umpire. This is a fellow who, when it suits him, not only trashed the decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal but sacked the whole umpire. Last year we saw the farcical images of the Prime Minister donning some CFA gear and saying, 'I'm with you all the way,' and then he came in and pre-empted a decision of the Fair Work Commission. So they are happy to do it when it suits their political cause. I ask the Prime Minister, though: what political cause could you possibly be championing when you choose not to do it on behalf of 700,000 Australians? There will be a reduction.

As for Senator Abetz's proposition, where you could just grandfather everything and anyone currently getting the penalty rates will be all right and any new workers in the future will have to take their chances, what a wilfully mischievous idea. In industries like retail and hospitality, with a 50 per cent turnover in a year, what chance do people on the old rates stand for employment when an employer can pay someone to do the same job as they are doing on the new rates? And what chance do the companies that choose to stick with the old rates have in competition when the system will allow new companies to compete with them and pay their people less? Grandfathering is not the solution. Labor's solution is the only solution to protect the take-home pay of Australian workers.

What amazes me most about this whole debate is when the government say, 'It's not our decision.' What they have been trying to say that, because it is the umpire, they do not have to cast an opinion on the merit or the morality of the decision. When you become Prime Minister, your job is not to find somewhere to hide to avoid making a decision. People expect governments to intervene in the community when there are decisions made which are harming a lot of people. There is no government worth its salt in this country that could sit on its hands and do nothing to protect the conditions of 700,000 Australians.

Then he says that this is not his government's decision; it is someone else's decision. If it is not his government's decision, why was his government making submissions to these hearings? If it is not his government's decision, what will it do when the next hearing comes along? The government cannot hide in the middle of the traffic; it cannot sit on the fence.

The Prime Minister said he supports the decision. What he needs to do is reverse his position and no longer support this position. It is an out-of-touch government backing in an out-of-touch proposition. The future of this country is not going to be found in a race to the bottom by cutting workers' conditions. The future of this country and productivity will not be found by reducing the pay of the lowest paid in this country. The future of this country will not be found in standing by and cutting the penalty rates of hardworking workers. There is no compensation for them. Labor will fight this issue in the House, we will fight it when we go out of this place, and we will fight it all the way to the next election. (Time expired)

See this speech in context