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

My question is to the Prime Minister. In April of last year the Prime Minister legislated to overturn the decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the independent umpire for safe rates in the trucking industry, and then in October of last year the Prime Minister again legislated to pre-empt a decision of the Fair Work Commission in relation to the Country Fire Authority, so why is the Prime Minister now refusing to legislate to stop this pay cut to 700,000 Australians?

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

April was a notable month last year because that was the month in which the Leader of the Opposition gave his absolutely unqualified, unequivocal pledge to Neil Mitchell that he would support, commit to, abide by the decision of the Fair Work Commission on penalty rates. He was given every opportunity to find some wriggle room. He was given every opportunity to change his mind. But he committed to it. That is the point.

He knows as well as every other member here, every other former union organiser on their side of the House, every former small business owner in this House—everybody knows that there is a trade-off between high penalty rates on weekends and ordinary rates and conditions during the rest of the week, and there is also the question of how many jobs are going to be available. You have Iain Ross, the President of the Fair Work Commission, a lifelong official of the Australian Congress of Trade Unions, one of the most highly respected trade union officials, put on there by the Labor Party, who justified the reduction in Sunday penalty rates how? Because, he said, it will make more jobs available on weekends and that means there will be more jobs available on weekends particularly for younger people. It will mean business owners will not have to operate their business themselves. They will be able to take people on. There will be more jobs and more hours. The Retail Traders Association estimates another 40,000 jobs would be available. So that was the decision.

It is obviously a long and complex examination: thousands of pages of evidence, hundreds of witnesses. COSBOA would have been funded by the Labor Party if they had had the chance, but they did not win the 2013 election. All of that evidence was considered by the independent tribunal. Just as Jennie George, former President of the ACTU, said in her letter to The Australian last week, the Leader of the Opposition was right to support the independence of the umpire during the election. He was right to commit to supporting it, but he is wrong now. He should be careful what he wishes for, because the foundation of the industrial relations system in Australia has been an independent umpire. The Labor Party has fought for that for years, they have defended it for years and now it has suited their purposes to throw it aside.

In conclusion, as far as the RSRT is concerned, its abolition was always our policy, and we carried it out. (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Newspoll today should be no surprise. Young people are getting screwed over. Owning a home is out of reach, study is getting more expensive, work is getting more insecure and now many young people's wages will be cut after the Fair Work Commission decision, cheered on by your government, to cut their penalty rates. Last year the Greens announced our plan to protect penalty rates in legislation, and we are pleased that others are now on board. Prime Minister, will you now join with the rest of the parliament in protecting the wages of hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially our youngest and lowest paid workers, by backing the Greens bill? Wouldn't it be better to spend this week protecting young people's wages instead of giving the big banks a multi-billion-dollar handout?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Prime Minister: I am going to allow the question but caution the member for Melbourne about the use of language in his question being unparliamentary or certainly unsavoury. I have cautioned him on that before. If there is a repeat of it, I will simply sit the member for Melbourne down. This is made more difficult by the change to the standing orders of course, which gives 45 seconds for long speeches rather than 30, but that is beyond my control. But I do say to the member for Melbourne that, if there is a repeat of that, I will simply sit him down and move to the next question. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I can understand the member for Melbourne's unhappiness that the plagiarism of the Greens policy by the Labor Party has not been acknowledged. It is yet another example of the green tail wagging the Labor dog.

I have addressed this issue in my previous answers, but I will take the opportunity to quote the observation of president Iain Ross. This is the former Australian Council of Trade Unions official, appointed to head Fair Work by the Labor Party, as were the other four members of the panel. This is what he said:

The evidence also supports the proposition that a lower Sunday penalty rate would increase service levels with a consequent increase in employment (in terms of hours worked by existing employees or the engagement of new employees).

In particular, a reduction in Sunday penalty rates is likely to lead to: more stores being open on Sundays, increased Sunday trading hours, a reduction in hours by some owner operators, an increase in overall hours worked in retail stores’.

That is the conclusion after, as I said earlier, several years, thousands of pages of evidence and hundreds of witnesses before the independent tribunal. They were tasked with this job by the former Labor government. They had all of the evidence from employers and employees. They considered it very carefully. Honourable members would understand, and I am sure the member for Melbourne would understand, that there was always a balance between the rate of penalty rates and its impact on employment. It is clearly a contentious matter. An independent body has determined it. It has considered it carefully. It has come to the conclusion.

The Labor Party previously said we must respect the independent umpire, and they suggested we would not. Well, we do and we have. It is the Labor Party that has changed. We respect the independent umpire's decision. They have made the decision, and honourable members opposite—and indeed the honourable member for Melbourne—should bear in mind what Jenny George said, 'Be careful what you wish for'. Be careful what you wish for when you decide that independent tribunals' judgements are only to be respected when they suit your own preconceived views.