Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to my question yesterday. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that 77 per cent of pharmacy workers are women? Did the Prime Minister avoid mentioning these workers yesterday because he knows that cutting wages in female dominated industries will increase the gender pay gap?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. As I observed yesterday relying on the material set out in the Fair Work Commission's report, while there appears to be a majority of female workers in both retail and hospitality, according to the Fair Work Commission, there are somewhat more male workers working on Sundays in both sectors. As to the question about the number on the pharmacy award, that is something we can take on notice.

The honourable member should give the Fair Work Commission due credit. All of their members were appointed by the Labor Party. The president comes from a lifetime's experience in the Australian Council of Trade Unions, so there is no question about their background and their experience. They considered very carefully the modern award's objective of maintaining equal rates of pay between men and women for comparable work. That is one of the objectives of modern awards. They considered that and concluded that the award changes they agreed on were appropriate.

We support the independent umpire doing that detailed work. People are entitled to have a view about whether a penalty rate or a Sunday loading should have gone from 275 per cent to 250 per cent, or from 225 per cent to 200 per cent or 175 per cent. Views will differ about that—there is no doubt about that—but, from our point of view, here between the government and the opposition until very recently there was a very clear unity ticket, a very clear agreed position, that we would support the decision of the independent umpire, which has the expertise and the evidence to examine those matters. They have come to their decision. It was a reference that was delivered to them. They were requested to undertake that by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister. He backed in the independent umpire again and again and again.

Simply because he now chooses for political reasons to dissociate himself from that decision he now wants to attack the very independent umpire which his previous Labor government created, which he made the reference to and whose members he supported. No wonder people find the Leader of the Opposition so lacking in consistency, integrity and any principles that the Labor Party has stood for for so many years. (Time expired)