Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Have any ministers disclosed potential conflicts of interest in relation to the government's response to the recent Fair Work Commission decision, as required by the Statement of ministerial standards? How many members of the government will profit from—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on my right continue to interject through the question. Obviously, members wish me to hear the question. I could not hear all of the question. I am going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to repeat it and for there to be no interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business can start from the beginning.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Have any ministers disclosed potential conflicts of interest in relation to the government's response to the recent Fair Work Commission decision, as required by the Statement of ministerial standards? How many members of the government will profit from the decision?

Government members interjecting—

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

Members on my right!

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

I know the honourable member and his friends opposite want to represent this decision by the independent umpire, whose independence the Labor Party has always, before very recently, championed and defended—I know they want to present this as a decision of the government; it is not. It is a decision of the Fair Work Commission. It is a decision of the independent umpire. It is a decision of the Fair Work Commission. They know that. Australian know that.

What they do know, also, is that when the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to make decisions about penalty rates himself he was all too ready to trade them away. We have another good example here between a company called Cut & Fill Pty Ltd—it would be quite an apt name for the Leader of the Opposition; 'Cut & Fill'—and the Australian Workers' Union. In this agreement, signed by the Leader of the Opposition some years ago back in 2003, he—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Leader of the House is warmed. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the question was deliberately framed to ensure that the rules of relevance that you have enforced earlier in question time would be kept to. I call the standing order of direct relevance. The Prime Minister has strayed.

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

I say to the Manager of Opposition Business: having listened carefully to the question on my second attempt, and in listening to the answer, I understand the point he is seeking to make, but I am still judging that the Prime Minister is in order. He is talking about the Fair Work decision and the policy matter related to it. While there have been many occasions where members have asked very specific questions, where I have asked ministers to make their answer relevant to the question, the question is when they move into a different policy area. There have been many questions that have been asked that have been quite specific in demanding 'yes' or 'no' answers. Whilst you are entitled to ask those questions, there is no requirement at all for those answering the questions to give 'yes' or 'no' answers. At this point, having listened to the question carefully, I am judging that the Prime Minister is on the policy topic and is still in order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I agree with your ruling, but if the Manager of Opposition Business is going to be pedantic about it the Prime Minister should be able to answer questions that are within his power and responsibilities. As he had nothing to do with the Fair Work Commission's decision, this question could easily have been ruled out of order.

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

I am going to let the Manager of Opposition Business respond to that.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To respond to the point of order, the Prime Minister is responsible for whether ministers disclose a conflict of interest. He is specifically responsible for that under his own statement of standards.

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

With respect to that last point by the Leader of the House, I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business. The question had a couple of elements. What is keeping the Prime Minister relevant is the reference to the fair work decision. There was another element to the question, for which the Prime Minister is responsible. The Prime Minister is relevant.

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

Returning to one of the Leader of the Opposition's practical demonstrations of how to cut penalty rates—he is an expert at this—indeed, he did not cut them; he totally eliminated them in this case. It was 100 per cent. It was very thorough. It was in 2003, signed for and on behalf of the Australian Workers Union. There is his signature—the signature of the Leader of the Opposition as he now is. In this agreement it sets out the objectives. The hypocrisy is just so typical of the Leader of the Opposition. One of the objectives is to transfer to the new skill level structure, which provides a defined career path for civil construction employees and recognises them for the skills they have obtained and used. The recognition did not extend to penalty rates—oh no! That was all traded away, to the degree that these are the only wages allowable during the period of the agreement, and any other increases to wages or allowances arising, whether by decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or otherwise—so being represented by the Leader of the Opposition meant you would not even get a benefit from a decision of the AIRC. It goes on to say that 'any other increases arising shall not apply to the wage rates of employees employed under this agreement'. Again, it is a comprehensive sweep—the Leader of the Opposition demonstrating his commitment to cutting penalty rates, in this case cutting them entirely.

Mr Champion interjecting—

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

The member for Wakefield is warned.