Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's recent visit to the electorate of Gilmore and the member for Gilmore's statement yesterday that it is a gift for our young people that their penalty rates have been cut. On that visit did the Prime Minister and the member tell the people of Gilmore that it was government policy to cut their penalty rates? Why do the Prime Minister and the member for Gilmore support cutting penalty rates of Australians?

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

Mr Speaker, the member for Whitlam has tried manfully to make this the Prime Minister's responsibility, but because he visits an electorate—

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

The member for Sydney will remove her prop or she will remove herself from the House.

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

does not mean he is responsible for the statements of the member. It is not within his responsibility; therefore, the question should be ruled out of order.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I am just going to say to members: we are more than halfway through question time, but a number of members have been ejected already. I can tell you that in this parliament there have been a number of repeat offenders. In fact of the total ejections, almost half are by seven people. I am giving fair warning now.

Mr Burke interjecting—

I do not need to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business—

Ms Husar interjecting—

and I do not need to hear from the member for Lindsay, who is once again warned. She cannot help herself. The Leader of the House makes an entirely valid point about the first part of the question, but the latter part of the question specifically asked whether the Prime Minister told constituents something and that part of the question is in order.

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

The policy of the government, as has been stated for a long time, is to support the independent umpire, which had indeed been the policy of the Leader of the Opposition until, we are assured, January this year when, after consultations with his paymaster, the CFMEU—none of whose members are affected by the decision I might add—he decided to change his tune. Our policy, our position has been to respect the independent umpire. The decision, the complex decision, as to what the right penalty rates should be for, for example, casuals in the fast food industry award 2010 is a matter that the Fair Work Commission, as the Leader of the Opposition has often said, is uniquely qualified to determine, as the independent umpire, after hearing submissions from employers and from the representatives of employees and forming a judgement as to how changes in penalty rates affect the opportunity for more employment.

The judgement of the Fair Work Commission, and it is its judgement and its judgement alone, is that these reductions—in this case a reduction for casuals from a 275 per cent penalty rate to 250 per cent—will assist in creating more job opportunities. That was the trade-off, the rationale, described by President Ross in his decision leading a panel of five—every member of whom was appointed by the Labor Party—on a reference given to them by the Leader of the Opposition, who, until very recently, again and again and again said that the independent umpire should be respected.

I remind honourable members of what the Leader of the Opposition said in May—not even a year ago—when he was addressing the issue of the Greens proposing to legislate to stop any changes being made to penalty rates. He said:

I … caution the Greens from their sideshow position that they need to be careful, they're playing with fire by proposing that a government should be able to legislate on specific penalty rate outcomes. They are loading the gun for a future conservative government to pull the trigger because what the Government has the power to put in, a future government has the power dismantle.

Then he concludes:

The independent umpire, the system of conciliation and arbitration has served this nation well for 120 years.

Well apparently no longer. He has now abandoned it. Nothing is sacred. He will throw anything overboard in his desperation to score a political point.