Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday during question time, the Prime Minister finally confirmed he supports the decision to cut penalty rates. The Prime Minister's support for cutting penalty rates will mean that workers at the Caneland Central shopping centre in Mackay in the electorate of Dawson will have their pay cut. Is the reason the Prime Minister is refusing to stop the penalty rates decision because he and his Liberal-National government, including the member for Dawson, support cuts to penalty rates?

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

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

The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has already been cautioned.

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. I see some of my colleagues, while noticing her attention to the member for Dawson, suggesting that perhaps she should shop locally and that may be of more benefit to small business and workers in her electorate. The honourable member is doing a very poor job of trying to verbal the government on the matter of penalty rates. Our position is very clear: we support the decisions of the independent umpire because they are taken by the independent umpire. The government has not decided to change one penalty rate or another.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props.

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

The honourable member forgets that a fundamental principle of her party, in government and in opposition, until very recently has always been to support the independent umpire and to support it coming to a decision, going through a process, hearing from employers and employees and coming to a ruling. As to what the right change is with respect to each of those awards, the government has not gone through that process neither has the opposition. The only people who have done that hard work, that elaborate laborious effort is the Fair Work Commission, every member of whom was appointed by the honourable member's party.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props. If you want me to be strict, I will refer to the Practice.

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

So the question here is: do you want to have penalty rates being decided by an expert independent umpire who hears the submissions of employers and employees as—the Leader of the Opposition has often said—is the appropriate process? Do you want to have them determined in that way or do you want to have them determined by parliament?

What the opposition is now saying is parliament should determine them. What that would mean, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that future governments will be able to make their own decisions about minimum wages, about penalty rates, about awards. That flies in the face of every principle of the industrial relations system the Labor Party has argued for, for 120 years, as the Leader of the Opposition has said. This is abandoning every principle of the Labor Party. And as Jennie George said, in words that honourable members should reflect on very carefully, 'be careful what you wish for'.

The independent umpire has served workers were well. It has served employers well. It has served Australia well. Decisions have been controversial, to be sure. But backing the independent umpire has been a joint commitment for many years, now abandoned as a politically cynical effort by the Labor Party and their hypocritical leader.