Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Ruby lives in my electorate and works two casual jobs while studying part time at university. She says she works in retail on Sundays because it makes a huge difference to her low income. Ruby says this pay cut would be devastating, and the owner of the business will just keep the money taken from her pay. Why won't the Prime Minister stand up for the penalty rates of workers like Ruby and use his power to stop the pay cut?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. The fundamental issue for the Labor Party here is: do they support the independent umpire in industrial relations? That is the fundamental question. It was a question that need not have been posed at all a few months ago, until the Leader of the Opposition abandoned a 120-year commitment to the independent industrial umpire. Are honourable members opposite suggesting that, if members of parliament think that the decision in the next minimum wage case is 50c out or 40c out, there should be an act of parliament to correct it? Are they going to suggest that?

An opposition member: No.

The honourable member says 'no'. That is the fundamental point.

The Fair Work Commission considered carefully the impact on wages and it considered carefully the impact on employment. It heard evidence from many small-business operators saying that a reduction in penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays would enable them to be open when they are not open now, employ staff when they cannot currently employ them. And this is how the Fair Work Commission described that evidence—this is a commission, every member of which was appointed by the Labor Party on a reference from the Leader of the Opposition, chaired by Mr Ross, a former official of the ACTU. The commission said the evidence given by hospitality industry employers was 'cogent', 'relevant' and 'persuasive'.

That was the Fair Work Commission's judgement after considering that evidence. They went through one case after another of people running restaurants, running hotels, who said they would be open longer. They heard Mr Trengove, owner and manager of the Mulga Hill Tavern in Broken Hill, with 33 employees. He said the hotel is run by skeleton staff on Sundays and public holidays—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition on a point of order.

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

On direct relevance, the Prime Minister is talking about the hospitality industry. The question is about the retail industry. The Prime Minister is talking about the Fair Work decision, and the question goes directly to why he will not act now.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Stay at the dispatch box, please. The Leader of the House keeps interjecting. I am trying to hear the point of order. It is really delaying question time. He needs to cease interjecting, particularly when I am trying to hear a point of order that he expects me to rule on. I say to the leader of the House, if he is interjecting and I cannot hear the point of order correctly, I might well just go with it. The Manager of Opposition Business will begin his point of order again.

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

On direct relevance: the Prime Minister is talking about the hospitality industry. The question was about the retail industry. The Prime Minister is talking only about the Fair Work decision, and the question was about why he will not act to intervene on it. On every level of this answer, it is not relevant to the issues asked in the question.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order. As I said yesterday, the Prime Minister needs to be relevant to the question by remaining on the policy topic. Whilst I know that is frustrating, I am not going to cover all that ground again and detain question time other than to say the standing orders, of course, mean that the opposition gets to write the question but they do not get to write the answer. The Prime Minister is relevant, and I am listening closely to his answer. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

The commission is now turning its attention to how to transition these changes in penalty rates so as to achieve the objective that workers' take-home pay overall is not reduced. One of the ways it has canvassed doing that is by bringing the changes in over a number of years. I heard today the Leader of the Opposition denounce that as a ridiculous suggestion. He said that was a ridiculous idea. When modern awards came into operation in 2010, when the Leader of the Opposition was the relevant minister, they were phased in over five years. It is a longstanding practice to ensure that the objective of modern awards—namely, that changes do not result in a reduction in take-home pay—is achieved. (Time expired)