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

My question is to the Treasurer. The Australia Institute found the decision to cut penalty rates could blow a $650 million hole in the budget over the forward estimates. Has the government modelled the cost to the budget of the decision to cut penalty rates?

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

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

The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will cease interjecting.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. I had reached for my file on education. I thought the question might have been about education, but it was not. I am happy to address the question that she has raised. The budget each year takes into account all the various parameter estimates that need to be considered to provide the forward estimate forecast, whether it is on revenue or on these other matters, and these will all be considered. I find it interesting that the Labor Party come into this place and walk away from defending the independent commission. I think about history, and I go back to when they were in government and when penalty rates were cut from 200 per cent to 175 per cent. I do not remember the Labor Party at that time saying: 'No. That decision should be reversed, and legislation should be brought in.' When those opposite in the Labor Party were in government and facing the first cut in penalty rates—initiated at that time by the modernisation of the award process—they did not say that then. But there was another opportunity—

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

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

Yes, on direct relevance. We have let it go for a minute without raising the point of order. The question has no effective preamble, no barb in it. It is asking whether the Treasurer has modelled the cost. It is a very straightforward question, and he should be brought back to the answer.

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

The Treasurer is still on the policy topic. I am listening very closely. The Treasurer is entitled to a preamble. He is on the policy topic, but I will keep listening to him. The Manager of Opposition Business is right that this did not contain a preamble.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As opposed to a preamble, in my answer to the question I said that all the relevant parameters will be considered in the updating and forecast for the budget. That is the normal process, and that is what we will be doing in the normal process. If they wish to review transcripts, I have said similar things in relation to similar questions since the decision was brought down.

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

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

The member for McEwen is warned!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I am also asked about penalty rates. When Sunday penalty rates were cut from 200 per cent to 175 per cent, the opposition did nothing. When they were cut from 175 per cent to 150 per cent following a decision of the commission, they did nothing. On this occasion, they decide that they need to intervene in the independent decision of the commission. This shows the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in penalty rates for workers. He is just a cheap opportunist who will run on any issue to run down the economy or anything else just to pursue his shallow political interest.