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

Iain Ross, appointed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the workplace relations minister; Vice President Catanzariti, also appointed by the Leader of the Opposition; Deputy President Asbury, also appointed by the Leader of the Opposition; Commissioner Hampton, chosen by Julia Gillard; Commissioner Lee, picked by Chris Evans who was workplace relations minister—this is an independent tribunal, but one whose members were chosen by the Labor government. They considered a reference to look at penalty rates given to them by the Leader of the Opposition. Here is a question for us to ponder: when he asked them to look at penalty rates, was he assuming that penalty rates were too low and that they should be increased? Was that his plan? I do not think so! Or did he think they were just perfect? Well, if that is the case, then they need not have been looked at at all.

No; the reality is: he knew very well that there is a trade-off between the level of penalty rates and the level of the availability of jobs on weekends, and there is a trade-off invariably between penalty rates and ordinary hours. He knows all about that because he has done it himself, when he was a union leader—one deal after another: trading away penalty rates with Clean Event; Clean Event, he excluded in that deal, protected award conditions—

Opposition members interjecting—

They are shouting because they cannot bear the truth. The union officials opposite, and none more so than the Leader of the Opposition, have been trading away penalty rates for years and years, whether it was Clean Event or whether it was Chiquita Mushrooms—exactly the same thing. Or what about the young man who was with the Leader of the Opposition, who worked for Coles, I think, who talked about how much he was going to lose on penalty rates? And of course, sadly, there was a lack of research on behalf of the Labor Party; it turned out his EBA was not affected by the Fair Work Commission's decision at all. Why is that? Because his union had already done a deal reducing penalty rates, in return, no doubt, for other arrangements and other conditions.

This is an exercise in complete and utter hypocrisy on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who will say anything to suit his purpose. Let us see what he did say not very long ago: 21 April 2016. Neil Mitchell says:

… the Fair Work Commission will report soon on Sunday penalty rates. They're an independent body—

Mr Mitchell says—

in fact you had a lot to do with the way they operate now when you were Minister. Will you accept their findings given this is an independent body assessing penalty rates for Sunday, if you're Prime Minister.

SHORTEN: Yes.

He said yes.

MITCHELL: You'll accept them?

SHORTEN: Yes.

MITCHELL: Even if they reduce Sunday Penalty rates?

SHORTEN: Well, I said I'd accept the independent tribunal and that makes a big difference between us and … the Liberals.

So right then his argument was that we were not going to accept the decision of the independent tribunal. We always said we would. He has no basis at all for this monstrous falsehood that somehow or other the decision of the Fair Work Commission is a decision of the government. It is not. He knows it is not. He has explained why it is not. He has set it up. The Leader of the Opposition owns this decision.

But it goes much further than the decision itself. We understand, all of us understand, how hard this will hit people who are working on weekends, particularly those whose work is solely on weekends. They will get less for their Sunday work. But the trade-off has been—and this is the judgement of the Fair Work Commission—that, as a consequence, there will be more hours worked and there will be more jobs in hospitality and more jobs in retail, so that, overall, workers will benefit. That is the trade-off. And that has been the trade-off in penalty rate negotiations, whether they are done by central tribunals, like the Fair Work Commission or its predecessors, or whether they have been done directly by unions in their negotiations.

There was a very wise letter written to the newspaper by Jennie George, formerly the head of the ACTU and a member in this House. She said:

I worked alongside Iain Ross for several years at the ACTU. His diligence, competence, commitment and integrity was acclaimed throughout the union movement and by all who dealt with him. After working in the legal system, his appointment as Fair Work Australia president by the then Labor government recognised the qualities and widespread experience he would bring to this important position.

Of course unions should express concern about the impact of the decision on the wages of affected workers. I am sure this weighed heavily on the FWA members, who spent years examining the submissions and witness evidence. That’s why the bench has deferred consideration of the transitional arrangements to implement their decision, mindful of the potential effects on low-paid workers.

She then says:

Be careful what you wish for. Bill Shorten was right to say before the election that he would accept the decision. An independent umpire has been the bedrock of our industrial relations system and should be beyond party politics.

It is; it absolutely is. We respect the decision of the Fair Work Commission. We respect it in the same way that the Leader of the Opposition promised he would. We are told that the member for McMahon changed his mind in January after consultations. I think we know what consultations they were. They were directions. He got directions. As the director of any wholly-owned subsidiary, his shareholders called him in and he was told what to do.

This issue is vitally important to about 600,000 workers who are affected by the decision. Most workers in hospitality and retail are not affected by it, because they have EBAs of the kind negotiated by the Leader of the Opposition and many others opposite, which have already reduced penalty rates on weekends in return for other deals. But there are 600,000 workers who are affected by it, and we understand the hardship that it will cause in many of those workers' situations. But the fundamental question is: do you or do you not have an independent Fair Work Commission that sets these rates?

Back in April last year, the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Liberal Party and the National Party to accept the verdict of the independent umpire. He said he would. We said we would. Now we discover that, just because the verdict is one that does not suit him—even though he started it, even though he staffed it and even though he defended it in advance—he walks away from it and tries to wrap himself in some sort of hero status as a champion of the people. This is yet another backflip; another exercise in hypocrisy. Nobody has traded away more penalty rates in this House than the Leader of the Opposition. This is an independent tribunal—with his people on it, with his reference and acting at his request—which he said he would respect, and he walks away from it. He has no integrity, no consistency and no commitment. (Time expired)

See this speech in context