Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Prime Minister said, 'It is an element in a part of every modern award that it is the intention that any changes to awards will not reduce the take-home pay of employees.' But last week's penalty rates decision, which the Prime Minister supports, will reduce take-home pay. The Prime Minister has the power to fix this problem. Why won't he? When will the Prime Minister join with Labor to change the law so the take-home pay of all workers is not cut?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question, underlining yet again his extraordinary hypocrisy on the matter of penalty rates. Not only is he an Olympic champion in issuing 457 visas, he is a double gold medallist in cutting penalty rates again and again. There is quite a pile. There are all of these EBAs, all with his signature, all casting away penalty rates—some of them in return for payments to the union. It is not as though he gave away the penalty rates for nothing. The union got a payment out of it. Yes, it was $25,000 a year, I think, for Cleanevent—a minor detail, of course, that he did not share with the workers he was representing. No, he did not do that. He kept them in the dark—that is what he did—while the union took the money.

The reference that I made earlier today was to the decision of the Fair Work Commission. Paragraph 2016, for those who care to read it, states:

The vast majority of modern awards … include a clause in the following terms:

‘Neither the making of this award nor the operation of any transitional arrangements is intended to result in a reduction in the take-home pay of employees …

That is in their decision. That is in the decision of the independent umpire. Then, as Jennie George reminded us earlier in the week and as we noted on Monday, the tribunal go through the various ways in which they are considering transitional arrangements to ensure that workers' take-home pay is not reduced overall as the penalty rate changes come into effect.

That is entirely consistent with the law. It is consistent with their practice. They have called for submissions. They are an expert, independent tribunal, which the Labor Party manned. Every person on that panel was appointed by the Labor Party. The reference to look at penalty rates was given to them by the Leader of the Opposition. Again and again, he promised to respect, support and endorse the decision of the independent tribunal. He accused us of not supporting the independent tribunal, but now it is him—one backflip after another. The Olympic champion of 457 visas and cutting penalty rates—he has no credibility, no integrity and no consistency on this or any other matter.