Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Last week the Turnbull government made a submission to the Fair Work Commission on its decision to cut penalty rates which will see up to 700,000 workers lose up to $77 a week. Can the minister confirm that the government's submission supported a pay cut for some of Australia's lowest paid workers?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that you are wrong, Senator. That was not the purpose of the submission. As you know, Senator Cameron, or as you ought to know, the government did not make a submission in relation to the substantive hearing of the matter because we acknowledge that this is a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine, an independent umpire established by your side of politics, not by the government. However, the government did make a submission limited to the question of transitional arrangements. The submission—and I can give you some information on that submission—was filed with the Fair Work Commission last Friday, and it stated that any final determination by the Fair Work Commission would, and I quote:

… implement transitional arrangements which ensure the positive employment benefits flow to businesses and the Australian economy in a timely fashion, while at the same time taking into consideration the potential economic impact and effects on employees—

and mitigating any hardship that may be experienced.

So, Senator Cameron, far from the government making a submission of the kind you suggested, the government made no submission on the substantive matter. It made a submission asking the Fair Work Commission, in arranging for and making orders in relation to transitional matters, to ensure that it took into consideration the potential economic impact and effects on employees, and mitigating any hardship that may be experienced. The submission also asked the Fair Work Commission to ensure that transitional arrangements were as simple as possible so that they could be implemented in a way that was easy to understand and to execute by both businesses and employees.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Friday, Labor made a submission to the Fair Work Commission opposing any move to cut the penalty rates of 84,400 workers in the hairdressing and beauty industry. Did the Turnbull government do the same, or does it support a pay cut to the 84,000 workers in the hairdressing and beauty industry?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we support, Senator Cameron, is the independence of the Fair Work Commission. It may very well be that the Australian Labor Party, as part of its latest round of political stunts, made a submission at a time when the Fair Work Commission was dealing with transitional arrangements in relation to the particular industry which you reference. The fact is the government does not seek to influence those outcomes, in relation to the substantive determinations of the Fair Work Commission, as it did not in relation to the determination on Sunday penalty rates. What it does, though, is respect the Fair Work Commission's independence, as should you, Senator Cameron. We know that you have spent your career in the industrial relations area, so you, Senator Cameron, more than anybody in this chamber, ought to understand the importance of respecting determinations by the umpire, but evidently you do not. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a further supplementary question.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the importance of $77 a week to poor workers in this country. Why is the Prime Minister prepared to dig in and fight for his $50 billion handout to big business, but he refuses to advocate for ordinary workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The very submission which you asked me about in your primary question, Senator, about transitional arrangements shows that the Prime Minister is doing that very thing, and I read you the quote. Your claim that the cuts in penalty rates go further than beyond the retail and hospitality industries is false. It is false. That is why I said to you, Senator Cameron, in answer to your first supplementary question that this was merely another Labor Party stunt. We know that we live—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, on a point of order?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order goes to relevance. The minister has gone nowhere near the question I asked. It was in relation to the $50 billion handout to big business and refusing to advocate for ordinary workers who rely on penalty rates. The minister should be drawn to the question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Your question was, 'Why is the Prime Minister prepared to dig in,' and the Attorney-General answered that question up-front, at the commencement of his question. He said that the Prime Minister is not doing such a thing.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The person who is doing the wrong thing by workers, Senator Cameron, is Mr Bill Shorten and you and the Labor frontbench by causing unnecessary concern on the part of workers in other industries. The Fair Work Commission in its determination on the retail and hospitality industries made it perfectly clear—it made it explicitly clear—that it would not extend to other industries. There you go filing a gratuitous submission, misleadingly suggesting that it would. (Time expired)