House debates

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Questions without Notice

Workplace Relations

2:56 pm

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no other Sunday penalty rates in awards will be cut by the Fair Work Commission?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the opposition's tactics have now entered the theatre of the absurd.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

On the point of order.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | | Hansard source

Well, they are trying to run a scare campaign, and they are now asking the Prime Minister to rule out something for which he has absolutely no responsibility at all, which is decisions of the Fair Work Commission, about a hypothetical case that might be taken one day in the Fair Work Commission about another award, which is currently not under consideration. So it offends the standing orders because it is hypothetical and it offends the standing orders because the Prime Minister bears no responsibility for the Fair Work Commission's decisions at all, and it contained no political embroidery whatsoever. Therefore, the Prime Minister cannot answer a more general question. He can only answer the question: can he rule out something for which he has no responsibility? So therefore it is out of order.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Photo of Mr Tony BurkeMr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

I worked out at the end it was a point of order, not an answer. To the point of order though—

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, you had better come to it quickly.

Photo of Mr Tony BurkeMr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

I will. The Prime Minister has made clear, as a matter of government policy, that the government supports the changes that have been made to the retail sector on penalty rates.

Honourable members interjecting

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Members will not interject when I am listening to the Manager of Opposition Business, otherwise I will not hear either the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business and I will just rule on the question.

Photo of Mr Tony BurkeMr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has made clear, as a matter of government policy, that the government supports the changes that have been made for retail workers. The question asks whether, as a matter of government policy, the government would support similar cuts for other workers.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business does make a fair point, but that was not the question.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | | Hansard source

No, it wasn't.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

No, I do not need people supporting me or opposing me. It was very close to the line. The way the Manager of Opposition Business expressed it was different to the wording of the question. Can I say that the Manager of Opposition Business expressed it in terms that were well within the standing orders. The original question was not expressed in that fashion at all. It asked the PM to guarantee certain things about an independent body. If it had been expressed in the way the Manager of Opposition Business had expressed it, I would have allowed it. So, I will be generous: I will give the member for Gorton the opportunity to rephrase his question. I hope he was listening. I will just say that you do not need the bit of paper—that will not help.

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

I could amend it, while I am standing at the dispatch box. My question, now that I have had the opportunity to reframe it, is: does the Prime Minister support the possibility that any future decision of the commission would cut penalty rates? In other words—

Honourable members interjecting

Mr Laundy interjecting

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Reid can leave. He has already been warned; he can leave under 94(a).

The member for Reid then left the chamber.

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister support any future decision of the commission that would cut penalty rates?

Honourable members interjecting

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister can address the question in any way he chooses.

3:00 pm

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

In 2015, the Productivity Commission made recommendations about penalty rates in the hospitality and retail sectors. They were in one of the reports that was considered by the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission noted, with approval, this passage from the Productivity Commission:

There is no case for common penalty rates across all industries. The Commission is not recommending a reduction in the Sunday penalty rates beyond—

the hospitality and retail sectors—

… Regulated penalty rates as currently constructed for essential services and many other industries are justifiable. The original justifications have not altered materially: they align with working arrangements that often involve rotating shifts across the whole week, are not likely to reduce service availability meaningfully, are commensurate with the skills of the employees, and are unlikely to lead to job losses.

That was the Productivity Commission. The member for Gorton disapproved of their recommendations in the first place, and he gave the Liberal Party some advice. This is what he said in February last year:

Labor believes that the commission is the appropriate body to consider these matters and it should be left alone by the Liberals to do just that, conduct its business as the independent umpire.