Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

One of the great Australian attributes is to accept the umpire's decision whether you like it or not. Senator Cameron quoted the Prime Minister on the Neil Mitchell program. Allow me to remind him of what his leader said on the Neil Mitchell program on 21 April 2016. He was asked: 'Would you accept the Fair Work Commission decision in relation to penalty rates if it were to reduce them?' In response Mr Shorten said yes, not once or twice but three separate times. So before the election he supported the right of the independent umpire to make the determination and then after the election he seeks to repudiate that promise to the Australian people.

Let us be clear. Why did the Fair Work Commission make this decision? This is a bench of five individuals, all of whom were appointed by the previous Labor government, headed up by a former assistant secretary of the ACTU. You could not have gotten a more favourable bench to the trade union movement. So why did they come to this decision? They were mugged by the reality that these penalty rates were hurting the really underprivileged within our community—the unemployed and the underemployed. They were also restricting benefits to the Australian consumer and the small business sector.

Allow me to briefly explain. You see what occurred was the trade union movement, big unions, with big government traded away penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays. That is why big business does not mind the current award system where, for example, a small independent hamburger place run by mum and dad has to pay on a Sunday about $8 an hour more than the multinational McDonald's up the road. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the justice in paying workers less courtesy of a union agreement to the benefit of a multinational and help put the independent out of business?

We do support the decision of the independent umpire set up under Mr Shorten and Ms Gillard's own legislation. That legislation was specifically amended by Mr Shorten to consider penalty rates. That review was undertaken by the Labor Party appointed officials, including a former assistant secretary of the ACTU, and came to a determination which will assist the unemployed and the underemployed to get onto the ladder of employment.

Will they be relatively low wages? Yes, they will be, but that is as was determined by the umpire. Right, wrong or indifferent, when you live in a society based on the rule of law, you have to accept the umpire's decision. In those circumstances I ask myself: is it better that somebody be on a low wage or on welfare? The evidence is overwhelming. The mental health, physical health, self-esteem and social interaction not only of the individual but of their whole household is enhanced if they are in gainful employment. So there is the individual benefit, the social benefit and the economic benefit, which makes this decision of overwhelming good for the Australian people. That is something that needs to be embraced.

In all of Senator Cameron's offerings in this place you never hear him talk about the plight of those who never get the opportunity of employment or those who are desperately underemployed. This decision seeks to assist those people in that category. They are never spoken about by those on the opposition benches. We on this side say in all these debates that we as a Liberal Party were formed for the forgotten people in these various debates. In this debate the forgotten people are the unemployed, the underemployed, the consumers of Australia, and small business. I invite the Australian Labor Party to put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to deal with paragraph 3.5 of the Fair Work Commission's decision. I am on the record supporting grandfathering. (Time expired)