Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes: (a) unless this Parliament acts, the decision to cut the Sunday penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australian workers will come into force as early as 1 July this year; (b) on Monday, the Labor Party sought to introduce legislation to stop this pay cut; (c) on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said he supported the decision to cut penalty rates; (d) the Prime Minister has been willing to legislate when he has objected to past decisions of Australian courts, tribunals and commissions including; (i) legislating to overturn a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal decision; (ii) legislating to pre-empt a Fair Work Commission decision about the Country Fire Authority; and (iii) introducing legislation to overturn a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court about Native Title; (e) the Prime Minister has the power to stop these pay cuts for nearly 700,000 Australians; and (f) under the Turnbull Government, when companies receive record profits, they get a tax cut, and when wages flatline, workers get a pay cut; (2) calls on the Government to legislate to prevent the pay cut from going ahead; and (3) agrees therefore, to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition immediately introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, the bill being given priority over all business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 3.30 pm today, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay. Leave not granted. Mr SHORTEN: I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House: (1) notes: (a) unless this Parliament acts, the decision to cut the Sunday penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australian workers will come into force as early as 1 July this year; (b) on Monday, the Labor Party sought to introduce legislation to stop this pay cut; (c) on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said he supported the decision to cut penalty rates; (d) the Prime Minister has been willing to legislate when he has objected to past decisions of Australian courts, tribunals and commissions including; (i) legislating to overturn a Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal decision; (ii) legislating to pre-empt a Fair Work Commission decision about the Country Fire Authority; and (iii) introducing legislation to overturn a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court about Native Title; (e) the Prime Minister has the power to stop these pay cuts for nearly 700,000 Australians; and (f) under the Turnbull Government, when companies receive record profits, they get a tax cut, and when wages flatline, workers get a pay cut; (2) calls on the Government to legislate to prevent the pay cut from going ahead; and (3) agrees therefore, to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition immediately introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, the bill being given priority over all business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 3.30 pm today, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay. This is the most out-of-touch government in Australian history. You could not write the plot—a conservative government offering on one hand tax cuts for multinationals but on the other hand pay cuts for low-paid workers; a government which will fight tooth and nail to give big banks a tax cut but do absolutely nothing to stop a pay cut for hundreds of thousands of workers. The motto of the Turnbull government is: tough on those who are doing it tough and soft on the big end of town. This pay cut is not about a spreadsheet, it is not about a set of figures on a desk or a table and it is not about simple economics; it is about the lives that people live. Today in question time several individual stories of people who will be affected by this pay cut from 1 July were put to the Prime Minister. What response did we get from this out-of-touch Prime Minister? 'It's not my business. It's not my decision. It's not my problem.' What they do instead is just attack the Labor Party. The problem they have got here is that this pay cut could not have come at a worse time for Australians. I acknowledge that the big end of town is doing well under the Turnbull government, but what I do not accept is that, when wages growth flatlines, somehow cutting wages is an economic recipe for including all Australians in our prosperity. It is incredibly interesting that yesterday in the national accounts, which the Treasurer is so proud of, corporate profits were shown to be the highest in 40 years, but what we see is that wages in this country have risen at the lowest level in 20 years—and, yes, I do think that last fact is a shame. We see young people getting it in the neck again. This is a government at war with young people. It wants to increase their HECS, it wants to make it more expensive to go to TAFE with the loan system it has, and what it also wants to do is make it impossible for them to buy their first home with its trenchant defence of negative gearing in the future, and now we have a pay cut which will disproportionally fall on the young. No wonder young people are bemused at it being called the 'Gilmore gift', because young people do not deserve the sorts of attacks they are getting from this government. Then, of course, there are women. If we hear one more time— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned! Mr SHORTEN: from the Prime Minister that women hold up half the sky and then he is not prepared to see them get half the pay, it shows what a rank hypocrite this man is. Then look at the regions. My goodness me! What did the regions ever do to deserve Barnaby Joyce? And now they have this pay cut too. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have made myself very clear on numerous occasions that members will be referred to by their correct titles. I have sat the Deputy Prime Minister down and refused to allow him to complete his answer. The Leader of the Opposition has latitude, but it only goes so far. He will refer to members by their correct titles. The Leader of the Opposition. Mr SHORTEN: The Leader of the National Party—the hostages to One Nation; they could not learn to fight with them. What we have seen is some of these coalition members of parliament saying: 'It's a minor matter. It is a marginal matter.' No, it is not a minor or marginal matter for most Australians. What has been the defence that we have seen from the government? I have never seen so many startled wallabies in the headlights as this government when this decision came down. What its first defence has been is that, through enterprise bargaining, unions have negotiated on behalf of members flexibilities in return for increases in pay. What this government wilfully chooses to do is confuse a pure pay cut with the process of enterprise bargaining in this country. Then we had the ghost of previous banquets, Senator Abetz, making his contribution: the proposal of grandfathering. I noticed that the Prime Minister was saying today, almost in a parallel universe, 'But the commission says that there will be a transition, so no-one will be worse off.' No, Prime Minister, that is not correct. The decision means that on 1 July there will be a reduction in penalty rates. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen can leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber. Mr SHORTEN: The Prime Minister is trying to pretend and say that there is nothing to see here, and then he gets onto his great friend, the independent umpire. This is a fellow who, when it suits him, not only trashed the decision of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal but sacked the whole umpire. Last year we saw the farcical images of the Prime Minister donning some CFA gear and saying, 'I'm with you all the way,' and then he came in and pre-empted a decision of the Fair Work Commission. So they are happy to do it when it suits their political cause. I ask the Prime Minister, though: what political cause could you possibly be championing when you choose not to do it on behalf of 700,000 Australians? There will be a reduction. As for Senator Abetz's proposition, where you could just grandfather everything and anyone currently getting the penalty rates will be all right and any new workers in the future will have to take their chances, what a wilfully mischievous idea. In industries like retail and hospitality, with a 50 per cent turnover in a year, what chance do people on the old rates stand for employment when an employer can pay someone to do the same job as they are doing on the new rates? And what chance do the companies that choose to stick with the old rates have in competition when the system will allow new companies to compete with them and pay their people less? Grandfathering is not the solution. Labor's solution is the only solution to protect the take-home pay of Australian workers. What amazes me most about this whole debate is when the government say, 'It's not our decision.' What they have been trying to say that, because it is the umpire, they do not have to cast an opinion on the merit or the morality of the decision. When you become Prime Minister, your job is not to find somewhere to hide to avoid making a decision. People expect governments to intervene in the community when there are decisions made which are harming a lot of people. There is no government worth its salt in this country that could sit on its hands and do nothing to protect the conditions of 700,000 Australians. Then he says that this is not his government's decision; it is someone else's decision. If it is not his government's decision, why was his government making submissions to these hearings? If it is not his government's decision, what will it do when the next hearing comes along? The government cannot hide in the middle of the traffic; it cannot sit on the fence. The Prime Minister said he supports the decision. What he needs to do is reverse his position and no longer support this position. It is an out-of-touch government backing in an out-of-touch proposition. The future of this country is not going to be found in a race to the bottom by cutting workers' conditions. The future of this country and productivity will not be found by reducing the pay of the lowest paid in this country. The future of this country will not be found in standing by and cutting the penalty rates of hardworking workers. There is no compensation for them. Labor will fight this issue in the House, we will fight it when we go out of this place, and we will fight it all the way to the next election. (Time expired) The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded? Mr Brendan O'Connor: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.