Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:56): 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 interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the opposition's tactics have now entered the theatre of the absurd. The SPEAKER: On the point of order. Mr Pyne: 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. The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke: I worked out at the end it was a point of order, not an answer. To the point of order though— The SPEAKER: Yes, you had better come to it quickly. Mr Burke: 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— The SPEAKER: 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. Mr Burke: 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. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business does make a fair point, but that was not the question. Mr Pyne: No, it wasn't. The SPEAKER: 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. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: 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— The SPEAKER: 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. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: 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— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can address the question in any way he chooses.