Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the retail trades industry is the second largest employment category in Australia, it employs 1.2 million, or one in nine, Australians and 52 per cent of these workers have no post school qualification;

(b) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates in the retail trade will hit those most powerless to change jobs;

(c) the take home pay of hundreds of thousands of workers will be cut because of the FWC decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for the retail trade;

(d) workers affected are being treated as second class citizens and their work is not being valued;

(e) whilst a few jobs may be created on the margins of the economy, the removal of these workers' spending power from the economy will override any minimal jobs growth; and

(f) many families will struggle all over the country because of this short sighted decision;

(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates;

(3) calls on Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and

(4) supports Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.

I want to give a personal story about the impact that cuts to penalty rates have had on women and I also want to demonstrate to those opposite who believe in economics over everything else that these cuts are bad for communities. They are bad for regional communities in particular and local economies. They are bad for small business, particularly those in regional Australia.

Katelyn works in retail on Sundays and she will lose about $10 for the day. That might not seem like a lot to many Australians and working Australians, but for her it is a lot of money. Katelyn is saving every cent she has to put towards finding stable accommodation. She cannot pick up any more hours because she is also a student. She works with two other women in the shop on a Sunday. There's no capacity at all to put on any extra shifts or any other employees. The argument that cutting penalty rates will create more jobs is nothing but a fallacy.

As a member of the Australian Jobs Taskforce, Labor's caucus committee, I have spoken to many regional chambers of commerce. We talk to people on the ground from all sectors of society about jobs—the barriers to creating and obtaining jobs, how we grow jobs and how we may solve the systemic failures of our labour market. The fallacy of jobs being created or more work being provided from these cuts was confirmed by the business representatives who I and the task force have spoken to. Many small business operators suggested that, as small business owners generally pay themselves a wage, they will pocket the savings from these penalty rate cuts themselves. How could you blame them for that?

People like Katelyn who are on low wages—and predominantly those in the retail sector are women—spend every cent they have and they spend it locally. The impact of these cuts on regional Australia is staggering. According to the McKell Institute, in my electorate nearly $10 million of lost income will hurt small businesses. People will spend less. They will have reduced confidence to spend, particularly those in the sectors where they now feel they are in jeopardy of the same cuts happening to them, such as in clubs and hairdressers. Some $6½ million of this $10 million of lost income is from retail workers in my electorate.

With the casualisation of work and the increase in insecure work, the positive balance has shifted away from many in our society to just a few. The impacts on society are enormous, and governments should not underestimate these. These figures assume that most employers are larger businesses that are not locally owned, and this is the case in my electorate, which is a regional electorate. This means that any labour savings from these cuts will be moved to the larger cities, not reinvested in regional areas. But if you look at the macroeconomics, weekend penalty rates contribute over $14 billion to the annual income of Australian employees, or 2½ per cent of the total economy. For those sectors that are weekend intensive, such as retail, five per cent of wages from these cuts will be lost.

Women like Katelyn will be impacted the hardest. Lisa is a mum in her 40s living in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. She's a single mum with two teenage daughters. She works in retail and works Sundays. She is now feeling more financial pressure to make ends meet. The amount of money that she will lose from her take-home pay is equivalent to her property rates and charges. She is competing with younger retail workers for shifts and she doesn't have the skills to move on into other sectors. These cuts will increase inequality, and that's according to not just to Labor but over 75 Australian professionals working in economics and related disciplines.

Economic research indicates that overall business activity in retail and hospitality depends on the level of consumer expenditure on these services. By undermining incomes for a group of workers, it will marginally reduce aggregated disposable income. So there we are, again—back at the beginning. So it is clear. If you support women, you will stand with Labor, stand up for women in your community, support our private members' bill and protect the take-home pay of women who need your support more than most.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I second the motion. I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Braddon. Penalty rates play an important part in sustaining those in insecure work, the low paid and workers in hospitality and retail. But also, in a climate of low wages growth, penalty rates play a part in sustaining communities, particularly those communities where underemployment is an increasing problem.

It was often said during the mining boom that Australia suffered from a two-speed economy. Now, commentators are forced to confront the fact that there is rising inequality within the Australian community, particularly when considering the ability of some within our community to engage with and participate in paid work. There are those who are fortunate enough to be in secure work. They are well paid. For them, penalty rates are irrelevant. These are the people who benefit from tax cuts delivered by this government, whilst low-paid workers are threatened with cuts to their wages. While some, like the Treasurer and certain newspaper commentators, place an issue whether there is rising inequality, there appears to be a consensus that there is a significant portion of the Australian workforce facing a reduction in standards of living. This may be from insecure work, the reduction in hours of work, unemployment or underemployment or, whilst fully employed, the rising cost of living not keeping pace with wages growth.

I have spoken in the House recently about the importance of higher education in delivering high-paid jobs for graduates and about the effect on the economy which adds employment as a result of additional graduates taking up employment. The evidence suggests that increased educational attainment of itself improves economic prospects of not only graduates but also other workers within the economy. Nevertheless, the problem is that regional Australia, in particular Northern Tasmania, has lower educational attainment. It has lower educational attainment, fewer graduates, lower productivity and higher unemployment and underemployment.

With investment in the University of Tasmania transformation project, the aim is to transform that outlook over the next 10 years or more. In the meantime, our focus needs to be on jobs and wages growth, which is at historically low levels. The problem of low wages growth is that this is a constraint upon growth, particularly growth in consumer demand. The often-made assumption is that as a consequence of a reduction in penalty rates there will be additional employment which will facilitate the transfer of unemployed to the rank of the employed. This assumption is not supported by evidence. It's equally likely, indeed probable, that a rational employer will simply require an existing workforce to work additional hours. In other words, the employer takes the benefits of a reduction in costs and the employee either works additional hours to sustain their income or receives a reduction in income as a consequence of the reduction of the Sunday rate.

The financial consequences for regional communities are identified in the member's motion. Lower consumption affects all within the small communities that I serve, from the supermarket to the cafe. Discretionary expenditure is minimised and businesses subsist instead of thriving. Low-paid workers tend to expend most of their income consumption, with little put aside for investment or saving. This presents an immediate issue with respect to demand for services in small communities, particularly if there is a large workforce with a reduced income. I've previously addressed this chamber about the secondary effects within regional communities in northern Tasmania arising from the failure of Gunns Limited, in particular about the loss of jobs within the retail and service industries that followed some months after the loss of contracting, harvesting and transport jobs within the timber industry. This ultimately sees communities hollowed out, as the effect of job losses cascades through a community.

One of my first tasks, as an endorsed candidate, was to attend a forum that was addressed by retail workers. They explained the importance of penalty rates to their weekly or fortnightly budget. I have no doubt that these personal stories accurately described the extent to which real families struggle to make ends meet. These stories emphasised the extent to which penalty rates on a Sunday, sometimes on a fortnightly roster, mean that a child can attend the movies, participate in sport or go on a school excursion. These activities are only possible, I'm told time and time again, through the income received from those hours worked on a Sunday. Many university students have confirmed to me that their studies were only made possible by the fact that penalty rates earned on a Sunday provided them with the income to be able to devote time to study as well as support themselves. I commend the motion to the Chamber.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this place today to support the motion put forward by the member for Braddon and to state unequivocally Labor's support for penalty rates and the protection of take-home pay. And doesn't that say it all! Those on the other side of this chamber are so gutless that they won't get up and defend the decision that they have taken which will affect over 700,000 people in this country. The member for Petrie sits in this chamber, too lazy to get up and speak on this motion. The member for Petrie—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order goes to reflecting on members—calling us gutless. The fact is that I've already spoken on penalty rates—if you want to look it up.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Oxley will continue and he will refrain from casting aspersions on other members of the Chamber.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I will say, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that it's members like the member for Petrie who are too gutless to get up and speak on this motion today. That is a statement of fact. If he really believed in supporting the cutting of penalty rates of over 10,000 people in his electorate he would get up and defend it. But, no; he takes the coward's way out and doesn't defend the decision that they've made. This is impacting on thousands of people: 10,600 people in my electorate and over 10,000 people in the member for Petrie's electorate. He's so arrogant that he thinks it's okay and that he doesn't have to defend this decision. Well, every single day we are going to go out and tell members of the public exactly what this government is up to. I may add that this whole debate is now under question, because we now have allegations around the Deputy Prime Minister and his vote being tainted. So, whilst we saw a one-seat majority government deliver a slashing of 700,000 people's pay, we now question that—but that's for another day to discuss.

Workers in my electorate will lose up to $77 a week. Retail is the third biggest industry in my community, employing 6,976 local workers with a further 3,612 workers employed in the food and hospitality sector. Earlier this year I was joined by the member for Bendigo and shadow assistant minister for workplace relations at a community penalty rates forum in Goodna in my electorate of Oxley. We were joined by dozens of workers who voiced their frustration and disappointment with the LNP government in supporting the decision to cut penalty rates. Not once do those opposite get up and apologise for slashing the salaries of workers in my electorate. Not once do they put forward any arguments about why they think it is appropriate to give the largest pay cut since the Great Depression.

At the forum we heard from people like Donna, who has fought tooth and nail to put food on the table only to be given a kick in the guts by this government cutting her weekly wage. These are the stories of the real people. I can understand members of the government who are living in denial and too busy fighting amongst each other. This government is more like an episode of The Hunger Games, ripping each other apart, undermining each other and worrying about who's going to lead their party whilst they actually deliver a pay cut.

My community does not deserve this. The people of Australia, the working men and women who go to work on a Sunday, deserve the pay that they get now, not a pay cut like government members, such as the member for Petrie, are delivering them. They deserve an explanation as to why their salary is being cut. The member for Petrie is in denial, Deputy Speaker, just like other members of the government, who are so arrogant that they won't even enter this debate today. They won't rise on their feet to defend the decision. In my words that's gutless. It's gutless because they have taken the decision that is impacting on their own communities. Look, they may have reasons as to why they have done that, but I'm yet to hear a genuine reason as to why they want to cut the take-home pay of almost 700,000 workers.

What sticks in my craw the most? What is most insulting? Let's rewind what's happened. What happened the day after these pay cuts came in? They gave a millionaire a tax cut of $16,400. Workers in my electorate in places like Redbank and Redbank Plains who work in retail and hospitality got a pay cut, while millionaires living on the North Shore got a tax cut of $16,400. How on earth is that fair? How on earth can members of the government look anyone in the eye in the community and say, 'We've got your back.' They don't. They've given up on working and middle class Australians—time and time again. They've given up on women. They've given up on young people. They've given up on people working in the retail, hospitality and pharmacy industries. Well, Bill Shorten and Labor have not given up on workers. I will not give up on workers in my electorate. I will fight these pay cuts every single day until the next election. (Time expired)

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a shame that the member for Petrie didn't take the opportunity to get on the speaking list. In fact, no-one in the government has put their name on this speaking list to talk about this very, very important subject. I follow in the member for Oxley's footsteps to add my support to the member for Braddon's motion. The retail trades industry is the second largest employment category in Australia. It employs 1.2 million people, or one in nine Australians. If you did the maths here in this chamber, that would be almost two of us. Fifty-two per cent of those workers in that industry have no post-school qualification. When it comes to my electorate of Lindsay, under the 2011 census there were over 12,000 people employed under the retail trades award. Now, that was under the 2011 census. Unfortunately, because of the absolute stuff-up of the census, we don't have a new figure.

The penalty rate cuts are just another milestone in this government's cruel attempts to hurt workers. These people need penalty rates to make ends meet. Every cent counts for most people in my community and most of the households around this country. The government has effectively delivered a $77 a week pay cut. As the member for Oxley said, something like this has not been seen since the Great Depression. For the government this is a business decision; but for most people in my electorate this decision is personal. Once again, the government put the low-paid workers in the firing line—people in our country who can least afford it. Pay and conditions aren't supposed to go backwards. Twelve thousand people in my community work in industries affected by the cuts—those in retail, food and hospitality.

What's even more worrying, as the member for Braddon pointed out, is that women will bear the brunt of these devastating cuts. Member for Petrie, where are you on this? More than 70 per cent of part-time workers are women. Women are most likely to be working on weekends and covering public holiday shifts. Cutting the pay of these workers in these industries is the worst thing they can do to widen the gender pay gap, which the government talks so much about wanting to close. We know when local workers have less money to spend that that hurts our local economy as well. This will affect small businesses. Forty-eight million dollars a year will not be spent in local retail shops and restaurants over the next year.

The Turnbull government has absolutely no idea about how things are for ordinary people. They just keep looking out for the big end of town and trust it will just trickle down. Well, I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that is not the plan for most of the businesses in my electorate. Last week, I met with a group of hairdressers, all female—females, you know the other half of the country that exists!—and all aged from 20 to 40 years of age. They all work long hours, they stand on their feet, they deal with chemicals, and they have to go through a rigorous apprenticeship and training course to become our lowest-paid tradespeople. They are deeply concerned, and they're concerned because their penalty rates make a difference to how they live. After they go through the rigorous training to become a fully qualified hairdresser, they are still the lowest-paid tradespeople. They are going to face a pay cut as a result of this government. They are worried about how they will put fuel into their car, how they will get themselves to and from work and how they will manage their already very responsible spending habits.

This is a government which would rather see big business with more money in a trickle-down economy and millionaire tax cuts than hardworking hairdressers with penalty rates. This is the real world, Mr Turnbull, and these are real people you are affecting, facing a—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay—

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister—I withdraw. This is the real world, Prime Minister! And these are real people facing a real wage cut. I just wish that he would wake up.

At a time when wages growth is stagnant—it shouldn't even be called wages growth because how can it grow if it's stagnant? There is no money. The cost of living pressures are rising. In my electorate, we already face a three per cent higher cost of living than other people in the Sydney area because there are no jobs. There is one job for every 200 residents, and most people have to commute to and from work. Not only will they lose pay cuts, but they can also get a 20 per cent rise in their electricity prices—thanks to the New South Wales Liberal government for selling all of our assets—and, now they're going to pay an extra $9 a day in tolls. You add all of those real wage cuts. They will not be going back into those households to pay high rents, incredibly high mortgages or put their children through school, after-school activities or sport.

I am absolutely proud to stand here as a member of the Labor Party and stand up for every single person in the country who relies on penalty rates, including those people who you represent, member for Petrie, because, obviously, the government have not, and they will not, come in here to defend those people who rely on them. A Shorten Labor government will reverse these pay cuts and make sure it cannot happen again. Labor's legislation will reverse this recent decision to cut penalty rates and change the law to protect the overall take-home pay of working Australians, and it is a shame that we don't see this Prime Minister as committed to looking after the workers and protecting their jobs and their pay as he is for his own.

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I congratulate the member for Braddon for bringing this private member's bill to this parliament. We know that, on 23 February this year, the Fair Work Commission made a decision to reduce Sunday and public holiday penalty rates. The ACTU estimates that these workers will lose up to $6,000 per year as a result of that decision. According to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, some 500,000 workers in Australia rely on penalty rates—I think that is the key.

These cuts to penalty rates will hurt families, hurt young people, hurt older Australians, hurt women and hurt people from a non-English-speaking background. They will affect at least 1.2 million people. They will hit the most powerless—their work is not valued. The effect on the economy will be a disaster, as this motion outlines, and families will struggle. We call, as the motion does, on the government to protect take-home pay rates. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, 30 per cent of workers work unsocial hours, 32.2 of workers work weekends, and 18.9 per cent of workers work evenings after 9 pm regularly. That is an important thing to understand.

As has been pointed out, penalty rates will hurt women. Fifty-seven per cent of hospitality workers are women; 62 per cent of retail workers are women; and 85 per cent of pharmaceutical, cosmetic and toiletry goods retail employees are women. They are more likely to be on awards and they are more likely to work part-time, and we already earn less than men do, with 39.3 per cent of women relying on penalty rates compared to 31.5 per cent of men. Cutting penalty rates will only make the gender pay gap worse.

Penalty rates will disastrously affect young people because 59.4 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds receive and rely on penalty rates, and 42 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds receive penalty rates. Penalty rates is an important issue for older Australians. Whilst young people are greater recipients of penalty rates, families and older people are more likely to rely on them entirely, with 45.3 per cent of 55- to 64-year-old who receive penalty rates relying on them. Cleaners are going to be really badly affected. Most cleaners—in fact, 33 per cent of commercial cleaners and 24 per cent of domestic cleaners—are from non-English-speaking countries, compared to 16.7 per cent for all occupations. Around four in every 10 cleaners are born overseas.

When you look at those statistics, and recognising what the members from the Labor Party have contributed, it says to me very clearly that this government does not understand empathy or have any empathy for inequality. The Treasurer scoffs, saying there's no such thing as inequality. Obviously, there is not an understanding of that, or this disastrous piece of legislation in relation to penalty rates would not have been brought into this House. The member for Braddon and other members who have spoken understand these issues. As you can hear, they have an understanding of these issues from the people whom we represent. They have an understanding of these issues from the people that we know. They understand these issues because of our life experiences. And I refuse to believe that there are not people on the other side who also think that this is unfair, people who also think and understand that this is going to affect people in a real way, in a way where they will struggle to put food on the table and pay their utility bills. But, like lambs, they just follow on and do as they're told.

There are so many thing coming into the parliament that are bad for this country. It is not who we are. We are a country about fairness. We are a country of egalitarian beliefs. We are a country of equity and belief in equity. The things that this government is bringing in, including the citizenship debate that was concluded today in the House of Representatives, say very clearly that there is no care and no empathy for what Australia stands for, and that's egalitarian values.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for raising this incredibly important issue in this parliament. Workers are the heart and soul of our country. On 1 July, what did we see? We saw a government cut the take-home pay of hundreds and thousands of workers. Today, as it has done every single other day, our party stands in solidarity with workers to condemn the government's changes to the Fair Work Act, because their changes are anything but fair. I note there are eight members of parliament in the chamber right now—seven are speaking and one is silent.

How can it be fair that workers who have to miss out on countless weekends, family events, barbecues, birthdays, going to church on Sundays—doing things like that—lose the little compensation they receive for working on Sundays? How is that fair? How could it be fair that a government's cuts to penalty rates will further widen the gender pay gap, which, in 2017, really should have been dealt with by now? This cruel decision will have a disproportionate effect on women. Women make up 54 per cent of the workforce in fast food and 55 per cent in general retail. They make up 77 per cent of workers in the pharmacy industry award, and in the hair and beauty industry award—where the government has refused to rule out cuts—they account for 87 per cent of the workforce. As the member for Lindsay noted, there were a number of hairdressers in the House here last week, and they spoke very, very candidly and openly about what a pay cut would mean to them. It is absolutely shameful.

It is obvious that thousands more women than men will be affected by these penalty rate cuts. These are thousands of women who rely on their penalty rates to meet their household expenses. They might use the extra income to pay the rent and feed their families. They have had their take-home pay cut by this cruel and out-of-touch government. I am just astonished—I really am—because, as I said, 2 July this year, the first day that workers saw a cut to the penalty rates, was exactly one year since Prime Minister Turnbull and his government won the 2016 election—and since then they've done nothing. They have done nothing to support Australia's most vulnerable. They've done nothing to create jobs and nothing to protect Medicare. The only thing they've done in government is nothing but a cheap and cowardly attack on workers in this country.

This is a government that stands for the rich and for big business. They turn their backs on ordinary Australians. It's a government that gives big businesses a huge tax cut that leaves millionaires $16,400 better off. That is some women's wages for the whole year, and that's what they gave to millionaires as a tax cut. But, you know, they know this is wrong. That's why there's nobody on the opposite side speaking. Like I said, seven members on this side—every single one of us got up to speak—and on the other side, absolute silence. I see the member for Petrie sitting opposite from me. He's actually my electorate boundary neighbour.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already spoken on this.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, get up and do it again, member for Petrie. Get up and talk to us about that. Do you know why he won't do it? The reason he will not get up is that he cannot defend a cruel and indefensible action. He cannot stand up and defend cutting people's wages. He was elected to stand up for his constituents in places like Rothwell and Deception Bay. That's what he was elected to do, to stand up for the workers, and he has failed them. If this government wanted to stand up for Australian citizens, they would do what citizens have been calling on them to do since the Fair Work Ombudsman handed down their decision in February: they would listen. They would listen to hardworking Australians. They would protect their pay and would protect their conditions, and every single member of the government that stands up for a constituent in their electorate would stand up and fight against any attack on pay and conditions.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I spoke on it last time.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So did we—four times!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If you do not want this debate to finish now, there will be silence.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a question: why is this government going after the most vulnerable in Australian society? What is the collective psychosis of this government that they have to go after the most vulnerable people in Australian society? They've already undertaken this massive austerity program—and it is an austerity program, but they're too scared to actually call it that. They've targeted the most vulnerable—pensioners, the disabled and students—with these false robo-debts, 40 per cent of which were actually incorrect. They've targeted these people, and now we've got these cuts to penalty rates targeting working class people who just want to make ends meet and put food on the table. As the member for Barton and the member for Longman have said, they're targeting specific cohorts within our society: women, the disadvantaged, migrants and people who don't have tertiary education. They're going about it in a way which is very, very upsetting to so many people and upsetting to us on this side.

We want to repair the budget—of course we do; we don't want to have a deficit—but our budget repair is about fairness. Their decision to repair the budget is all about unfairness—it's all about targeting the most vulnerable, to collect that money from the people who are the least able to defend themselves and stand up for themselves. I tell you what, we're here defending them; that's why we're here. We're here because we're standing up for the most vulnerable people in Australian society. We're standing up for pensioners, we're standing up for students, we're standing up for the working class, we're standing up for women who work for their families, and we're standing up for migrants, who are working in this country just to make ends meet to give their children and grandchildren a better life. That's why we're here.

I have to say that it goes beyond just going after the most vulnerable with Centrelink debts, 40 per cent of which were wrong. It's actually obscene—to all of us, it's is obscene—when they're giving $65 billion to corporate Australia in tax cuts, while someone who's on $60,000 or 70,000 a year has to pay more tax. It is actually obscene to go after the poor, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged, pensioners, students, the disabled, working women, single mums, people who are trying to make ends meet. Penalty rates make all the difference. I know this because my parents were migrants. They came to this country and they worked hard. These little things make a real difference to people's lives, just to get by. My parents worked in factories. These are things that matter to people. That's why we're here defending them. That's why we're here standing up for the people across Australia who rely so much on penalty rates just to make the day-to-day payments that they need to keep their families going.

But the government don't care. I was of half joking about a collective psychosis. I think either they're indifferent, which is even worse in some respects, or they really don't care or they really don't even see it. They just don't get it. When was the last time they had to work in a factory? When was the last time they had to make a choice between a power bill or a food bill? When was the last time they had to make a choice about their kids' clothing or putting food on the table or getting a good breakfast for their kids? When was the last time any member on that side even had to think about that? I don't think any of you have. When you have experience in life, when you've gone through the tough times, you know how important these things are to people; you know how important it is for these people to make their day go by and get on with it. It's not like they're asking for a handout. These people are working. These penalty rates make a difference to their lives. They're working for it. They're working on weekends. They're not asking for a handout. They just want the fairness of getting paid for the work that they're doing on weekends when they can get the penalty rates. It makes all the difference to those people.

I'm saddened by the government. As I said, either they've got some sort of psychosis in the way that they are targeting the most vulnerable or they are incompetent or indifferent—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Petrie on a point of order?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For reflecting on members again—'psychosis' of the government.

An opposition member: Get a skin!

Standing orders say you can't reflect on members. That's what you're doing.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills will withdraw and use his last 30 seconds.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Petrie is so upset about that—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just withdraw.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. There's no psychosis. It's actually worse than that: they're indifferent; they really don't care; they don't get it. It's actually worse. Something like psychosis, as some sort of mental condition, gives you a bit of excuse. You don't have an excuse. You don't have an excuse for going after the worst-affected people who rely on penalty rates. You don't have an excuse going after single mums and working women. You don't have an excuse going after Australians who rely on this to get by.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's really good to be able to come in here on duty and talk on this motion on penalty rates for the second time. I spoke on it originally when the member for Longman raised the issue. One of the issues that I raised back then I will come to in a moment. As someone who's always worked in the private sector and didn't have a job in government or in Brisbane City Council, or as a career politician or in the union, I have a little bit of understanding of what it's like. I've crawled on my guts under houses; I've crawled through roofs in 35-degree heat.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The members on my left have all had a fair go.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've done a lot of the things that the member opposite said that we on this side of the House have no idea about it. One of the greatest things that I've been able to see as the member for Petrie since being elected in 2013 is a seven per cent reduction in youth unemployment in my electorate. I put that down to a number of things. I have to laugh when the opposition come in here and talk about penalty rates, given that the member for Longman in March last year, at Easter time, stood in front of Coles and said, 'Thank you for working. Thank you for working at Easter. We really appreciate it,' but at the same time her union had negotiated away the penalty rates of those workers on Sundays. Her union had negotiated the rate from double time to time and a half. There was a 25 per cent reduction in the award rate, thanks to the member opposite and their union's EBA. I really don't call that looking after workers.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30