I rise to enter the debate today following on from the member for Fisher, who had a

lot to say about last week's budget and the Commonwealth Games but did not talk about the intent of this bill and

what it will mean. In this year's budget, compared to years past, GDP growth is down, employment growth is

down, wages growth is down and 100,000 jobs have simply been washed away. I will take the member for Fisher

up on a point about infrastructure. For the largest infrastructure project for Queensland, the No. 1 Infrastructure

Australia project, Cross River Rail, not one dollar has been allocated for the people of Queensland. So there are

massive amounts of 'pork' going out across Australia but not where it is needed. The member for Fisher, like

the bloated LNP in Queensland, is not interested in delivering infrastructure. They want a pat on the back for

delivering $7.5 billion worth of infrastructure this year. 'Well done'—said no-one!—because we know that there

is a cut in infrastructure spending in Australia.

The member for Fisher, in his prepared notes written by either the minister or the IPA, ran the true lines about

what this government thinks of workers in Australia, collective agreements and workers' pay. I will come back to

that in a moment. Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: Labor will not stand for corruption in any form and

we will support legislation that is properly drafted and applies to both companies and registered organisations.

But this bill provides a different test for union officials and employers who work with unions than for politicians

and public servants and corrupt activities between businesses.

What I find really interesting is that even though this is part of the Heydon recommendations that were made

more than 12 months ago, no action was taken by the government until after the penalty rates decision, without

any proper consultation. So, you have to be skeptical about this government's motivations. Let me say that again.

The Heydon recommendations were made more than 12 months ago. Despite the urgency, the nonsense we heard

from the member for Fisher and his rant to this chamber, nothing has happened under this government's watch.

They took no action to respond to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution

election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two antiworker pieces of legislation.

That was the justification for the election we had to have. And the Turnbull government did nothing—sat on their

hands and did nothing—until they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely when it comes to penalty

rates. That is when the action really kicked in. That is why I am very keen to support the amendment moved by

the member for Gorton today to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill.

While the government is happy to see wages of Australians cut—and that is what every single member opposite

wants to see happen in Australia, while their priorities are of course now to deliver a $64 billion tax cut to big

business, whilst at the same time cutting payments to families, parents, pensioners and job seekers—you have to

understand the political motivation by a Prime Minister. When he is faced with the Leader of the Opposition 's

private member's bill to preserve the take-home pay and conditions and to protect penalty rates, all of a sudden

the urgency comes out that we have to introduce this bill. So, an unpopular penalty rates decision comes down,

which, let's face it, everyone on that side of the chamber wants to see happen and has been encouraging, ensuring

that we see a real pay cut. Never has it been clearer that when the government has its priorities—laser like, fixated

on delivering multimillionaires a tax cut, making sure that big business is looked after—the penalty rates issue

is really biting in the community. I am not sure whether those opposite walk in the same shopping aisles and go

to the same pubs and clubs as members, say, on this side of the chamber do.

Mr Morton: Probably not.

Mr DICK: Probably not; they just said it: probably not. That is right. They are their own words. I will take that

interjection. They do not go into the same shopping aisles and cafes and newsagents that we all go into. I did a

listening post in the suburb of Gailes on Saturday.

A government member: Do you live in Gailes?

Mr DICK: Well, I will not take that interjection. And isn't it funny: they laugh about a suburb in Australia.

Somehow a suburb that is doing it a bit tough should be ridiculed and laughed at. That is absolutely pathetic.

Actually, I will take the interjection. There is a reason the member for Bowman has had a long and distinguished

career on the backbench: 14 years going strong. We never have to worry about the transfer from the member for

Bowman moving forward to the frontbench. We can put that one in the bank; that is for sure.

I do live in the electorate of Oxley, and, for the member's benefit, I live in a suburb called Durack—probably a

suburb the member for Bowman has never been to. I talked to workers in Gailes on the weekend, a hospitality

worker and a retail worker who were fearful that their pay was going to be cut. One worker told me that they

have to get up at a quarter to three on a Sunday and go to work at a hotel, and they are looking at a $64 pay cut for

that one day's work. It is not a lot of money for those opposite; I concede that. But taking $240 out of someone's

pay packet in a month is a huge difference. You may want to have a laugh at people who live at Gailes. I take

their concerns very seriously.

So, on behalf of the 10,500 retail, food and accommodation workers in my electorate who are looking down

the barrel of cuts to their take-home pay, I am supporting this amendment today—because those people, right

across Australia, not just in my community but in every electorate in Australia, deserve to have this parliament

fighting for their salaries and fighting for their pay and conditions. Extraordinarily, this bill was introduced and

brought on for debate one week after the decision to slash penalty rates—which we know that the government

clearly supports If we ever needed any more confirmation that this government is more concerned with saving its

own political skin than standing up for vulnerable and low-paid workers, we have it here in lights. Be under no

illusion that the timing of the introduction of this bill is all about a sad attempt to distract and divert away from

this side of the chamber's proud defence for the protection of penalty rates and that it has absolutely nothing to

do with any urgent need to address corruption. As I said, there are over 10,500 workers in my electorate who are

looking down the barrel of a pay cut. But does the government stand by these workers? Will it stand shoulder to

shoulder and lift a finger to help them? No. This government again shifts the blame for this disastrous decision.

We know there has been a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister, the LNP and big business for that side of

the chamber to cut the take-home pay of some of Australia's most vulnerable and insecure low-paid workers.

Taking a closer look at the terms of the new offences, they differ from the model legislation recommended by

Heydon and they differ from the existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code. We cannot have

any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers. The so-called 'corrupting benefits' offences

are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign

official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official—although there are key differences that

raise many questions. The bill prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person

nominated by a union, and it prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash in-kind payments. The bill

expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions; benefit provided for employees—but possibly covers the

provision of union training services; tax deductible donations; payments for services or in accordance with the

law or a judgement. But the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the

bill. It is facts like these which show this government's lack of consultation and that it is rushing this bill through

parliament in the face of this side of the chamber and the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill to

preserve take-home pay and protect penalty rates.

We know that penalty rates put food on the table and books on school desks and go some way to compensating

hardworking Australians who forgo family and leisure time to work on Sundays. We only need to look at what

happened last week when we saw wages continuing to flatline in this country. We are not seeing the uptick in

wage growth that we need to see in this nation. The latest figures show that wages are now falling in real terms

and that the decline in real wages is coming at a time when cost-of-living pressures are rising. We know, and

certainly when I speak to residents in my electorate, that they are finding it tougher and tougher to make ends

meet. So the government's plans in response to this at a time of record low wages is to increase taxes on 10

million working Australians, while giving a tax cut to millionaires.

I am really pleased that the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated to Australia in his reply speech that this side

of the chamber is in touch with working Australians, that we know people on, say, $60,000 or $65,000 a year and

living in the wonderful suburb of Gailes—which the member for Bowman wanted to have a laugh at—should

not have to pay for extra health services. They should not have to pay for increased taxes to simply pay for those

tax cuts at the other end of the scale. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair that a millionaire gets a

$16,400 tax cut but someone who is living in the suburbs that I represent and who is on a low income has to pay

$352 a year more. How on earth is that possibly fair?

This is the party that spent $200,000 on research to ask, 'How should the budget be framed?' Crosby Textor, for

its $200,000 bill, came up with: 'Australians don't think that this government is fair.' This is a government that

had to pay for research to find out what to say in a budget. Doesn't that say it all—that you have to write a cheque

to a polling company because you do not know how to frame a budget. So they turn around and go: 'You know

what the government needs to do? People said: "We don't think it's on our side." So, guys, make sure you use

the word "fairness".' I can tell you what—

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr DICK: That is right, whoever the interjector was: they do not walk in the same shopping centres as we do

and they do not go to the same shops and worksites as we do, because, if they did, they would not have to ask:

'How should we frame the budget? What are the key buzzwords we should use?' They should come out to the

suburbs in the south-west of Brisbane and talk to people about their pay and conditions and about how important

penalty rates are for their wages and their families, and then they would not need to waste $200,000 on paying

Crosby Textor to ask what they should frame their budget around.

We on this side of the chamber know, and that is why the amendment has been moved by the member for Gorton:

to ensure that we can protect penalty rates, and that we legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect, to

stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut. Every single member on this side of the chamber supports

this, and I would go so far as to say that a majority of Australians support this as well, because we know, from

listening to the community, that we need to ensure that we do everything we can, with the privilege we have of

serving in this place, to protect their pay and conditions, and that is what we on this side will continue to do. But,

sadly, this government refuses to heed that as well.