Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, if Andrew had been working at Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC, he would be earning $21.19 an hour instead, and he would be earning that amount because of a union agreement. The reality is that the AWU and the unions the honourable members opposite represent have again and again traded away penalty rates in one EBA after another. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo. Mr TURNBULL: Not only have they traded them away, they traded them away in circumstances where they have received money from the employers concerned. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned! Mr TURNBULL: We might well ask: what about the great achievement of the Australian Workers' Union with Clean Event? Only today the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, said that the Labor Party were proud of every deal the Leader of the Opposition had negotiated. They are bursting with pride. Mr Shorten: A point of order, on relevance. Andrew has travelled from Adelaide; he is here in the gallery— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I am not going to revisit everything I said last week about points of order. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat three times. We are getting into unprecedented territory. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr TURNBULL: When it comes to penalty rates, imagine if Andrew had been working for Clean Event. Imagine if he had been getting, thanks to the great advocacy of the Leader of the Opposition—this champion of the working class, this hero of the people—$18 an hour instead of $50 under the award. But there was something else: payments to the union, not disclosed. The member for Isaacs says that they are all proud of the Leader of the Opposition's track record as a union— Mr Dreyfus: You bet we are. Mr TURNBULL: 'You bet we are', he says. If they are so proud, why did they not share those deals with the members? Why were the payments kept secret? If it was such a great deal, why not tell everybody? Why did it have to be kept secret? One deal after another, one payment after another, and one thing in common: it took a royal commission and two years to find out about them, just like the donation to his election campaign, again, from Unibilt, a company that his union had been engaged in negotiations with—no connection there, I am sure; just a coincidence! The Leader of the Opposition has been selling workers down the river for years, trading away penalty rates for years, taking backhanders for years, and we are going to stop it. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Snowdon: You are a grub! The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari! Members on both sides will cease interjecting. Mr Bowen: A point of order: the Prime Minister just engaged in a grossly improper reflection on a member, and he must withdraw. The SPEAKER: I heard what the Prime Minister was saying towards the end of his answer. Reflecting on that, there have been many occasions, and I refer members to Practice—and I am happy to spend a lot of time on this, if they want to—where the characterisation is not of a specific nature in the way the member for McMahon is talking. If we want to have a robust question time, which I think the opposition wants to more often than the government, I think this really does pass into the territory of question time, I have to say. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order. Mr Burke: I did not jump up at the time, but I have just had it explained to me exactly what was said. Standing order 90 states: … all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I do not see how that particular claim falls short of that. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will deal with this matter, and members on both sides may not like it. There were some contributions in the 90-second statements where I could have very easily sat the member for Moreton down at the end of his speech. If we are going to take a literal approach, I will be taking a literal approach. I do not believe the Prime Minister suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was literally taking a 'backhander', which I think is the term you are objecting to. I do not think the Prime Minister was saying that the Leader of the Opposition personally benefited—I don't. I believe it was a— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members will not interject—the member for Lingiari has already been mentioned! It was a political characterisation. If you want me to go to the aspects of Practice, I can give you many examples where that has been allowed. If members want a literal interpretation of the standing orders I will be ruling questions out of order left, right and centre. I am watching the language very carefully. I am not going to intervene at this point and I am going to call the next question.