Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:57): Here is a chance. We have regional MPs sitting across from us. Here is a chance for those Nationals MPs, regional MPs, to cross the floor and stand up for regional communities. Seven hundred thousand workers, many of whom live in regional areas, face a pay cut. We have two sitting weeks of parliament, and today those opposite can join with Labor to protect the take-home pay of 700,000 workers, workers who are on the smallest of incomes. We are talking about people working in retail, in hospitality and in pharmacy. We are talking about mums who have told us that the Sunday penalty rate they currently get is how they are paying for their internet or their kids' basketball lessons. Yet all we have from those opposite is a do-nothing attitude when it comes to protecting the take-home pay of some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. But there is a chance right now for this government, for those opposite—those members who are claiming to stand up for workers—to join Labor in supporting take-home pay. It is really simple: come in here and vote with Labor to allow us to bring this bill on for debate. This is that chance. We have seen the government, time and time again, when it suits them, bring on debates in this House. They abolished the safe rates tribunal. Once upon a time they said that they stood up for truck drivers, and they abolished the safe rates tribunal—rushed legislation through at the end of parliament to scrap the tribunal. They did not just disagree with the decision; they actually scrapped the entire tribunal. We have seen them do it time and time again with legislation, yet on this issue they are dragging their feet; they are refusing to stand with Labor. But there is a chance—on 1 July, as we have heard from this side, this government is giving millionaires a tax cut; they are giving people on the highest of incomes a tax cut. We are talking about giving people who earn the highest incomes in this country a tax cut. This is the same government that are sitting on their hands and doing nothing, when they have a chance to support Labor help those on the lowest of incomes, including people working in retail, hospitality and pharmacy; 700,000 workers in regional areas, in our suburbs, people who rely on these penalty rates to make ends meet. They are doing nothing. Here is their chance. They can stand with Labor, cross the floor and vote with us to bring on this bill now. I support what is being moved by the member for Gorton to allow this debate to happen. We are calling on the government, on those opposite, to vote with Labor. Let us fix this problem. We support the Fair Work tribunal, we support Fair Work, but when they make decisions that are not based on the best interests of workers we should intervene. We should change bad laws. We need to support take home pay. Mr Pyne: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think there has been a misunderstanding, because you called for a seconder when the motion had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business and therefore it could not possibly be seconded again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I did, yes, after he had finished. Mr Pyne: You called for a second seconder, but it had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business. I think the only fair thing is for the call to now be given to a member of the government rather than to the opposition, because you have called three members of the opposition. My colleagues very reasonably sat back down when they heard you call for a seconder, because obviously they were not going to second it again—they were not going to second a motion from the opposition. It should be the call of the government. We are happy to accept it as a misunderstanding, but we need to have a speaker and move on. Mr Burke: To the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I believe the Leader of the House's recollection of the events is somewhat different to what happened. There was a long pause before the member for Bendigo jumped. Had she not jumped the question would have been put. That is why she jumped. Mr Pyne: It would have been deferred. Mr Burke: The question would have been put. If I can explain the standing orders to the Leader of the House: it would only have been deferred after being put to the vote if there was then a call for a division. We defer divisions; we do not defer the initial vote—and the initial vote would have occurred. It is in the standing orders—we vote on a whole series of things. Check with the Clerk. That said, if a member of the government wants to defend a pay cut for 700,000 Australians, then it is their turn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: To clarify the issue, I asked for the motion to be seconded, following which the minister jumped. I then asked him whether he wanted to second it, and he said no. It was then seconded by the member for Watson. At the end of the member for Watson's speech I asked if the motion had been agreed to. No-one jumped. The opportunity was there— Mr Laundy: I was at the dispatch box. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you were not at the dispatch box. When the member for Watson had finished the motion that it be agreed to was the question, and you two looked at each other. There was not anything else, and then the member for Bendigo jumped. I would be happy to look at it, but given that this was five minutes ago I am going to call the member for Bendigo in continuation Mr Pyne: That's ridiculous. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not ridiculous. Mr Pyne: You have no idea— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is close to a reflection on the chair, and, coming from the government, which seek to have an issue with communication, I do not think that is a fair point. Does the member Bendigo want to continue. Ms CHESTERS: I will continue, thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. Look at the chaos of those opposite—stand up here and defend your position; stand up here and justify why you will not let us bring this debate on. Stand up here and say why you do not want to support us on this. Seven hundred thousand people are about to have their take-home pay cut. Support the bill. Support the discussion about the bill. Bring on the debate now. Do not let it lapse. Here is your chance as a government to support low-paid workers. Otherwise, stand up and make your statement. Why do you want to stop the House from proceeding with this debate? Why does the government not want to allow this House to have this debate? This is a chance for the government to do the right thing by 700,000 low-paid workers. This is reform that will strengthen the Fair Work Commission and allow and encourage them to make decisions that will not cut take-home pay. These are people on the smallest of margins—in hospitality, in retail and in pharmacy. And we know it will happen in the rest of the community. We know that other industries also want to cut take-home pay. That is why it is so important that this government allows us to have this debate. That is why it is so important that those opposite cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion so that we can fix this and ensure that people's take-home pay is not cut as result of the changes that Fair Work have made in cutting penalty rates. Stop the pay cut. This is your chance to stand with Labor and vote up the member for Gorton's motion so that we can stop the pay cut for 700,000 workers immediately—not to mention those who are also in the firing line. That includes people who work in beauty, hairdressing, clubs and in a number of other industries who are also now facing their industry asking for their penalty rates to be cut. This is a problem that Labor has identified. We have done the hard work and drafted the changes to ensure that we as a parliament can protect take-home pay for our lowest paid workers. Here is a chance for those opposite to stand up, cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion to make sure we protect take-home pay. Here is your chance. Or at least get up and defend why you will not allow us to have the discussion and to have the debate. I urge those opposite to do the right thing, support these low-paid workers and fix the loopholes in Fair Work so we can make sure we protect take-home pay.