Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He's someone who has been operating very constructively with the closing loopholes bill—and I note that he's on the list to speak on it later today.

Contrast that constructive way of engaging with the Manager of Opposition Business, who, earlier today, organised a filibuster on his own amendment to prevent it from coming to a vote! I've not seen that before, but that's what we had today to prevent his own amendment from coming to a vote. But that same constructive way of engaging that I referred to with the member for Bennelong has been how a whole lot of the employer groups have been engaging as well. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Australian Hotels Association. I know that the member for Bennelong would have many casuals employed by hotels and organisations which are members of the Hotels Association in his electorate. What did Stephen Ferguson have to say:

The amendments which have been committed to provide much more certainty and fairness for workers and employers and can be chalked up as a win for both.

But the Hotels Association isn't the only one that has been engaging positively with government. I've got to say, and I think the health minister will agree with me, that we don't often get the Pharmacy Guild turning up to Labor Party branch meetings. But the Pharmacy Guild has seen the common sense of the amendments which have been negotiated with respect to casuals and has said the following:

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia supports the Albanese Government's decision to amend the 'Closing the Loopholes' bill in the interests of both casual employees and employers.

Those opposite have voted consistently, and are doing so again today, to delay any provision that is about people being underpaid—any provision that's about people being underpaid! They want to say, and they hide behind it—'We're just wanting to advance the ones about safety.' If that were true, why are they not trying to advance the clauses about industrial manslaughter? Are they, somehow, nothing to do with safety? Do they not understand that labour hire workers are far much less likely to speak up about safety issues on a mine site than are people who are directly employed?

This government will not say to workers who are being underpaid that their concern is somehow not so controversial, that it's a second-rate concern and something that we would vote to delay. We're not going to say to gig workers, 'You can just wait as long as possible before you have any minimum rates.' We're not going to say to the families of people who have died at work, 'Oh, we'll just delay industrial manslaughter into the never-never.' We're not going to say to people who have their wages stolen deliberately by their employers that it's somehow not urgent or that it's too controversial to make wage theft a crime, or to the casuals who are working as though they're permanent and who just want security that this government will not— (Time expired)

See this speech in context