Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 made under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 on 14 May 2020 and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, be disallowed.

This government is making a range of changes to workers' entitlements under the cover of the pandemic. This is not the only one. We have an attack on superannuation, even though it has been legislated and promised on not just one occasion. It was promised prior to the 2013 election, and that promise was broken. It was promised again prior to the 2016 election, and that promise was broken. It was promised again in the 2019 election, and that promise is going to be broken by those opposite if they can get away with it. They've done that.

They have, under the cover of the pandemic, extended the labour market flexibility changes that were there for companies that were in dire trouble to make sure that workers and employers could continue to keep their relationship into the future. They've extended those labour market flexibility provisions, which were agreed to by the unions, to what they call 'legacy cases'—that is, companies that are actually doing much better. They've introduced changes so that a worker who works for a company that is worse off and therefore still eligible for JobKeeper will receive a level of income support that's reduced but still there, but a worker who works for a company that's only had a 10 per cent reduction in its turnover could well lose 40 per cent of their hours and 40 per cent of their income. And who might they be? They're retail workers, hospitality workers and frontline workers. The government made that provision there as well, even though we offered to support a sensible suggestion of having a safety net so no-one could actually be worse off than they would be under JobKeeper. What we'll have is some workers who are working three days a week getting paid less than those workers who are not working at all because their companies have stood them down temporarily but they have access to JobKeeper. It's an extraordinary proposition from those opposite.

And then there's this proposition, at a time when Australia Post are doing 'extraordinarily well'—in their own words—and at a time when Australia Post had their busiest day on record yesterday, with 2.5 million letters and parcels delivered around the country. They are so busy that they've asked for volunteers to help deliver parcels using their own cars. These are the same workers who are having their conditions attacked by the Australia Post management, put there in cahoots by this government. This is a government that's never seen a worker entitlement that they didn't want to get rid of.

Scott Morrison made an election campaign vow to keep the promise of Australia for all Australians. Remember he said that? It turns out there was a little asterisk next to the word 'all', and the fine print is in the post. It's in the post; it's on the way. The fact is that those opposite aren't prepared to defend their position on the economy and aren't prepared to defend their position on jobs, of all days—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the minister for communications be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is along the lines which I indicated to you when the division was called. We have unusual circumstances here, whereby the government has just moved to gag me, to stop me from speaking and participation in this debate. Having moved a suspension to bring on this very debate, they've then shut it down.

The circumstances are these: if, then, the motion isn't seconded, what will the circumstances be, whether we come back and debate it another day or whether a disallowance takes effect if it's not dealt with by the House? The government has chosen not to deal with it on the 11 days. We have tried to suspend standing orders in the past to deal with these regulations, going as far back as June. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, as to what the circumstances would be if the motion isn't seconded. If the government wants to shut down debate, as happens every time I stand to my feet at the dispatch box, then it's up to them—of course, they have the numbers to do that. But I'm raising the issue of what the consequences of that are in terms of debate and outcomes in this House—in this particular example, what the implications would be for the disallowance motion that they seemed to be keen on half an hour ago but now want to shut down and not have a debate about.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only really be definitive about the first point which the Leader of the Opposition made. On the second point: I don't know all the details—the time line of the disallowance and all the rest of it—and I haven't dealt with one myself for years. There's a very simple proposition that applies to every motion: a motion that is not seconded lapses. There is no difference in any motion on that. Having said that, I now need to ask: is the motion seconded? There being no seconder, the motion then lapses.

Motion lapsed.