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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the government has this morning ditched a section of its industrial relations legislation which allows for pay cuts, which the Prime Minister repeatedly said did not exist. Will the Prime Minister now admit he was trying to use COVID as cover to cut workers' pay?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course we won't admit that, because that's not true. It's not even close to being true. There was a part of the bill which would have extended a provision that was inserted into the Fair Work Act by Labor. It would have extended it, in our view, in a very modest way. We will remove that from the bill. Why are we doing that? Because we take a practical, pragmatic approach. We want to see as much of this bill as possible find passage through the parliament, because the bill contains a range of measures that will grow jobs, put upward pressure on wages and help businesses survive through COVID.

I might say also that removing this small, modest part of the bill does have another upside: it removes the smokescreen that Labor have created as to why it might be that Labor would not support tougher penalties to stamp out wage theft. Why would Labor not support the first-ever Commonwealth criminal penalty for wage theft?

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

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

Member for Kingston!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would members opposite not support a new small-claims stream for the recovery of wage underpayments?

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

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

The member for Kingston is warned.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would they not support that? Why would they not support proper civil penalties for wage underpayments? Why would they not support the first-ever criminal offence for wage theft? Why would they not support increased penalties for sham contracting? Those become very, very interesting questions in the context of the member for Watson recently saying this: 'Vulnerable workers getting their money back quickly has to be the highest priority.'

No-one here can find a single valid reason for why you wouldn't support the first-ever criminal penalty for wage theft, why you wouldn't support civil penalties to stamp out underpayment or why you wouldn't do something as practical and pragmatic as having a small-claims stream for wage underpayment. Yet members opposite now say they'll oppose all of those things but are without a reason for opposing them—other than the fact that, as part of their political strategy, they are willing to have those workers end up as, in their own words, 'collateral damage'.