Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Why is it important to close the loopholes that undercut wages and conditions? What has been the response from those who oppose closing the loopholes?

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

I thank the member for Cunningham for the question—someone who is working for Australia to make sure that people are paid better. Senator Cash said, when this debate started: 'If it's all about closing a loophole, close the loophole. Show us first where the loophole is and then close the loophole.' That's exactly what the legislation that's being introduced in the parliament does.

At the moment there's a loophole where gig economy workers have no guaranteed minimum standards at all—none. There's a loophole at the moment where an enterprise agreement can be completely undercut through the use of labour hire. There's a loophole at the moment where, if you steal from the employer, it's a criminal offence —as it should be—but, if the employer steals from the worker, it's not a criminal offence. There's a loophole at the moment where you can be employed as a casual but working identically to a permanent worker, and you don't have the right to switch from one to the other, if that's what you want. They're the loopholes, and they're exactly what we're proposing to close with this legislation.

But there are three things that you do when you don't want to deal with the issue at hand: firstly, you blame consultation; secondly, you try to talk about an issue that's not, in fact, in front of you; and thirdly, you talk about delay. Those opposite have taken delay to an entirely new level now. Yesterday we had a vote that this debate be delayed until 16 October. This morning we had a vote that the debate be delayed till February. Who knows by next week what the new end date will be? They will be going out to 2030 or 2050, to delay it as long as they can because, as long as people are being underpaid, they are happy. It's a deliberate design feature of how they want to run an Australian economy. So I say to those—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will just pause momentarily. Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Petrie on a point of order.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's standing order 90. The Prime Minister reflected on the Leader of the Opposition, and now the Leader of the House is reflecting on us as well. It shouldn't stand; he should withdraw. No-one wants to see workers underpaid—no-one.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! When the House comes to order, I'll proceed. The member for Petrie is entitled to take a point of order. The Leader of the House was not reflecting on any individual member; if he had been, you would be entitled to take that point of order. When the House comes to order, the Leader of the House has the call.

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

If those opposite want to vote against the loopholes, then I just say: defend them. Defend why it's fair for wage theft to not be a crime, if that's your position. Defend why it's fair for an enterprise agreement to be meaningless because you can just use labour hire to undercut it. Defend why it's fair for someone to be rostered as though they're a permanent employee but not have the right to convert. If you think it's fair to have these loopholes, then stand up and defend them. If you actually believe that some of the most vulnerable workers in Australia should have no minimum standards and should have to rely on tips to make ends meet, if that's the version of Australia that those opposite believe in—because I'll say that that's the version of Australia they intend to vote for—then defend the argument. But don't go running off and saying: 'Can we delay it? Can we complain about consultation?' Workers' rights will be fundamentally different, and loopholes will be closed or not. If your position is to keep the loopholes open, argue it and defend it.