Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Usually, in matters of public importance, I'm able to compliment the ALP at least for rhetoric, if not on facts. But I must say, on this occasion, I can't even compliment the Labor Party on their rhetoric and, clearly, if the honourable senator opposite thinks that her contribution just then will assist her in her preselection battle with her deputy leader in this place, I'm not sure it's going to cut the mustard. Let's have a look at what this motion actually says, and there are three parts to it. First is the Morrison government's failure—let's be correct, alleged failure—to address falling wage growth. First of all, who determines the wages in this country? It is the Labor Party's beloved Fair Work Commission. It is the one that sets the minimum wages in this country and so, if there is a failure in relation to wages and wages growth, it is in the system that the Labor Party itself set up in the first place. This is the Labor Party's creation, so what they're basically saying, if they were being honest with the Australian people, is that that which they set up has been an abject failure for the workers of Australia.

But let's be clear: good, sound economic management allows for wages growth whilst inflation is kept at bay, and that is exactly what the Howard government was able to achieve in its period of office. There was real wages growth, but for that you need good, sound economic management over a lengthy period of time. It would be fair to say that, after the ambush of the economy by Labor after the Howard government was defeated, it took some time to try to get the economy back on track. We were achieving that when COVID-19 hit. The government's alleged failure in addressing falling wages is what the Labor Party is trying to suggest to the Australian people, who are smarter than that; they won't accept that sort of empty rhetoric. They know that there are circumstances which mitigate against the Fair Work Commission increasing wages because there has to be that balance between wages and jobs and job creation.

The second part of the motion talks about the government's alleged failure in relation to job security. Let's be clear: there was a huge spike in unemployment for one reason—we all know it, COVID-19—so let's not try to get cheap political points on the back of a national pandemic. The unemployment rate, thankfully, is coming down. It is coming down steadily and, what is more, with permanent jobs, with full-time jobs. That surely should be celebrated. But, no, the exact figures to back up that which Labor is asserting in this motion were not presented by the Labor Party in moving this motion. Why? It is because there aren't those sorts of figures to support the assertion. Indeed, so desperate were the Australian Labor Party in this debate that they had to rely on Per Capita as somehow providing some credibility to this motion.

The third limb of the motion talks about increasing incidence of wage theft. Excuse me, where was the evidence for that assertion? It was completely and utterly absent in the presentation that was made to us. But let's be very clear: I recall saying that underpayment, if deliberate, is wages theft, and that is why we, as a government, have said on numerous occasions that we have zero tolerance when it comes to wage theft. If a business can't run without underpaying workers, it should not be in business.

Senator O'Neill in her contribution referred us to dodgy businesses that would seek to underpay. Well, I wonder what dodgy businesses might spring to mind? Senator Small, who in cooperation with the trade union and a trade union leader, who now sits in the other place, who used to be in charge of the Australian Workers Union, underpaid mushroom workers, cleaners, builders? We will see what happens from the Registered Organisations Commission investigation in relation to the union itself, but talk about dodgy. I would have thought that would be one area that the Australian Labor Party would not seek to traverse.

The reason why the Labor Party refused to present figures to us was that, if figures were to be presented, they would be telling us that the Fair Work Ombudsman is taking strong action on behalf of workers. In 2019-20, exactly $123 million was recovered, a record amount of money for underpaid workers, which is more than five times the money recovered by the agency during Labor's last full year in office because we, as a government, resourced the Fair Work Ombudsman to be able to pursue this matter and get wage justice for the workers of Australia.

This momentum is continuing. In the first six months of 2020-21, the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered almost $81 million for almost 31,000 employees, filed 37 litigations and entered into 12 enforceable undertakings. These are the facts. These are indicators that we as a coalition government are concerned to ensure that a worker who is entitled to appropriate wages receives those appropriate wages—none of this funny money dealing that Mr Shorten from the other place engaged in whilst he was secretary of the Australian Workers Union. If the majority of the Australian workforce were actually to believe the mantra of the Labor Party, one suspects we would not be in office on this side, but they take a balanced and sensible approach, recognising there is an independent arbiter for our wages in this country—namely, the Fair Work Commission—and it does its job. Sometimes workers get more than bosses want and sometimes workers get less than the workers want. That is the role of an umpire—to try to make a decision which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. We all know, if wages are set too high, it will cost jobs and therefore that important balance is required and that is something which the Fair Work Commission seeks to do to the very best of its ability and that is why we have so many people gainfully employed and being able to sustain themselves in work.

But the Australian Labor Party, in their submission before us, there is not a single alternative what Labor would do other than to oppose the bill that is currently before us. What does that bill seek to do? For the first time ever, it seeks to deal with the issue of—you guessed it—wages theft, to actually criminalise it.

In the years of Labor, under Messrs Hawke and Keating and then under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, did the Labor Party ever see it necessary to ensure that it could be criminalised in a manner that would dissuade bosses from doing so?

No. They didn't do anything. Who is it being left up to to get a fair and balanced workplace? Yet again, the coalition.

The Australian people have voted previously, and I can reassure them that this is a government committed to fair, balanced workplace relations that ensure that they have the dignity, the self-esteem and the mental and physical health benefits of employment. They're the things that we want to see. We on this side see employment as not only an economic good but an overwhelming social good as well. That is why you have to have that sensible balance, and we on this side are very comfortable in looking after both the worker and the employer. Without an employer, there'd be no employees. We need the balance, and that is what we as a government are providing.