Wage Theft

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. I. Pnevmatikos:

1. That this council establish a select committee of the Legislative Council to inquire into and report on wage theft in South Australia, with particular reference to—

(a) the prevalence and incidence of wage theft in South Australia, with acknowledgement to evidence of wage theft from other parts of Australia;

(b) the impact of wage theft on workers, families, law-abiding citizens, the economy and community;

(c) the various forms that wage theft can take, including through unpaid superannuation and any other statutory entitlements, the misuse of ABNs and sham contracting arrangements;

(d) the reasons why wage theft is occurring, including whether the current regulatory framework and practices are effective for deterrence;

(e) the sectors in which wage theft is prevalent, including industries, occupations, parts of the state, or among cohorts of workers;

(f) the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework at state and federal level in dealing with wage theft and supporting affected workers, including whether conditions preventing prosecution of white collar fraud are fundamental towards supporting the legality of wage theft;

(g) measures to ensure support services are in place to ensure accessible and cost-effective justice to expedite claims;

(h) options for ensuring wage theft is eradicated, including consideration of regulatory and other measures either implemented or proposed in other jurisdictions interstate, nationally or internationally and the role of industrial organisations, including unions and employer registered bodies in addressing and preventing wage theft; and

(i) any other related matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to any such evidence being reported to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 17 October 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:20): I rise today to briefly put on the record my full support for the establishment of this select committee that will investigate issues to do with wage theft. When people go to work, they ought to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and return safely home to their loved ones. For too many workers, unfortunately, this is not the reality, whether it be systematic underpayment, underpayment of super, underpayment or completely unpaid penalty rates, or diluted or non-existent workplace entitlements such as sick or annual leave.

We have seen media reports of very high profile cases of big businesses like Dominoes, 7-Eleven or Caltex massively and deliberately not paying workers properly over sustained periods of time. That is not accidental, and it is not an administrative error: it is wage theft, and it is a business model that is being employed to increase profits for the bosses and shareholders at the expense hardworking people.

We do not just see it in retail: we see it right across the economy, in sectors such as hospitality, manufacturing, food processing and agriculture. We see it in cities, in regional centres and even in remote areas, where we see that workers are paid inappropriately and treated worse than the desert dogs that roam those areas. It is not okay and it must stop. The government has a role to play in protecting the rights of workers and ensuring employers adhere to the laws that prevent this kind of unscrupulous behaviour.

If the select committee finds the current laws are inadequate, the onus then is on all of us in this place and this parliament to ensure that change occurs. We have done that recently. A committee of this parliament found that the regime that regulates the labour hire industry was inadequate and the parliament enacted new laws. Inexplicably, the new Liberal government in South Australia has claimed they are not going to enforce the law of the state in the labour hire licensing scheme. It is a shameful way to treat some of the most marginalised workers in this state. I was proud to be part of the Labor team that, in the lead-up to the last election, committed to introducing a progressive suite of industrial relations legislation, including wage theft.

I pay particular tribute to the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos for ensuring further work is done in this area and that we look to fully investigate the prevalence and what regulatory frameworks may be put in place to hinder the efforts of dodgy employers. Our role in this place is to protect and give a voice to some of the most marginalised in the community who need it the most and I look forward to the progression of this committee and the good work that this committee will do, and enacting what comes from this committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:23): I rise on behalf the Greens to indicate that we will support this inquiry into wage theft in our state. Indeed, this is the land of a fair go. It is in our very national anthem, Advance Australia Fair: 'We've golden soil and wealth for toil'. Not the rum of the rum corps that, in fact, lead to our very first and, I think, only military coup back on 26 January 1808, we like to pay people in real money for their work in this country.

Chances are that people are being served every day by somebody who is not being paid what they are owed, be they wait staff, cleaners, hospitality workers, agricultural workers, tourism, manufacturing, printing, construction workers, or indeed public servants.

When an employee steals money, the police are called, but that does not happen when an employer steals money from a worker. Cases are costly to prosecute, and the Fair Work Ombudsman is a toothless tiger. There is little deterrent, and that is why we urgently need this select committee. The Fair Work Ombudsman was established in 2009, and its role was to provide education, assistance and advice about commonwealth workplace relations systems and to impartially enforce compliance with workplace laws. While the Fair Work Ombudsman can enforce compliance and 'send a strong message of deterrence through penalties such as fines', forcing employers to pay up when they are caught in the act is not actually that easy.

In the 2016-17 financial year, the Fair Work Ombudsman completed 26,917 requests for assistance and recovered more than $30.6 million. To put that in perspective, however, they took 55 of those requests to court, that is, 0.2 per cent of those injustices. Indeed, you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of getting justice through the system as we have it now.

Queensland's parliamentary inquiry into wage theft has unearthed harrowing stories about companies underpaying their workers, but the most concerning evidence to come out of the hearing is in fact how little power the government's Fair Work Ombudsman actually holds. In numerous letters and submissions to the inquiry, scorned and underpaid workers have revealed the conversations they have had with the Ombudsman.

Australians run two million businesses right around the country and, while most of them play by the rules, thousands of them do not. However, even prosecuting the thousands that are not paying their workers correctly is not legally or economically viable, and workers and the Fair Work Commission are being left at a stalemate on this issue. There are rules, but not everyone is playing by them. Of course, this is not a game; it is people's very livelihoods and we know that the rules are broken.

That Queensland parliamentary inquiry into wage theft has unearthed stories, including that of Tristan Courtney-Prior. He was one of six employees of Allans Billy Hyde, the music store. They were each owed tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages. Despite Mr Courtney-Prior possessing emails from the company's chief financial officer admitting that Mr Courtney-Prior was owed $17,926 in back pay, he still has not seen a cent. Of the Fair Work Ombudsman, he says:

At first I thought (Fair Work) was very communicative, I thought it was pretty simple because there was a lot of evidence and the company acknowledges that they owed me the money…

He had the evidence that they owed him the money, and it all seemed to be moving ahead, but in mid-2017 to where we are now the company still has not been made to pay back that money. One of Mr Courtney-Prior's workmates in fact took it to court over close to $20,000. The court ruled in his favour in about three minutes. Months later, after that ruling, he is still waiting for the money.

In another submission to the inquiry in Queensland, one woman addressed her frustration. She said her family was housing a formerly homeless teenager when he got a job at Hog's Breath, a restaurant chain that is quite popular across Australia. Eventually, the family and the 16-year-old boy realised that the restaurant owed him money and they contacted the Fair Work Commission and Ombudsman.

In May, somebody from the commission rang her. They informed her that the commission did not have the power to enforce employers to pay the rates and agreements that they had ratified and that there was nothing that they could do for this woman. As she did not think she had heard it correctly, she reiterated her question, and the Ombudsman stated again that they could not do anything because it was an agreement, not an award, and therefore they had no power to enforce that agreement the employer had entered into with the formerly homeless teen she had taken into her family home.

When she asked the Ombudsman what to do, he said, 'Take it up with parliament.' She took it to the Queensland parliament, where they have afforded her that opportunity to have her voice heard. I hope in South Australia we can give those very same exploited workers the same voice, as I am keenly aware from experience that proving that your employer has ripped you off is not actually enough to get justice.

However, the Greens will not be supporting the Marshall government's attempted amendment to this inquiry into wage theft. Indeed, the proposal from the Marshall Liberal government to replace the words wherever they appear in this motion of 'wage theft' with 'the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements' I think misses the point or perhaps exemplifies the point. These weasel words are just doublespeak, worthy of George Orwell. Indeed, more broadly, of course, weasel words may refer to any word that is used with the intention to mislead or misinform. While I do not think they are necessarily unparliamentary, I certainly draw the council's attention to that intention.

Many in this place would know of Weasel Words because of the author Don Watson, most well known for writing speeches for our former prime minister Paul Keating, and think this was perhaps a new tactic to shut down or divert debate. In fact, the term was coined as far back as 1900, and it was popularised by Theodore Roosevelt in a speech in 1916. I have always wondered why they were called weasel words because I quite like weasels. They are quite cute, and I think they got a bad rap in Wind in the Willows, but here is why weasel words are what they are. As Stewart Chaplin said back in June 1900 in The Century Magazine in a story entitled 'The stained-glass political platform':

Why, weasel words are words that suck all the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks an egg and leaves the shell. If you heft the egg afterward it's as light as a feather, and not very filling when you're hungry, but a basketful of them would make quite a show, and would bamboozle the unwary.

We are not bamboozled by these weasel words of the Marshall government today. We reject them, just as we reject other understatements to avoid the truth of economic inequality in our society, saying 'economic adjustment' for recession, 'downsizing' for slashing employment or 'economic deprivation' for being poor. These weasel words we will not accept. We will call theft where it is. We would not call a break and enter 'an unconventional entry into a premises designed to extract property'. We would not call a mugging 'unexpectedly relieving a person of their contents'. We will not today agree to resile from the words 'wage theft'. We will not accept the weasel words of the Marshall government.

I commend the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos for bringing this issue to this place. I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our disappointment that the labour hire provisions to protect those most marginalised and exploited workers in our community are not being honoured by the Marshall government. It was certainly not transparently put before the people of South Australia prior to the election that they would not honour those commitments.

I have very little doubt that this committee, when set up, will uncover the extent and nature of our state's experiences of wage theft. I hope that inquiry will raise not only awareness that workers are being ripped off, because we know they are, but what the committee must also do is ensure, where it does occur, that the remedies are enforceable and appropriate. This committee will give both the force of public debate and the exposure required to drive the reforms necessary.

It is time to ensure that 'wealth for toil' is not just a line in our national anthem. It is also just not cricket to have wage theft in South Australia in 2018. It is not an even playing field now, and it is time to enforce the rules; in fact, it is time to change the rules.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:33): I rise on behalf of the government to indicate very strongly the government's opposition to any employer in South Australia, or indeed the nation, who deliberately underpays his or her workers. I share the views that other colleagues have put that it is un-Australian, it is unfair and, more importantly, it is unlawful and, therefore, the full extent of the law should be brought down upon those employers.

As a regular listener to Triple J, it is one of the very few stations which publicises the regular decisions of the Fair Work Ombudsman. You very rarely hear it referred to, even on the ABC with great respect, or on commercial radio stations or outlets. It is not deemed to be newsworthy but Triple J has a market and an audience. In particular, the workers who are more regularly offended against through deliberate underpayment of wages happen to be young people. Most frequently, it is the hospitality industry, the retail industry, hairdressing, and a variety of other examples, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has continued to highlight.

Credit to Triple J and its listening audience, but credit to Triple J for continuing to highlight the injustice that is reaped upon their target audience, in particular young people. It is obviously not solely an injustice directed to young employees but it seems in many cases that is the major impact.

There has already been an inquiry in the Queensland Parliament, to which some members have referred. There has also been an inquiry in the federal parliament. I am not sure whether members have referred to that. I think the advantage of an inquiry in terms of the potential for other mainstream media perhaps to highlight what is an injustice, whenever evidence is given, in and of itself should be very useful in terms of highlighting the obligations of employers in South Australia to do the right thing by their workers.

I do not think there is anybody—certainly in this parliament, and I suspect most fair-minded people in the community—who would support the deliberate underpayment of lawful entitlements in terms of wages and conditions for employees. As I said, even though this select committee will be struggling for space in terms of battling amongst the many select committee and standing committee inquiries we have—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Part-timers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Part-timers; going home again. Thank goodness the Legislative Council is still working hard, Mr President.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Can we reflect on the performance of the other chamber, Mr President? Is that parliamentary?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Would you like me to move a substantive motion? Then I am entitled to an injurious reflection—Mr President, I will not be diverted by the bells ringing indicating the House of Assembly has gone home, just to get that on the Hansard record. Let me repeat again: I do not think anyone supports the deliberate underpayment of workers' wages and rightful, lawful entitlements.

For all those reasons, as I said, whilst this committee may well struggle amongst the many select and standing committees that we have to get its media place in the sun, perhaps the evidence that comes before the committee may well in and of itself be stark enough to provide or shine some light on the obligations of employers as should occur.

The reality is that as a result of the decision of the former Labor government, supported by this parliament, the South Australian government or parliament's right to impose laws in this jurisdiction were handed over to the commonwealth. The Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 South Australia commenced on 27 November 2009; and the Statutes Amendment (National Industrial Relations System) Act 2009 commenced on 1 January 2010. South Australia, under the former Labor government, referred all of these matters of industrial relations issues to the Commonwealth of Australia. As a result, all South Australian employers and employees in the private sector are covered by the national system under the Fair Work Act.

Now, the former Labor government had reasons to do that, and as I said, this parliament supported it, but the reality is that the capacity for the state, in terms of its industrial relations jurisdictions, to impact upon employer and employee relationships is significantly restricted, and in some cases has disappeared completely, as a result of that decision by the former Labor government.

These sorts of issues exist, as has been acknowledged in the Queensland evidence and in the federal parliament, and I think anyone in this chamber who has practised in the jurisdiction—and I suspect the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos probably has some experience, although I do not know that directly—will be aware of the reality of the situation.

So whilst the committee will be able to take evidence and highlight suggestions, the capacity for the state parliament is significantly restricted in terms of what it might be able to do, because certainly the major leverage rests with the federal jurisdiction as a result of the decision the former Labor government in South Australia took to hand over all of the industrial relations powers in relation to workers and employers to the federal jurisdiction.

I put that on the record just to highlight the fact that, whilst we all support action being taken against employers acting unlawfully, we all support the fact that this particular inquiry may well highlight, through publicity, injustices that may well place some pressure on, or at least also educate, some employers in relation to their lawful requirements in terms of what they should and should not do regarding their lawful payments to their employees.

I now formally move the amendment standing in my name, on behalf of the government:

Paragraph 1—Leave out 'wage theft' and insert 'the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements', first occurring.

Leave out paragraphs (a) to (h) and insert the following:

(a) The incidence of the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements in South Australia, with reference to evidence from other parts of Australia;

(b) The impact of the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements on workers, families, businesses, the economy and community;

(c) The various forms of deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements, including through unpaid superannuation and any other statutory entitlements, the misuse of ABNs and sham contracting arrangements;

(d) The reasons why the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements is occurring, including whether the current regulatory framework and practices are effective for deterrence;

(e) The sectors in which the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements is prevalent, including industries, occupations, parts of the state, or among cohorts of workers;

(f) The effectiveness of the current regulatory framework at state and federal level in dealing with the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements and supporting affected workers and law-abiding businesses;

(g) Measures to ensure support services are in place to ensure accessible and cost-effective justice to expedite claims;

(h) Options for ensuring the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements is prevented, including consideration of regulatory and other measures either implemented or proposed in other jurisdictions interstate, nationally or internationally and the role of industrial organisations, including unions and employer registered bodies, Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office in addressing and preventing the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements; and

In moving this amendment, I acknowledge that the numbers are not going to be there for the amendment. But I do move the amendment and support the amendment and highlight two reasons for that. One is that I do not accept the view that some have put in this particular debate that every example of underpayment of wages is a deliberate, malicious, vengeful—whatever other adjective you would like to use—decision taken by a mean-spirited employer.

Anyone who wants to take the time or trouble to talk to people who work in the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Ombudsman, who are not politically oriented one way or another, about the range of cases that come before them will know that there are many examples of people where it could be described as wage theft or deliberate underpayment of wages, but that there are some genuine examples, in particular of small business operators—not the big multinationals or national chains that have been referred to, but small business operators, who, because of the complexity of this national system in which they are working in terms of national employment standards—and I think there are over 155 modern awards at the moment—sometimes make genuine mistakes and, if you talk to people who work in the Fair Work Ombudsman jurisdiction, they will tell you that these operators are genuinely remorseful when it is highlighted to them that they have unfairly underpaid some of their employees.

So I just do not accept this argument that either they are weasel words or indeed that every example is an example of where an employer has made a deliberate decision to underpay their workers. There are some examples where a genuine mistake is made by, in particular a small business employer and, as I said, in some of these cases those employers are genuinely remorseful when it is highlighted to them as to how unfair they have been in terms of their situation and, in some cases, they rectify the situation—as they are lawfully required to; it is not as if it is a decision that they have an entitlement to make, but in some cases they rectify the situation as quickly as possible.

The other issue—and I am disappointed that the amendment will be defeated—is what we have highlighted when talking about the options. The Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos' motion talks about the role of industrial organisations, including unions and employer registered bodies, and we did think that our amendment, in adding in the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office, added something useful because these are two bodies that are independent and active in this particular space.

We think that it is not just unions and employer bodies that potentially have a role to play in terms of what the committee might recommend. We thought it was a sensible amendment to say that we believe there is a role for the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office. We are disappointed that that particular amendment, which is part of a package of amendments, is to be defeated as well.

I hope that perhaps in the drafting of the terms of reference, which are likely to be supported by the majority, and the issue of 'any other related matter' that the chair of the committee might interpret that flexibly and look at a potential role for the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office. I think they are two key bodies in relation to what is being referred to in the motion as wage theft or a deliberate underpayment of wages.

I think sole reliance on looking at options for employer organisations and employee organisations as a mechanism to help resolve this particular issue misses the point, that we do have important regulatory bodies such as the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office which, in our view, have an important role to play in this particular area as well.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:47): Thank you to all who have contributed to this debate and to those who have offered their support both inside and out of the chamber for this important motion. Additionally, I appreciate the time that many in the gallery have taken today to attend this important vote. The level of support and feedback that you all have provided is insightful and demonstrates that wage theft is a real problem within our society and economy, and is a matter of great concern.

The evidence we have on wage theft in South Australia is fragmented and piecemeal but a trend is evident. There have been some studies and inquiries undertaken and they reveal some startling facts. First, in November 2017, the Migrant Worker Justice Initiative released a report on wage theft based on a survey it conducted around temporary migrant work. The survey drew on 4,322 responses across 107 nationalities working in all states and territories who were residing in Australia on temporary visas.

The survey covered a range of different occupations, including hospitality and retail workers, child carers, cleaners, factory workers, fruit harvesters, construction workers and service station attendants. It found that 46 per cent of participants reported earnings of $15 or less; 4 per cent of those recipients were also required to pay back the money in cash to their employer after receiving their wages; 73 per cent of students knew that the minimum wage was higher than their earnings; respondents from non-English-speaking backgrounds were 40 per cent more likely to have earned less than $17 per hour, or less then their English-speaking counterparts; and that the occurrence of wage theft contributes towards a decline in wages for all workers across certain industries.

The report confirms what many advocates and policymakers have suspected, that the breadth, depth and complexity of noncompliance with Australian labour law has escalated in recent years. Their findings demonstrate the need for further initiatives to address the scale of noncompliance in Australia.

Whilst the study looked at a specific group of workers in an industry sector, the possible implications for other classes of workers and industry sectors should not be ignored. The Hon. Connie Bonaros referred to wage theft as 'few things more insidious in the workplace than an employer deliberately underpaying their hardworking, loyal employees'. She referred to it as stealing from the pockets of workers. The Hon. Connie Bonaros also referred to the Kronos report, as have others, and the fact that they have identified that 43 per cent of Australian workers have at some point been paid less than the minimum wage.

On Thursday 17 May 2018, the Queensland Legislative Assembly referred to committee an inquiry into the problem of wage theft in Queensland. Their report is due on 16 November. However, the inquiry has already brought to light various concerns, not least of which is the lack of power possessed by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Of concern, as referred to by the Hon. Tammy Franks, the inquiry identified that in 2016-17 the Fair Work Ombudsman had 26,917 requests for assistance, with only 55 pursued through the court process. That equates to 0.2 per cent. As the Hon. Tammy Franks said, there is more chance of being struck by lightning than pursuing an underpayment of wages claim.

The main findings drawn from the submissions provided to the inquiry are that wage theft is a fundamental component of exploitative employer practices and misconduct, the rampant exploitation of cohorts of vulnerable workers and the emergence of an almost dystopian sector of the economy. In addition to addressing the issue of justice for workers, there is strong support for levelling the playing field for employers such that those employers who are doing the right thing by their workers are not put at a commercial disadvantage by employers who are not playing by the rules. Importantly, what will be determined from this inquiry is the cohorts for whom wage theft are most prevalent and severe, as evidence has already indicated that this issue is not easily confined to one area.

South Australian Labor recognises the growing evidence that many South Australian workers are being exploited, including workers who are already vulnerable: young people, migrant workers and those in insecure work. It was why we committed to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to create a new offence for wage theft, aiming to enact law which would dissuade employers who were thinking about breaking the rules.

Similarly, there is also a movement in Victoria, with the Labor Party committing to criminalise wage theft with the introduction of gaol terms and increased fines and penalties of up to $950,000. The Victorians also plan to institute legal processes for workers seeking to recover wages, which includes lower court fees and expedited processes. Evidence suggests that workers are being robbed and short-changed. This is not particularly defined by any group or industry sector. The exact numbers on the prevalence of wage theft in South Australia has not been quantified as yet with any precision.

It is estimated that there are 2.4 million workers nationwide who are currently being underpaid in terms of their superannuation entitlements, with approximately $3.6 billion stolen each year from the pockets of workers and wage earners. That equates to one in three workers. Much information is anecdotal, but all research indicates that its impact is widespread across a range of industries, and it can happen to anyone at any age by employers big and small. You could be a hairdresser, an administrative assistant, a labourer, a retail worker, a farmhand, a carer, a hospitality industry worker, a tradesperson and it would not matter; it could still happen to you.

Many workers in the food industry working for a number of well-known TV chefs have recently been identified in the media as the latest victims of wage theft. I am hearing more each day about how unscrupulous employers will take the odds against civil penalties in the belief that there is little chance of being caught, and less so in terms of any punishment or penalties.

By having a system that does not discipline employers who commit wage theft, it is undermining law-abiding competitors, driving down wages for all workers in certain industries and generally diminishes respect for and faith in the rule of law. What is disheartening, and what I have seen through my own experiences, is that those who know they are being short-changed feel that they are simply powerless to do anything about it.

The current system has the effect of being slow, inefficient and costly. It is acting as a deterrent for those who would seek redress and justice. It is imperative that, as a government, we pinpoint the prevalence to implement strategies to effectively rectify this issue in our state to ensure justice for workers, protection for employers who are doing the right thing from being put at a commercial disadvantage and stopping any contributing factors leading to a decline in wages for all workers.

By creating a committee to investigate the prevalence of wage theft in South Australia, we are taking the first step to ensure we have effective regulatory frameworks to ensure justice for workers and law-abiding businesses, so that both are supported and protected. Workers in South Australia have a right to accessible and cost-effective justice and, as a government, we should be proactive to constructively end the disadvantage and the continuation of unscrupulous practices. With these words, I commend this motion to the council.

I want to briefly respond and reply to the amendments put by the Treasurer, which primarily are to replace the title of 'wage theft' with 'the deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements'. That amendment seeks to trivialise the matter, and we should not be trivialising the matter. The evidence we currently have is piecemeal, but it is undeniably reflecting that the practice arises more often than not through deliberate intent.

Many in the chamber have flagged their concerns with the inconsistent approach to stealing in the workplace. On the one hand, if a worker is caught stealing at work, that person will most likely face the full extent of the law, as well as lose their job. If an employer, however, deliberately steals from their worker through the underpayment of wages or refusal to pay statutory entitlements, they only receive a monetary fine at best.

By implementing the proposed amendments, the committee will simply be a reflection of the current state of play, which ignores the reality that criminal behaviour is not only occurring but is not being prosecuted. There is a saying: if you do the crime, you do the time. Right now is the time to determine how to appropriately handle theft in the workplace, and we should not be afraid to call it as it is: wage theft.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The PRESIDENT: No clapping in the gallery.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:59): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Emily Bourke, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 5 December 2018.

Motion carried.