Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be considered at the next sitting.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga was warned in question time!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

The amendments be considered immediately.

In moving that, I want to explain to the House exactly what is before us and why this amendment, procedurally, is particularly important.

The House will make a decision today that will determine the penalty rates of about 700,000 Australians. The Senate has already carried amendments and what we are deciding now is whether or not this issue will be dealt with.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave her alone!

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

The member for Grayndler has been warned in question time as well!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment, we are in a situation that we have not been in at any other point this term. At the moment we are in the situation where we have a hung parliament. And when there is a hung parliament, the presumption should always err on the side of at least making sure we have the debate. The presumption in a hung parliament should always be—should always be!—that we err on the side of allowing people to have their say and to have their vote.

It's some years since we've had a hung parliament in this place. The last time we did, there were many occasions when we were in government when we brought forward motions that we did not agree with. We brought forward a motion moved by the member for Melbourne, for example—the Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012. We supported the procedurals for it and then we voted against the bill. But we did so on the basis that when we have a hung parliament the only way to make it work is that we err on the side of at least allowing the debate to go ahead, even if we're then going to oppose the motion itself.

In the same way, in government we brought on for debate a bill called the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill. It's a fair bet that when the member for Warringah moved the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill, when we were in government, we didn't think that bill was worth supporting. But we did believe that there was a strong enough view within the parliament that it was worth debating. That's what I'm asking for at this point of each member of the House.

I am not asking for anyone to declare their position on penalty rates at the next vote. What I am asking the House to do in the next vote is to determine, given the level of angst that is there in the community—and also, with respect to fellow members of parliament, given the level of angst that is here in this parliament—that we should not be saying in the context of a hung parliament, 'We won't even allow the debate to happen.' That's the question now.

If it is not a hung parliament, very regularly governments will push through and they'll just decide, 'Well, we're not going to allow this debate to happen or that debate to happen.' They'll move that the member be no longer heard, they'll shut things down and gag debates. The members of the crossbench have consistently—and they're actually the only ones of any side who have been consistent on this—voted in favour of debate and against debate being gagged. Be in no doubt that the motion from the Leader of the House is about gagging the penalty rates debate. That's what it's about. And that's the question that I am seeking to amend with this amendment. We should be dealing with this today. And today we should also be making clear—

A government member interjecting—

I will respond briefly to the interjection—'What about marriage equality?' Firstly, I have already offered additional hours. Secondly, this issue was meant to be dealt with last week. There was an entire week that disappeared. So, please, members opposite, don't pretend and use marriage equality as though that's an alternative to having a debate on penalty rates. I can guarantee to the House that, if this is voted for, we will deal with the penalty rates issue quickly and we will get back onto the marriage equality debate, which everybody wants to get back onto. But I simply ask every member of the House to observe the fact that, right now, we have the opportunity for cooperation. In a hung parliament, that is rare. We should take that opportunity. I ask members of the crossbench, each and every one of them, to vote, as we just did on an issue about asylum seekers, to say, 'When the parliament is a hung parliament, we will, at the very least, unite to make sure issues are debated.' Once we've been through the procedural issues the vote will fall where it will fall based on the individual views of members of parliament. But a hung parliament cannot function unless we work on the basis that the presumption will be that debate will take place. I move this amendment for one reason and one reason only: for debate to take place that otherwise this government will gag and not allow.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment. We do not need a long debate but we should have a debate on penalty rates. The other place has debated and resolved the position insofar as this issue is concerned. What they have determined, by way of moving an amendment to the government bill, is that they want to see the penalty rates decision stopped so that the cuts that would take place in future for 700,000 retail and hospitality workers would actually be stopped as a result. Why would that not be a worthy debate for this place now? Why would we not debate an issue given that we have wage growth at the lowest level in a generation? We have people struggling to make ends meet in this country. We have three Sundays before Christmas, and these workers will be getting cuts compared to what they would have got from 1 July this year.

For that reason, it is reasonable for members of this place to do what the Senate did today. The Senate determined this morning that the penalty rates decision should be ceased. I think it's incumbent upon members here who represent retail workers and hospitality workers in their electorates to have this debate. The Manager of Opposition Business has made very clear that this does not have to be a long debate. Nonetheless, we should have a debate because this is an important issue. We say to government members and the crossbench: allow this debate to occur. Voting for this amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business will mean we can have that debate. We can have a quick debate and then we can decide on the merits of the substantive motion that's before the House. For that reason, I second this amendment and I call upon members of this place to support us.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Question agreed to.