Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

As an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I move:

That all words after paragraph (1) be omitted and the following be inserted:

(2) the question on the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 not be put until such time as every other Member willing to speak on the question has spoken for up to 15 minutes as provided for under standing order 1.

The amendment that I am moving on behalf of the opposition is designed to allow all members of the House to participate in a full and proper debate on the government's industrial relations bill. The motion that the Leader of the House has moved is a cynical exercise in seeking to ram through a detailed and complex piece of legislation and very largely avoid all of the normal procedures and processes in this place.

Now, I say to the House: be very wary when the Leader of the House comes in here and uses his most reasonable tone. That should put you on notice. That should put you on inquiry that he's up to something. He is up to something. Let me be clear here: the opposition is implacably opposed to the trashing of normal parliamentary processes, which the Leader of the House is proposing, and we are doubly opposed to the use of this motion to ram through the House of Representatives this radical industrial relations bill. Let's be clear: this bill represents the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. It has also been handled very badly. We've seen the minister proposing amendments on a near daily basis. Just last night he put out a statement flagging even more amendments. The process has been shambolic. Just yesterday we saw the government refuse to support a sensible proposal from the opposition, supported by a large number of the crossbench, to establish a joint select committee to investigate this bill. I do express the opposition's thanks to those crossbench members who supported that motion.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the government's cynical attempts to ram this bill through the House of Representatives is that it simply does not want to allow for the proper processes of scrutiny and debate, or for those who will be affected by this bill—employers and employees, and of course expert stakeholders—to have the opportunity to express their concerns.

Equally troubling is the limiting of the opportunity for members of the House to make their views known, to inform the debate and to help all Australians understand the full implications of what the government is proposing. Many Australians will rightly be suspicious of the government's proposals, and the more they learn, the more suspicious they will be. And their suspicion should only be increased by the fact that the government is transparently seeking to avoid proper scrutiny by using its numbers to force this bill through the House of Representatives.

Why is this amendment required? It's required because there ought to be proper scrutiny and examination of a bill which is exceptionally complex—249 pages—and let's not forget it was only introduced in the last sitting week. What we've seen from the government to date is precisely the opposite approach to that which is required in relation to a lengthy and detailed bill of this nature. It's clear already that concerns are being raised very widely across the Australian community about what this bill will mean, the risk that it presents, the very real risk of increased strikes, increased industrial action and the impact on small businesses being exposed to thuggish union behaviour, and greatly expanded opportunities for the union movement to come and make small businesses an offer they can't refuse.

It's clear that there are very real concerns, and well-informed concerns, amongst the business community. Small, medium and large businesses alike are aligned in their opposition, their very grave and expressed concern about what is contained in this bill. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group have cautioned against rushing this bill through. They have specifically cautioned against what the Leader of the House is seeking to do in the motion that he has moved this afternoon.

What they had to say was this:

… it is clear that the government should slow down and consult more widely and more meaningfully. They must be open to the amendments necessary to prevent harmful unintended consequences.

Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group added 'the process cannot be rushed' and he urged government to 'take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes'. The Minerals Council chief executive, Tania Constable, said the government was seeking to 'ram this far-reaching reform through with no real opportunity for scrutiny'. These are the bodies representing a very substantial proportion of the elements of Australia's economy which generate the prosperity on which we all rely, the prosperity that funds schools and roads and hospitals and all the incidences of a civilised society. This government is seeking to ram through a piece of radical industrial relations reform completely in the face of the consistent and clear advice of a whole range of peak bodies and representative bodies across the economy.

But it's not just business groups. We've seen similar sentiments expressed in the other place. Senator David Pocock has said that the government's bill is too rushed to be scrutinised. These are sentiments echoed by Senator Lambie, who said the government was trying to 'hide or rush stuff through'. Australians deserve to have their concerns fully heard and fully ventilated, particularly in the face of a piece of legislation put forward by the government that will mean more strikes, more unions coming into small businesses where they have not been before. It is a recipe for chaos in our economy. This bill abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, meaning that the militant CFMMEU will once again be able to ride roughshod over building sites across the country. It means a return to the pattern bargaining that bedevilled Australia's economy in the strike-ridden 1970s. It is completely unacceptable that a bill of this nature would be rammed through the House in the way that the motion moved by the Leader of the House proposes. The government are clearly dancing to the tune of the union movement, whose donations helped them get elected, and are seeking to get this through as quickly as possible.

The effect of the amendment that the opposition has moved is that if it were passed it would mean that the normal speaking times of 15 minutes and, crucially, the normal consideration in detail process in the House of Representatives, would be maintained. Let's be clear: consideration in detail is the opportunity to move amendments to the bill and to change the legislation. It is the natural, ordinary, important, basic work of this chamber of the parliament. The executive government are seeking to turn this House into a rubber stamp rather than allowing it to operate the way it was designed to operate in the Constitution. They're doing that in cynical furtherance of the agenda of their political paymasters.

All this is in sharp contrast to what was promised to the Australian people before the election. We heard repeatedly from the now Prime Minister that apparently he had changed his spots. He was suggesting a new, kinder, gentler politics with more integrity. He said he wanted to 'change the way we do politics in Australia'. In a former life, the now Leader of the House railed against what he described as 'trashing of parliamentary norms'. He's now a very enthusiastic trasher. The very same minister who when in opposition railed repeatedly against the supposed trashing of parliamentary norms has repeatedly used the government's numbers to force changes to the standing orders to ram legislation through this House. That is what is being proposed here on a matter of extraordinary importance to the Australian economy, a matter of great significance to all Australians, and a matter which deserves proper scrutiny not least because of the complexity, length and detail of the legislation. It's 249 pages introduced only in the last week of sitting.

What we need is a proper process in which all of those elected to this place can have the opportunity to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is what the amendment that the opposition is moving will do. It seeks to undo the damage of the motion that the Leader of the House has moved. I commend the opposition's amendment to the House.

See this speech in context