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

Under standing order 143, I move:

That the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for consideration and an advisory report by 1 February 2024.

For the benefit of members, I want to explain the motion that I'm moving. I'm moving this motion, as I've said, in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or a committee after the first reading but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. Clause (b) of this standing order allows for the motion to be moved without notice and allows for a bill to be referred to a committee for an advisory report. The objective of this motion is to seek the agreement of the House to refer the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training for consideration and an advisory report.

In the intervening time between yesterday, when I last moved a motion concerning this bill, and now, there's been a crucial development. This bill has finally been made public, and, on this side of the House and indeed in businesses all around Australia, it's now possible to begin considering, line by line, the contents of this bill. To the surprise of nobody who has observed the career of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is now sitting at the table, over many years, his smooth assurances over a number of months are entirely unsubstantiated by the grim and troubling detail which lards this bill from page to page—all 278 pages of it. For those who find the bill itself not sufficient to occupy them, the explanatory memorandum is 521 pages long. This might possibly be amusing if it were not for the grim reality that businesses all across Australia, including small businesses, which don't have a human resources department, which don't have industrial relations professionals, will now all be required to get across this extraordinarily complex detail.

The text of this bill was made public only yesterday and unless you're one of the very few people who had the opportunity to see or be briefed on parts of it before its introduction—and if that were the case then you were subject to a nondisclosure agreement—you did not have the chance to see any of this before the minister introduced it in the parliament yesterday. This is, on any view, an extremely detailed and extremely complex piece of legislation. It is not the very modest bill which the minister gave a series of smooth but we now know to be entirely meaningless assurances about in a range of venues around Australia. On the contrary, it is very clear that this bill will have far-reaching consequences for Australian workers and the Australian economy; for gig workers; for labour hire companies; for tradies; for those working in the digital economy; for independent contractors, amongst others; for Australians who want to be their own boss and appreciate the opportunity to be their own boss, to determine how they provide their services and to whom they provide them; for Australians who appreciate the flexibility of advertising their goods or their services over a digital platform and have flocked in large numbers, over the last decade or more, to do just that. This bill signals the intent of this government to block Australians exercising those choices.

The process which this minister and this government have adopted in bringing this bill forward has been nothing less than a legislative smash-and-grab raid. The details of this legislation were kept quiet. They were concealed from the Australian people until yesterday. The minister now wants to force this through the parliament without giving members the opportunity to properly consider and understand the complexities of it. When the minister spoke yesterday—and I'm sure he'll say the same thing again today—he said: 'There are several weeks in which you can give your speeches.' Let's be clear: the detail and complexity of this bill, which it has taken the government many months to formulate, requires a similar amount of time for parliamentarians to responsibly do their job on this side of the House, and I include the crossbenchers within that. It requires appropriate time to consider the details and to understand the full complexities of what's proposed. There are well-established forms, processes and mechanisms in this House to do that, and one of those is to have a committee which can inquire into the matters which are of great concern to this side of the House.

The minister may say—in fact, I predict the minister will say—that this is just typical Liberal rhetoric. Well, let's find out whether that's true or not. We certainly don't believe it is. We believe that the concerns of businesses around the country are very well founded, and we think their level of concern is only going to go up when they study the detail. But, if we as parliamentarians are properly to do our job in assessing the impact of this complicated, economy-wide piece of legislation, then we need to be informed by the views and feedback of those who will be affected by it on a day-to-day basis, in running small businesses, in running businesses of all kinds, in serving customers, in providing their services as independent contractors or as owner-operators of trucks. We've now discovered that this bill sees the government seek to return to what was a disastrous piece of policy when perpetrated under the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the so-called road transport safety tribunal, which created enormous misery amongst owner-drivers and, again, reflected the basic philosophy of this government—that they do not want to allow Australians to exercise their own choices about how they engage in the workforce, engage in the economy and provide goods and services.

If there's one thing we could all agree on—there is very much that we don't agree on—it is that the issues here are complex. They are complicated. They involve detail. They involve understanding of practices within businesses, within the economy, in the way that people choose to take to market the goods and services that they want to offer. If our parliament is to do its job effectively, then it is appropriate that there be time taken to consult with those affected and to consider in a systematic way the merits or otherwise of what is proposed. That is precisely why we have a system of committees in this place. That is precisely why the standing order under which I am moving this motion provides for a bill to be referred to a committee: so that these matters can be scrutinised, so that witnesses can be called, so that questions can be asked and so that a proposition being put by one side of the House—which is to say, 'There's nothing worry about here; these are only modest changes'—can be tested. Certainly we approach that proposition with enormous scepticism, but there are forms and processes of this House which are established for very good reason, to allow issues of this kind, contested issues, issues of fact, to be tested and to allow parliamentarians from all sides—those forming a committee—to hear from those who are involved and have a stake. Of course, that would include unions and workers of all kinds, as it should. It would include businesses of all kinds. It would include independent contractors, owner-drivers of trucks, operators of digital platforms and consumers of goods and services provided conveniently and efficiently over digital platforms. That would allow questions to be asked about whether there is any defensible distinction—as the minister has sought to claim—under the criteria contained in the draft legislation, between the treatment of Airtasker, on the one hand, and Mable, on the other hand.

These are complicated issues. We ought to have an appropriate process so that parliamentarians—those in this place who have to vote on this legislation—can hear from subject matter experts, from people who are involved in operating and providing services over digital platforms, from those working in the labour-hire field and from those in industries which are of enormous importance to Australia's prosperity, such as agriculture, resources, finance and so many other sectors, like the health sector, which is so critical. Parliamentarians in this place should have the opportunity to hear from people operating in those sectors about how they understand this bill to affect their operations. None of that has been possible, because of the very undesirable way in which this minister, and this government, has chosen to take forward deliberations and the development of this bill.

When speaking at the National Press Club earlier this year, the Leader of the House said:

The consultative approach that we have applied to the Parliament itself and to the way we have governed is of itself not just a difference in the way Government functions.

So the Leader of the House, the minister at the table, has been very happy to congratulate himself and to congratulate this government on what he is pleased to describe as a 'consultative approach'. I can say to the minister that it is very clear that there are many businesses and many people around Australia who certainly do not feel they've been adequately consulted. There are many people who are wondering how you could describe as 'adequate consultation' that which is conducted with the extensive use of non-disclosure agreements. There are many people who would be saying, 'What exactly are you trying to hide when you say, "We're only going to tell you about this legislation that we're proposing to introduce if you sign a non-disclosure agreement so you can't talk to anybody else about it"?' Amongst the people who would rightly be asking that question are all the people who sit in this House, who are required to deliberate on this matter and to cast a vote.

Because the processes which have been adopted by this government to date are highly undesirable, what we are seeking to do on this side of the House, in good faith and with a commitment to the proper operating of this parliament, is to put forward a motion which would establish a committee, through a process which is contemplated under the standing orders, so that this parliament can do its job properly and parliamentarians can do their jobs properly.

We may hear statements from the minister about urgency and how quickly this all needs to be dealt with. Let's be clear: on this side of the House, where appropriate, we have absolutely been ready to deal with matters that are genuinely urgent. We did so just in the last sitting week with the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. But we will not stand for this government treating the parliament, as it routinely does, with disregard for its rules, its norms and its conventions, including the convention as to the process which is normally followed when a piece of legislation is introduced and time is allowed for parliamentarians to understand what is contained in it before they exercise their vote in relation to it.

We are consistently seeing this government showing disregard for the rights of members and showing disregard for parliamentary accountability, transparency and scrutiny. We saw exactly that disregard in the comments made by the Leader of the House yesterday in relation to the motion that was moved by the opposition. According to the Leader of the House, it was somehow outrageous that the opposition would ask that debate on this bill be postponed until such time as members had had a chance to properly consider its terms. Of course, he didn't hesitate to go to the threat of guillotining debate. He sought to argue to this House that the effect of what the opposition was proposing was that he would have no choice but to take advantage of the hand crafted gag powers that he enthusiastically gave himself last year.

The fact is that there are options open to this House to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the bill which is before the parliament. Australians would reasonably suspect that the legislative smash-and-grab tactics that are being used here are being used for one reason solely, which is to conceal and to try and minimise proper scrutiny. What we are seeking to do is put forward a motion which would allow for appropriate scrutiny. This committee would be free to convene public hearings, it would be free to invite submissions, and it would then provide this House with an advisory report, which would assist in informing members as to the merits or otherwise of this bill. It would enhance the consideration by this House of the bill, rather than undermine it, and of course such work would be entirely separate to the work of a Senate committee, should one be established. I do therefore wish to commend to the House the merits of the motion that I am putting. This is about allowing members to be properly informed. The time frame that's being proposed would allow the House to come to substantive debate and to a vote relatively speedily. We accept the government's proposition that it has a legislative agenda it needs to deal with. But what the government needs to respect is the importance of members of this House having the opportunity to deliberate in an informed fashion. That would be assisted by the motion that I'm moving.

See this speech in context