Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I had wanted to speak during the debate this morning, but, of course, as I had been the mover of the motion I had to wait for there to be no-one else to rise because, otherwise, giving the right of reply would have closed off debate.

The reason the first resolution today will never get voted on is the hijinks of the opposition. They thought there'd be a clever game to filibuster, they thought they'd dare me into moving that the question be put and, all the while, they were simply behaving in a way that prevented their own amendment from being put. Then we had a complaint from the Manager of Opposition Business that somehow it was unreasonable that, having spent the whole morning complaining about the resolution the government had moved, when the next message came the government didn't stand up and move a resolution. It turned out that without the government moving a resolution the opposition chose not to either. So the second bill has no response from the House.

I don't expect every member of the House to be ruthlessly following procedure, but I would have thought the Manager of Opposition Business would have a cursory glance at what's happening with procedure, particularly when there are bills that are not government bills that are coming through as messages. Now we're on the third of those. What is in front of us is not what was just put by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business just claimed something that is not accurate. He claimed that the 'closing loopholes' bill has gone to the Senate and that they have considered it, made amendments and sent back different parts of it. That identical claim was made in similar terms in the debate this morning. It's similar to some of the coverage where people have said that, somehow, the bill I introduced has been split in the Senate. The bill is still here. The bill is listed for debate and listed for debate today.

The question that is before us now with this suspension is: today, do we debate which of two options? Do we debate a bill that only deals with the impact of what I introduced on the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, or do we deal with a bill that deals with every single clause of that and also deals with every other loophole that has been introduced to this House? That's the choice. Either way, we end up today debating the impact of including silica as one of the things the asbestos agency has to deal with. Either way, the House will debate that today. But the question is: do we only deal with that, or do we deal with that plus the other measures that are loopholes the government has said it wants to close?

You might ask the question: if those opposite are so passionate about this one, why is it that, for nine years, nothing was done on it? If they are so passionate about the impact of silica dust, why was it that, when I turned up to my Safe Work Australia meeting as minister and there were all the states, there had been no attempt to do the work we then commissioned on the deadly impact of kitchen benchtops? Why was it that none of that work had been done? For each of the four measures the Senate has been sending messages on, how many of those four did any member of the opposition in government or in opposition call on me to introduce? The answer is: not one. Not one of them! So don't come in here suddenly saying that you think you're going to position the government and we'll feel bad and we'll look like we're on the back foot. We want to debate all those measures, and we intend to do it today. That's why we're opposing the suspension.

If we think, 'Is this a tactic to delay or not from them?'—think about this: the first thing they did when I introduced the 'closing loopholes' bill was to attempt to delay it for six weeks. The very next day, they changed their position and, instead of delaying it till October to commence debate, they wanted to delay it until February. Then the Senate, immediately after they passed these individual bills, voted to change the requirements for the Senate committee that was looking into the provisions that are in these bills—provisions that stakeholders have made submissions on and that the committee is very likely to recommend amendments to. What did those opposite or their counterparts in the other place do? They immediately moved to change the reporting requirements for the Senate committee from it having to report by 1 February next year to 'it must not report before'. So they deliberately have created a situation where the consultation has been commenced on this bill that you want to debate now. You say, 'Oh, let's just put it straight through.' Stakeholders have put forward submissions, wanting amendments to it. There's a Senate committee still considering it. That Senate committee was likely to have been in a position to report next week, but the Liberal and National parties voted in the Senate to say that, even if it is ready—even if it has considered those submissions and is ready to make a recommendation—they won't allow it to. That's how the Liberal and National parties voted.

For each of the provisions—on PTSD, on silica, which is what we have here, and on the small business redundancy issue that we dealt with earlier—there are submissions that people have made in good faith. Who are these people? They're very often people who have lived experience and whose lives have been in some way destroyed or changed from what they otherwise might have been because of exactly these issues. They've made submissions asking for amendments. Those opposite will pretend to be the friends of the issue. Having asked for submissions, they have then said, 'But you're not allowed to report until 1 February, but let's just put it through in its first form anyway.'

It is always the case, particularly in this portfolio, that government legislation introduced here ends up being amended as a result of a Senate inquiry. You don't get to introduce industrial relations or workplace relations legislation without a Senate inquiry, and you always end up with amendments as a result. But never before have I seen a situation where the opposition and crossbench in the Senate, who traditionally are the champions of due process, have decided to start that due process and then not allow it to be concluded before the legislation gets locked in.

So why would this have unfolded? I have a lot of respect for Senator David Pocock, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Lambie, but Senator Lambie, on Radio National, made it clear. Why were these the four issues? Because those were the ones on which they could get the agreement of the other side. So that's what we've got here. It is not that these issues are the only ones that make a difference to people's lives. I'll tell you what: spend five minutes with people who've lost a loved one at work and ask them whether we should have industrial manslaughter laws. Somehow there's been a decision that they're not urgent. Ask a casual working permanent shifts who could easily be transferred into secure employment because they have a firm advance commitment, but whose employer refuses to do that, whether they'd like to be able to do that. Ask them whether, without secure employment, they have any chance of being able to get a loan from the bank. What does that mean for their lives? But those opposite have decided: 'Oh, that's not urgent. Push that off.'

Similarly, ask someone on a mine site. Those opposite will talk a lot about coal, but they won't talk a lot about the workers. Ask someone on a mine site who is being paid less than the person beside them, even though they've both worked there for the same length of time, simply because of the accident that one is employed by a labour hire company and the other isn't. They have the same qualifications and are doing the same job. One of those people is being underpaid. Tell them that, with everything that's going on with cost of living, we shouldn't be dealing with their underpayment. I'm sure everybody here, including me, has gig workers delivering food to their home sometimes on a weekend. It is not that those gig workers have unreasonable minimum rates; they have no minimum rates. I'm not willing to tell them that their concerns are second rate.

I want us to bring on the bill, which is listed for today, that deals with all the loopholes, including the one that those opposite say is urgent today. We will have lost a big chunk of today's debate time on this, but we will get a chance to debate every one of these provisions. We'll end up doing some late nights to make sure we do, but we owe it to the people whose lives are affected to ensure that a whole bill goes through. (Time expired)

See this speech in context