Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to second the motion to suspend standing orders. The minister at times raises very valid points about process, conventions and standing orders in relation to what's happened today. Some of the things that he raised, I'm sure, are very relevant. I'm sure he will also say, as he did when we moved the previous suspension of standing orders, that the workers want all of the elements of the bill passed. In relation to the PTSD provisions, he said that the workers not only want that but also want all elements of the larger omnibus bill, the closing loopholes bill, to be passed. He may well be correct with some first responders; he may not be correct with other first responders, but I take the point.

The minister may also raise the point: 'It's all well and good that you think it was important, but you didn't do it.' You could say that about any new government in relation to any bill that they bring forward. To compliment the minister on his point that we didn't do it—good point—but we support the minister in what he's trying to do in certain elements of this bill. On this element of the bill—strengthening protections against discrimination—we support him. He may well say that the people who are supportive of that part of the bill want the whole of the bill supported. What is blatantly clear, and I think the minister has almost said this publicly, is that the whole of this bill is going to be a multi-month process that is going to take us well into next year. The Senate have already reflected that with the way they've broadcast how they're going to treat this bill when it gets there. What we have had is good news. What we've had in the last week or so is good news from the Senate, saying that they are going to support four elements of the bill without amendment. They're happy with how the minister has constructed and drafted it.

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023 is one of those. I'll reiterate what that part of the bill is. It adds the experience of family and domestic violence to the protected attributes for discrimination of employment. We agree with that. I know we didn't do it, but we agree with it. Well done to the minister for bringing it forward into his larger omnibus bill. We agree with this, as the Senate has reflected.

What I would say to the minister on process, practices and standing orders is that he may well be correct on some of those, but not on others. I acknowledge his points about the processes of the parliament. I acknowledge that no other previous government, including previous Labor governments, has done this. He has brought through four areas, including this one about discrimination. We acknowledge that and we support that. I would say, as I have about the other bills that we've looked at today, that the people in the community who may be affected by such discrimination in their workplace would be, I think, willing the government—those people may want the whole of the bill to go through; they may not—to put this through today. What that means, like the other four aspects, is that if this legislation went through today, people who need this protection within their workplace won't have to wait for many months. They won't have to wait until we see how the larger omnibus bill goes through the Senate, and other things, next year, which will be protracted and take a long time.

I ask the minister to look at this as a goodwill gesture. It might not look like it as far as parliamentary process goes, but I ask him to look at it as a goodwill gesture, because this means that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023 could go through this House today and bring in these protections for the relevant workers.

See this speech in context