Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this amendment to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023. Several of the measures in this lengthy fair work legislation are uncontroversial—indeed, they're to be applauded. But I made it clear to the minister some weeks ago, and repeatedly since, that the uncontroversial elements of the bill should not have been included in what I would describe as portmanteau legislation.

All governments do it and, okay, I'm relatively new here; but I think it's disrespectful to the parliament and that it gets in the way of considered discussion of major policy initiatives and changes. None of us is elected by our communities to waive through really comprehensive changes to legislation without thought and scrutiny. I thank senators Pocock, Lambie and Tyrrell for their efforts to have the uncontroversial and, indeed, I believe, urgent elements of the bill debated separately in this place. This is the crossbench acting in the interests of the entire parliament, and the government should take up the invitation and debate these urgent measures in the House immediately. Those are: the proposal to make it easier for AFP officers, paramedics and firefighters to claim for PTSD; measures to protect victims of domestic violence from being discriminated against in the workplace; and—the aspect in this bill—to protect redundancy payments for workers who have been working for a larger business that has only technically become defined as a small business due to insolvency. And there are also the measures to bring silica in line with asbestos under the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. These are all measures that I believe require and deserve implementation without delay.

In this, I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Jacqui Lambie: if these elements were separated from the bill they could be resolved immediately and without being subject to what would be a lengthy and complex debate, and a Senate inquiry, which would result in an undoubtedly markedly different bill by the time it passed into law. In this, I would again say to the government that chucking everything, including the kitchen sink, into one piece of legislation is not good practice. It's a political wedge approach and a deliberate habit of the major parties which means either voting for a bill that is in some way flawed or against a bill that has its positives. Neither is a great way to do business.

The government argues that passing these bills before a Senate inquiry reports in February is not good process. There's some irony in that, given that the crossbench raised this exact point with regard to being placed in a position where we would have to debate and vote on a flawed omnibus bill before the inquiry reported. I am in favour of this amendment.

See this speech in context