Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House to echo some of the messages that we've just heard from the Manager of Opposition Business and his seconder. The reality of this industrial relations reform is that it is a huge piece of legislation. There are many elements in employment law which will be affected by the passage of this legislation. That was recognised by the referral of this legislation to a Senate committee for it to be reviewed. That Senate committee is not due to report on that until February.

In considering what was offered within this bill, colleagues of the crossbench worked in the Senate to send back to this House four pieces in this legislation where there is absolutely no controversy—where we could all stand to support it. Even today, we've seen a joint letter come out from employment groups, including the Business Council of Australia; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Australian Energy Producers; Australian Industry Group; Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association; Australian Retailers Association; Council of Small Business Organisations; Master Builders; Minerals Council; national farmers; Recruitment, Consulting & Staffing Association; and the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association. All of those employers have come out lamenting the fact that we did not move to pass those four bills through the House yesterday, when we had the opportunity to move to support first responders, to enhance protections from discrimination for workers experiencing domestic violence, to protect the small business redundancy exemptions in insolvencies and to extend the role of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to cover silica and silicosis.

Those issues are noncontentious, but there is much in the rest of the bill that still remains contentious. To not enable this House to fully debate any possible amendments, when it comes to consideration in detail; to seek to move them in bulk, en masse; to push it from this House back to the Senate before this calendar year ends, is merely a process of expediency. The reality is that, without the Senate reporting until February next year, we have time, as a parliament, to properly look at this legislation and make sure we prosecute it to its fullest.

I stand today to say that North Sydney doesn't, as a general matter, support motions that seek to stymie debate in this House, and again today I stand to say: we'll do the extra hours this week, but it is disappointing that the consideration-in-detail component of this debate looks to be cognated and to be rushed through. I think Australians expect us to do better than that, particularly with a piece of legislation that has such wideranging potential impact.

See this speech in context