Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll take the caution from the Leader of the House. The pattern of behaviour by the Leader of the House in trampling on the proper procedures and processes of this place has now extended to the conduct of the fair work amendments consideration-in-detail stage. Last week the Leader of the House moved a motion for the suspension of standing orders crunching down time for debate such that the opposition would have only 20 minutes to debate detailed government amendments. This is a Leader of the House who, I recall, would come in here when he was Manager of Opposition Business and complain bitterly about the former government guillotining debate. This is a Leader of the House who, when he was Manager of Opposition Business, constantly complained about that and said that he wouldn't be doing that when he was in government. But, lo and behold, here we are.

These amendments will come on for debate later this afternoon, as I'm told, which only highlights the urgent need for a conference and for this motion to pass. It is the height of hypocrisy from the Leader of the House, who made grand statements before the election wanting to fix how this chamber would operate, to then, once in power, do the very opposite.

If I can remind the House about what the Leader of the House said at the National Press Club earlier this year, on 1 February:

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.

If the minister truly believes in what he said then, then he would vote for this motion, which is all about ensuring that we establish between the two houses of this parliament a conference to resolve the intractable problems senators and members share with respect to elements of the government's latest fair work amendment.

This meeting, between the chambers of the parliament, would be a multipartisan forum. It would see members and senators come together to consult on how to overcome the government's stubborn refusal to consider commonsense legislation. Critically, it would allow members and senators time to examine in detail the amendments that were tabled by the Leader of the House just before 1.30 pm today. We could see, for example, how these amendments align with those noted in the Senate's message, but these government amendments, I remind the House, are subject to a guillotine motion.

The fact that a conference hasn't happened in decades reflects how poorly the government has managed the legislative process around its own industrial relations agenda. It is indeed a rare event when any members move such a motion to enable a conference, but the actions of the Leader of the House has forced the hand of the Senate and, indeed, has forced the hand of the opposition. To this, I urge all members to support our colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senators Lambie and Pocock, and support this motion.

I'd like to remind members in this place that in September the government introduced a new omnibus workplace relations bill to the parliament. I note the omnibus bill is presently the subject of a Senate inquiry that will report on 1 February 2024. Across the economy, stakeholders have justifiably condemned most of the provisions in this fair work amendment. A more sensible option, originating in the Senate, was presented to the government. The four areas from the original omnibus bill, which have been split out by the crossbench, should never have been part of the original bill. I note the House previously dealt with this proposition.

The bills mentioned in the Senate's message to the House seek uncontroversial changes that should be implemented as quickly as possible. Major business groups, including the BCA, ACCI, AiG and COSBOA, all support these parts of the omnibus bill and support them being split out and dealt with immediately. They've been very public in this regard.

This was a test for the government, and the government failed. There was no credible reason for the government to argue against passing these bills. These bills were drawn word for word from the proposed legislation in the Albanese government's so-called closing the loopholes bill. These measures should never have been part of that omnibus bill, but we all know why the minister included these measures in his controversial bill—it was a cynical exercise by the minister to give this government cover for trying to rush its wider controversial legislation through the parliament.

It is disgraceful to use the issue of PTSD in this nation's first responders as a reason for trying to ram through the loopholes bill this year. It is also disgraceful to use changes related to silica diseases, the discrimination of people suffering family or domestic violence, or using redundancy payments for the same reason—but we have the opportunity to move forward quickly with these important and uncontroversial changes by passing the government's own legislation.

Now, in the seconds left, I would like to speak very quickly about the importance of the first responders' bill. The bill introduces a rebuttable presumption that post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by selected first responders was contributed to to a significant degree by their employment. This change will simplify— (Time expired)

See this speech in context