Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week we had a historic bill go through the parliament—that is, the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007which made changes to the government’s Work Choices legislation. I would have liked to have seen a much longer debate on this bill. I would have liked to have had the opportunity for all the opposition members who wanted to speak on the bill to be able to. Mr Speaker, as you know, this bill was introduced—unusually—on a Monday, debated all day Wednesday but was subjected to a guillotine.

More than 50 per cent of the members of the opposition, including shadow ministers, wanted to speak on the bill; yet, I regret to say, only eight people on the opposition side spoke. Only eight government members had their names down to speak on this bill. In other words, more than 50 per cent of the opposition wanted to speak on the bill, but only eight—or 10 per cent of government members—were excited and moved by the changes to this bill. Ninety per cent did not put their names down to speak. Not one National Party member spoke about this bill, and yet they also say it is good.

Mr Speaker, I am sure you will remember my question to the Prime Minister back in June 2006 asking him about the Spotlight workers who, under their AWAs, were trading away all their penalty rates, all their overtime and all their shift allowances for just 2c extra an hour. I was told by the Prime Minister that they should be grateful at Mount Druitt for having a full-time job. I welcome anyone having a full-time job, but of course that was not the truth—these were casual workers.

If this legislation is so good, why was it that the member for Boothby did not have his name down to speak on it? Why didn’t the members for Bowman or La Trobe or the minister at the table—the member for Eden-Monaro—put their names down on the speaking list if they thought it was so good? Why wouldn’t they allow a fuller debate? Why wouldn’t they tell their constituents how good this legislation is and how they will benefit? Of course, the casual workers on an AWA at Spotlight are not going to be protected by the new legislation. They are not going to get anything more than 2c an hour for trading away their overtime, their penalty rates and their shift allowances—and they are not going to be on their own. No-one who signed an AWA is going to benefit from this new legislation. This is a sadness for the parliament. It is fair enough for a government to have a view about legislation, and perhaps even for the opposition to have a slightly different view about legislation, but why are we afraid to debate these things in the parliament—in the people’s place? Why are we afraid to have a lengthy debate between many members of the government and the opposition?

I return to my theme: isn’t it sad that 90 per cent of the government’s members and ministers could not be bothered to put their names down on the speaking list—90 per cent. And amongst the 87 members of the coalition in this House there was not one National Party member who was prepared to face the people of Australia in the Parliament of Australia and say: ‘I like this legislation. This is good legislation. This will benefit my constituents.’ Not one National Party member did so. In fact, there was not one minister listed to speak on this legislation, other than the minister in charge. Yet it was really difficult for me because there were so many shadow ministers who thought that they should be given the opportunity to speak— (Time expired)