Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to suspension of standing orders for the consideration of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 in the terms circulated in the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not seen the circulated document, but, presuming it is with respect to the member for Kennedy's amendment, that can only improve a bad motion, so leave is granted.

Leave granted.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and point out that it is the same one that I circulated to you in question time. I would not pull a swiftie on the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. I would pay for it later, so there would be no point. So I move the motion in relation to suspension of standing orders, as amended:

That, in respect of proceedings specifically on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together and the bills debated cognately, and the first Opposition Member immediately called to speak, followed immediately by the Member for Kennedy;

(2) at the conclusion of the speech of the Member for Kennedy on the second readings of the bills, the Prime Minister being called immediately to conclude the second reading debate and one question then being put immediately on the second readings of both bills, a Governor-General’s message being reported and one question being put immediately on the third readings of both bills; and

(3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

The government is moving this motion to manage the debate on the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The terms of the motion will allow the opposition spokesman—I assume—to speak for their usual allotted time of half an hour on the bills, and then will allow the member for Kennedy, who has a particular interest and is kind of representing the crossbenchers, to speak on the bills as well. Then the Prime Minister will sum up the ABCC bills, and we intend to try and pass them through the House this afternoon.

We are moving this debate management motion because it is very clear what everybody in the House's view is on the ABCC. In spite of our working very hard to try and get the Leader of the Opposition to unshackle the Labor Party from the CFMEU and from other unions, he has determinedly refused to do so. This bill has been through the House of Representatives twice already. It has been through an exhaustive committee process. It was introduced in the House of Representatives, and the second reading was moved, on 14 November 2013. That was the first bill. The Senate then referred the bills to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 14 November. A public hearing was then held by that legislation committee. A report was given by the legislation committee.

The second reading debate in the House of Representatives occurred on 2 December 2013. The Senate referred the government's approach to re-establishing the ABCC for inquiry by a different Senate committee, the Senate Education and Employment References Committee, on 4 December. Then the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also considered the ABCC bill. The second reading debate in the House of Representatives occurred on 12 December 2013, and the legislation was passed by the House on that occasion.

Then the public hearings of the Senate references committee occurred. The bill was introduced in the Senate, and the second reading was moved, on 11 February 2014. It then went through an exhaustive process. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the bill. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the bill. There was a report by the references committee referred to earlier. Then the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights comments on the bill were tabled in the parliament. Then the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded its considerations of the bills in another round—the third time that the human rights committee had considered the legislation. Then the second reading debate in the Senate occurred, and the second reading was finally negatived on 17 August 2015. So it was considered from 11 February 2014 to 17 August 2015. It passed over a two-year period.

Then it was reintroduced in the House of Representatives on 2 February 2016, this year. The second reading debate occurred on 3 and 4 February, and it was passed on 4 February. The Senate immediately referred the bills again to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, and that reported in February. The bills were introduced in the Senate, and the second reading was moved on 4 February this year, and the legislation was rejected on 18 February April 2016. These are exactly the same bills. Two bills exactly the same have been through the House since 2013. They have been considered, looked at from every single possible angle, by House committees, by Senate committees, by joint committees, by the House of Representatives itself on two occasions—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Still not successful!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly—and by the Senate twice. So we have given the parliament of the Australian Commonwealth every single opportunity to consider these bills, which simply bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission into place to ensure that the rule of law is applied on building and construction sites in Australia, improving productivity, creating jobs, creating growth. The last time the ABCC existed, it was worth $7½ billion to consumers in Australia in expenses that had previously needlessly been incurred.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It sounds like you want to talk on the bill.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking on my motion, because I am explaining to the House why a debate management motion is necessary and why the debate is being truncated in this way, because for the life of me I cannot think of any contribution from any member of the House that could add or subtract anything from the debate that has already occurred over the last three years now. So we are going to pass this motion, with the support of the House of Representatives, and get on with it, because the Australian economy needs it, businesses around the country need it and honest union leaders need these bills to be passed.

There is nothing wrong with unions, nothing at all. They have a very important part in our society, in our economy, in ensuring that the rights of workers are protected, that their health is protected. I have never been anti-union. The unions have a very important role. But there are rogue unions, or rogue union leaders, in particular, who are behaving badly—and we have given example after example in question time and debate, even as recently as today, with the video that was released by the Prime Minister's office which indicated the extraordinary behaviour on a site in the Gold Coast. Even as recently as today these practices continue. I cannot understand why the Labor Party, or in fact the member for Kennedy, will not support this ABCC legislation. It would improve our country, it would be good for all those who are involved in the building and construction industry, and therefore I commend my motion to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The reasons that the Leader of the House gave for wanting the member for Kennedy to be able to speak go to the fact that every member of the parliament should be allowed to speak on the bill if they want to. The interesting thing is: the Leader of the House has been here so long he has gradually been absorbed by the green leather and cannot understand that there is such a thing as new members of parliament. It is one thing for him to say, 'All of this has happened'—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not allowed to call them by name; it would be unparliamentary. He reflects on the parliament of the Abbott government when he talks about what happened in 2013. He is right to point that out, because we are dealing with Abbott government legislation, as we tend to all the time in the years of the Turnbull government. What the Leader of the House is doing here is saying to everybody who came in for the first time at the last election, and there are some on each side of the chamber and quite a few on this side of the chamber—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are they? Where are all your mates?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want me to rev it up into a bigger speech I am happy to, but I think we can just get through the issues on this one. We should have a situation where people have the opportunity to put their view. It is as simple as that. The rush that the government is going through at the moment in wanting to make sure that this bill can go through, is so it can get to the Senate. If the Leader of the House were to walk 100 metres to the Senate, he would see that it is not sitting today. It is not sitting tomorrow. It will be three weeks until it comes back. There is no problem at all in allowing members of parliament to have their say.

But I must say that the thing I find interesting—I may even say amusing—about the motion that the Leader of the House has brought forward is that he has insisted that the only person to give the summing-up will be the Prime Minister. He is actually moving that the person who represents the minister for workplace relations in this House will not be allowed to do the summing-up on the bill. Given that that is himself, I find that a moment of honesty that really explains what sort of term, what sort of kick-off, the Leader of the House has had.

He has gone from the point of day after day burying his head in his hands and saying, 'It's not me; it's the people around me,' to now saying that maybe it is him and then putting in writing on the Notice Paper and now moving in the parliament that under no circumstances is the minister representing the minister for workplace relations going to be allowed to deliver the summing-up. I can only suggest the determination that the only person who would be allowed to talk would be the Prime Minister is probably an idea that came from the Prime Minister. For the Leader of the House, who has been humiliated week after week in this place, to now decide, 'May as well do the humiliation myself,' is a step I did not see coming, but that is what is contained within the motion before the House.

This is another attempt for the government to stifle the parliament from doing its job. There cannot be a rush in getting legislation to the Senate at a time when the Senate is not on. The argument that everybody has had the opportunity to speak on this debate is a direct affront to every member of parliament who was elected for the first time at the last election. Extraordinarily, it was a double-dissolution election on this bill—and, very specifically, they will claim there is a mandate for the government for this bill to go ahead—and members of parliament who have come into this place for the first time, campaigning either for or against this very issue, and are not going to be allowed to say a word.

I have to say that, if the government thought that this debate was going well for them, they would not be moving this motion. If they thought it suited them to be talking about this issue—to have their backbenchers up making speeches and sending them out to the electorates and getting the story up in the media—they would not be moving this motion. There is no procedural reason to do it. There is no legal reason to do it in terms of getting a bill through the other place. The only reason to do this is that an item that they thought was going to win them a thumping majority at the election turned out pretty badly for them and they lost a series of seats in it. If they thought this was a winning argument, the motion before us would never have been moved.

What we have is a Leader of the House who has decided that best he carries by resolution that under no circumstances is he allowed to talk, that under no circumstances are any of the new members allowed to talk and that only the Prime Minister will be allowed to, so that we can get this bill out of the way so that it can go nowhere for three weeks. That is what the Leader of the House has done. The bit about him not being allowed to talk, I sort of have some sympathy with—he sort of nearly gets me there. But I have to say on this bill: don't put something forward as a double-dissolution trigger if you don't want it to be debated in the parliament. If you were going to put something forward as a double-dissolution trigger you would think the government would be willing to have a debate on it.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have debated it twice. This is the third time.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament has never debated this bill.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is exactly the same bill.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament has never debated this bill. This parliament was elected in a double dissolution where this bill was one of the triggers. As to the whole concept of what issues members of parliament should be allowed to talk on, there are in fact no pieces of legislation where members of parliament should have a stronger argument that they are allowed to make their case and should not be inhibited by a gag motion or a debate management motion than the triggers for a double-D. That is exactly what is happening here.

Sometimes when we get these debate management motions, you get the government saying that they will cut off debate at a certain time of day. When they do that, at least parties on each side can organise that, if they want people to go for briefer times, they can share speaking times and try to make sure that people get as much of a chance as possible. What the Leader of the House is doing instead is saying, 'No; not one new member elected in the double dissolution will be allowed to speak in this debate—not one.' The word 'atrocity' gets thrown back and forth pretty often in this place. This one qualifies.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So did the last 20.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; in the last 20 you said it about me, and they were untrue. This one qualifies, and it qualifies for a very simple reason. If the reason for the election was a double dissolution on this bill, then members of parliament who were elected in that double-dissolution election should have a right to make speeches on it. Even though there should not be one at all, if there is to be a debate management motion, it should be one with a time limit that at least allows members of parliament on either side of the place who want to speak on this bill to be able to do so and to be able to make sure that something that we thought that the election was going to be about—even though it disappeared once we got to the campaign—can in fact be something that is opened up for debate. But, beyond all of this, if the government thought this debate was going well, the motion before the House right now would never have been moved. The opposition will oppose it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.