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

I move:

That, in respect of proceedings specifically on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) resumption of debate on the second reading of the bill being called on and the first Opposition Member immediately called to speak;

(2) at the conclusion of the speech of the first Opposition Member on the second reading of the bill, the Prime Minister being called immediately to conclude the second reading debate and the question then being put immediately on the second reading of the bill, a Governor-General's message being reported and the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

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

The debate management motion that I am moving this morning will ensure that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill can be dealt with expeditiously by the House and be transmitted to the Senate. We hope it will be passed in the Senate.

This will be the fourth time that the House of Representatives will have considered exactly the same bill. So, to anticipate the Manager of Opposition Business's outrage about a debate management motion on this bill, the reality is that this is exactly the same bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives three times. I hesitate to pre-empt the House of Representatives but I suspect that it will be voted on and passed a fourth time today and transmitted to the Senate.

The bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives and the second reading was moved on 14 November 2013. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the same date, with a public hearing in Melbourne on 26 November 2013. That report was delivered on 2 December. A second reading debate occurred here in the House on the 3, 11, and 12 December. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee on 9 December with a public hearing in Sydney. It was passed by the House of Representatives on the second and third reading on 12 December 2013. It was then introduced into the Senate and the second reading was moved on 12 December. The Senate Education and Employment References Committee report was delivered. The second reading debate occurred on 13 and 14 May 2014 and, unfortunately, the bill was negatived by the Senate on 14 May 2014.

Then the exact same bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and the second reading was moved on 19 June 2014. The second reading debate occurred on 25 June and 14 and 15 July. The bill was amended by the government on 15 July and passed by the House of Representatives through all stages on 15 July 2014. It was introduced into the Senate and the second reading was moved on 17 July 2014. The second reading debate occurred in that place on 11 and 12 February and 2 March 2015—so many, many months later. The second reading was negatived by the Senate on 2 March 2015.

We tried a third time in the last parliament, the 44th Parliament. We introduced the same bill and the second reading was moved on 19 March 2015. It was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 14 May 2015, and the second reading debate occurred on 25 June 2015. It was passed by the House of Representatives on 25 June 2015. It was then introduced into the Senate on 25 June 2015. The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee reported on 11 August. The second reading was moved and the second reading debate occurred on 17 August 2015, and it was negatived by the Senate on 17 August 2015. This is one of my more compelling speeches! Finally, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced into the House of Representatives and the second reading was moved on 31 August 2016 in this parliament and was immediately again referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on 1 September.

My point, after that voluminous and long list of scrutiny of this bill, is that this matter has been dealt with again, and again and again. It has been looked at from every possible angle—from upside down and inside out. This bill has been referred to Senate committees. It has been looked at scrutinised by the House of Representatives. It has been dealt with on three occasions—even more than the Australian Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. We know exactly what the Labor Party's position is and, given the automatons that populate the House of Representatives for the Labor Party, especially among the 22 new members, none of whom would dare to have a different view to their factional bosses—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I do not feel that I need to hear their dulcet tones on the issue of the Registered Organisations Commission. It would be nice to think that I could be surprised by a Labor Party member having an original thought of their own that they put to the House of Representatives but, sadly, after some decades in this place I am reasonably confident that not one member of the Labor Party will cross the floor to vote with the government on the Registered Organisations Commission bill. Therefore I commend my motion to the House.

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

Just before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Bruce used an unparliamentary term. He will withdraw.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what I said.

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

The member for Bruce will stand up and withdraw—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

and he is warned! I am saying to members in the House that it is obvious a division is coming on. I would have thought they would wish to be here for it.

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

I will start with the comments that the Leader of the House concluded with, because he was talking about members on this side. I think the challenge for him in moving this motion is not whether or not members of the Labor Party will say something he was not expecting but that he is now dealing with the fact that members of his own side, almost every hour, say things that he was not expecting.

It is hard to believe that today is Wednesday, because the government have brought forward their weekly stuff-up. We had got used to the fact that either on the Wednesday or Thursday of a parliamentary sitting week the government would bring forward their own goal either by not being here or, as was the case last week, by being here and deciding to spontaneously combust and vote with the Labor Party. This week the own goal moved from members of the backbench or members of the frontbench to the Prime Minister and they brought forward the stuff-up to the Tuesday. That is why we are having motions like the one before us today.

Let's not forget what the radio coverage was full of on Monday morning. On Monday morning we were told that in this parliamentary sitting week the government were going to spend the entire week debating industrial relations, debating the bills that were the reason for the double dissolution. Of course, what then happened was that they got to Tuesday morning and decided it was time not to have the debate but to shut the debate down. If they thought this debate was going well for them, they would have it. Let's not forget that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, the one that we are talking about now, is one that they never want to have the debate on in the parliament. Earlier this year the parliament was prorogued in what was viewed at the time as a great constitutional stunt from the Prime Minister. We all went across to the other place for one of those riveting Governor-General's speeches that we all look forward to, and the Governor-General gave both houses the job of dealing with two items of legislation. This bill was one of them, and the government never even brought the bill on for debate. The government do not want there to be a discussion of this piece of legislation. They did not bring it on when the parliament was prorogued and now, after having a double dissolution on two pieces of legislation, they do not want members of parliament to talk about the reason for there being a double dissolution federal election.

The member for Sturt has been here for a long time. Many of his constituents would believe he has been here for a very, very, very long time. It seems not to have occurred to the member for Sturt, as he is gradually consumed by the green leather, that there are a large number of members of parliament, who are in the chamber right now, who have never had the opportunity to speak on this bill. They came to this parliament in a double dissolution election that was meant to be about this piece of legislation, and the motion from the Leader of the House, which is before the House right now, says they will never get to talk on this piece of legislation. If the government have the courage of their convictions, if the government think this is a piece of legislation worth defending, then they should defend it. But they will not; they will not defend this piece of legislation.

The opposition will be moving amendments in the other place, and when the opposition spokesperson on this issue, the shadow minister, makes his contribution he will be foreshadowing those amendments to the House for the first time. It is reasonable to have a consideration in detail opportunity to be able to question the government on the impact of the issues that will be raised in those amendments. It is reasonable to have a consideration in detail stage of the debate to allow questions to be asked of the minister at the table—to ask questions of the person with portfolio responsibility in this House. Of course, the person with portfolio responsibility is the Leader of the House. The person who would have to answer those questions and defend the bill is the Leader of the House. The person who would have to understand what was in the bill in front of the chamber is the person who is moving the motion to make sure he does not have to answer any of those questions. It is no accident that somebody who has a reputation for being rhetoric rich but policy light does not want there to be any opportunity in this House for arguments to be directed at him or for questions to be asked where he would be responsible for providing answers to the House.

I will be moving an amendment to the motion, to be seconded by the shadow minister, which would allow there to be a consideration in detail stage. Obviously, we are opposed to the whole motion. We are opposed to the concept of gagging debate on any piece of legislation, where you take away the rights of members of parliament. But for a parliament that was formed to have a view about this bill, it is beyond belief that we now have a motion preventing members of parliament from expressing a view on the bill. Of all the pieces of legislation to gag, you should not be gagging—this House should not be limiting—debate on items of legislation that were the double dissolution trigger. It is bad enough to do it on any bill, but people on each side of the parliament have been elected based on that double dissolution having been called, and the government now says, 'That may well be true, but we'd rather no-one spoke about it.' If you do not want people to be able to make speeches, I do not understand why you want to be elected to the parliament.

I do not understand why those opposite, if they have such a problem with people putting a point of view, view this as a safe workplace for them to be involved in. If the Leader of the House hates the concept of the house debating legislation, I would suggest he probably ought to get a different job. As the Leader of the House he is meant to be the defender of the House debate and, at the very least, is meant to be defending the right of the House to debate the issues on which the double dissolution trigger was called.

Can I say that, I remember when, previously, under the Howard government, they had contentious legislation. I remember when they had the Work Choices legislation on industrial relations, and they would allow people to try to win the argument. They ended up not winning that argument, but John Howard did not shy away from having the debate. John Howard believed in what he was doing—he believed in something, which would not be a bad start for some of those opposite—and he would have the backbench make the case. Instead, we have a motion today that is designed for government members to bury their own backbench, a motion to make sure they do not take the risk of what their own members might say.

The Leader of the House needs to know that his colleagues will find a camera anywhere, even if he shuts them down here. They will find ways to undermine the government, and it will not just be the backbench that manages to undermine this government. As we saw yesterday, even the Prime Minister will have a go from time to time at undermining this government.

The amendment that I move is in the exact same terms that have been circulated. It does not turn a dreadful resolution into a good one, but it does allow there to be a consideration in detail stage. I therefore move the following amendment to the motion put by the Leader of the House:

Omit paragraph 2 and substitute the following words:

(2)   at the conclusion of the speech of the first Opposition Member on the second reading of the bill, the Prime Minister being called immediately to conclude the second reading debate and the question then being put immediately on the second reading of the bill, a Governor-General’s message being reported, a consideration in detail stage taking place, any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put and the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill;

And I urge the government: if they want to truncate the consideration in detail stage after people have had a chance to give five minute speeches and to ask questions, then they will still do so and move that the question be put. But the alternative to allowing this amendment is to say that not one new member of parliament gets to have their say on one of the triggers for the double dissolution election. It is an extraordinary attempt by the Leader of the House to silence this parliament.

The amendment that is being put forward is modest. It does not fix the problem but it at least stops what is in front of us right now from making a complete joke of what was meant to be the purpose of the election. If the Leader of the House just wants to accept that the double dissolution game from the Prime Minister was a joke, he will vote against this amendment. If he believes that members of parliament who are new members of parliament have something to contribute, including from his own side, then he will take the risk and allow the parliament to do something really radical, like debate a piece of legislation.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

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

It is seconded. I would like to explain exactly why. We know that this government has, firstly, predicated an election on two bills. There was the double dissolution election—of which, of course, one bill was not quite debated yesterday. We had a gag to not debate the ABCC legislation and not have consideration in detail on that bill.

The Manager of Opposition Business has, I believe, compellingly argued the case that members of this place deserve a right to consider the detail of this bill, a bill that is supposedly so important that the Prime Minister chose to run an election on it. Of course, he did not mention this bill or the bill that was gagged yesterday for 55 days during the election campaign. We barely heard that mentioned in the entire election campaign, one of the longest election campaigns this country has ever seen—a very good tactical move by the Prime Minister, I might add.

We have some serious issues to raise with respect to this bill. As the Manager of Opposition Business has made perfectly clear, we are not happy with the attempts to stop members of parliament speaking on this matter. In particular, those new members of parliament that sit behind me now, that were elected to this place for the first time, have never contributed to this area of public policy, this particular bill. And, as the Manager of Opposition Business has made perfectly clear, we did not have an opportunity to go through the proposed amendments we sought to make to this bill because when the Prime Minister chose to prorogue the parliament—you might remember, Mr Speaker, we had a situation where two bills were also the basis upon which that parliament was prorogued.

You might recall, the Prime Minister wrote to His Excellency the Governor-General, and he referred in that letter to two bills that were so important that we had to prorogue the parliament. I have to say. I think they dragged His Excellency the Governor-General into a stunt. And that is not a reflection on the Governor-General; I think it was unfair. The hollowness of the sincerity of the Prime Minister was shown on the occasion of our return to parliament in that week because this bill was not debated in this place or in the Senate, despite the fact that they raised with His Excellency the Governor-General that it was of such importance the parliament had to be prorogued. This is the length that the government is willing to go to to play politics with this issue.

If they are so confident in the merits of this bill, why not have a debate in this place? This motion will not fix all of these matters—indeed, it will still restrict the matters insofar as all members speaking—but at least we would have an opportunity to consider in this place, the people's chamber, the proposed amendments that are foreshadowed and will be foreshadowed in my response to the second reading speech and will be moved in the Senate.

They are significant amendments. They are not just political amendments. These are amendments that, firstly, consider why, instead of having the registered organisation bodies, we will have ASIC, the regulator of companies, be the regulator for registered organisations. That is a significant amendment and it is one, I believe, the Leader of the House, acting on behalf of the Minister for Employment, should be responding to in this place in consideration in detail on this bill. But, if the Leader of the House votes against the amendment moved, he is saying, 'I'm not willing to answer questions in relation to the government's views on this matter.' He is also not willing to consider the whistleblowers protection that we believe should be afforded to people in registered organisations, or the fact that we would like to see auditors have high levels of accountability in their conduct in such bodies, or the fact that—and this might be, perhaps, the real reason we are not getting consideration in detail—we will seek to move an amendment to this bill that would have electoral disclosure laws at $1,000, not only for candidates of registered organisations but for candidates at federal elections.

We know that Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, likes to talk about transparency and donation reform. If he supports donation reform, they will consider our amendment to this bill that will mean that candidates who want to run in federal elections, to run the country, will have the same laws apply to them as candidates who run in union elections or employer body elections and in the same way. Why not have one law for all elections that are governed by the Australian Electoral Commission? That is the sort of thing we wanted to talk about in this place, but it would appear that the government will gag this amendment, gag this debate on the bill, which is a dreadful shame.

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

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved, as an amendment, that certain words be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

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