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

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages on Monday, 19 October 2020, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 7.15 pm today, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.

The government have been backgrounding all over the place that they have to get this bill through today. They put it in the papers that they have to get this bill through today, and then they walked out without trying to put the bill through today—doing absolutely nothing. They've got a media strategy, but no parliamentary strategy. So we're simply saying: we've been constructive the whole way through this crisis, and all the urgency is so that it can then get sent across to the Senate—which will not meet again for three weeks.

But if that's the game they want to play, if they want to say, 'This is completely urgent and it must get through today,' but then not do anything about it, let's bring it on. Let's have the debate. Let's deal with the bill. Because they can't continue to just be running around the media gallery spreading information that is 100 per cent untrue. All the bluff, all the bravado that they were going to push this legislation through today, and then the moment question time's over, off they go. Nothing. Nothing about the bill at all—no attempt. You get the Notice Paper for what we're meant to be debating today, and guess what bill they never mentioned?

Guess what's not on here at all. It's the same bill that they said they needed to get through today.

An opposition member: It's the bill that dare not speak its name!

That's right! The bill that's named Voldemort is what is in front of the parliament today. Never say its name out loud but go around the media gallery trying to grandstand and pretend that you're somehow reaching Labor. They're now off in the advisers' gallery working out whether they support their own bill being brought on. It's happening over there right now. They don't know whether or not to support a motion that would do what they've been telling the media has to happen today. They've got no idea across there. None of them know whether or not to support what they've been declaring all day must happen today.

This morning they had their army out there on Sky News. They knew what to tell Sky News about the parliament. They'd done all their radio interviews. They knew what to tell the radio stations about the parliament. It was in the talking points, which get emailed around to say what needs to happen in the parliament. But they come to the parliament and they don't have a clue. They come to the parliament and they've got no idea. They're sitting on the front bench right now: do we support our legislation, or do we not support our legislation?

This is really simple. Does anything you have said over the last few days count? Are you in fact in favour of what you've been advocating for? Were it not for Labor moving this motion, today would have come and gone and they wouldn't have had a clue whether they supported it or whether they opposed it. Today would have passed, but the bill would not have passed. So I say to those opposite: if you're going to tell the media that something has to happen today in the parliament, you need to do something about it. Legislation doesn't just magically waft through this place. Someone has to move it. Someone has to bring it on, and the legislation has to be dealt with. But they have spent their whole time—

Opposition members interjecting—

They still don't know! He's over there now: 'What to do I do? Do I support government legislation? Do I not support government legislation?' This wasn't about legislation; this was all about wedging the Labor Party. They thought: until it comes to the vote they can pretend that Labor doesn't support it; until it comes to the vote they can run a media line that somehow Labor doesn't want this legislation to happen.

They have spent this day saying legislation had to get through today, but then they didn't bother to do anything about it. It's really simple: it's your legislation, and you're now the ones whose support it uncertain. There's now a motion for it to be put through today. Had this not been moved, it never would have happened.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

The motion is seconded. The government has made very clear that this is a very important bill. In fact, it says it's critical for the economy, for businesses and for workers across the land. I was very surprised this morning when I woke to read in the newspapers the fact that this bill was being stopped by Labor, that Labor was not going to support this legislation being debated and passed through this chamber and being considered by the Senate. Of course, I thought: that's pretty ridiculous, because the Senate doesn't sit until November, so why would a story be running on the front pages of newspapers, suggesting that Labor would stop the debate and the enactment of a bill?

What we've come to understand, since I woke to read that news in the papers, is that this is just spin. It's a stunt by those opposite to pretend they care about the issue. If they did care, if this were a matter of urgency, they would be agreeing to this motion. In fact, they would have introduced this bill into the House for debate today. They could have expedited it with the support of the opposition, and then we would have been able to allow the matter to proceed to the Senate.

Let's be very clear about why we understand this to be a stunt. It's because, as anyone who follows the business understands, the Senate does not convene until November. The Senate cannot consider this bill. Nonetheless, we are ready and waiting to debate the bill that the government has been running around the gallery and telling the media they want to debate today.

We understand. It's a bit like when we convened in March and the government had forgotten to have a wage subsidy policy. We asked the government, 'Do you want to have a wage subsidy policy for the economy?' To which the Prime Minister said, 'We don't need one.' They then had to reconvene the parliament and introduce JobKeeper.

Now we have a situation where JobKeeper is going to be reduced in January and end in March and this is supposed to be the bill that's going to provide support for businesses from this month but particularly after March next year when JobKeeper ends. We believe that JobKeeper should have come in earlier, should have lasted longer for businesses in trouble and should have covered workers who've been excluded. The government has not chosen to do that. They have chosen, instead, to propose this proposition.

We have some issues with the nature of this legislation. We want to debate it. We want to assist the government by providing support and advice as to how they could make this legislation better. We've very happy to have the debate today to discuss with the government in this chamber these important matters, but what we've realised is that we are all here in this chamber now but where is the government? Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the Treasurer? Where are those ministers who've been telling the media that this matter is a matter of urgency? If it is a matter of urgency then why are we not debating it? What is the minister at the table doing? Is he going to support this bill? Is he going to oppose this bill? Will we have a debate?

The reality is this has been a stunt from the beginning. Briefing out to the media that it was an urgent bill while knowing the Senate doesn't convene until November shows this government is all about spin and not about substance. It's all about trying to play games instead of focusing on the needs of workers and businesses in this country.

Frankly, we are here, waiting for the government to have a debate. We're waiting for the minister to commence the debate. We're happy to engage with them. Do you know what we're happy to do? We're happy to help them improve this legislation by providing advice as to how they could best support businesses and workers across the nation. There are some real issues around this bill we would like to discuss and debate today. We'd be more than ready to have that debate now. We're very happy, so, for those in the gallery who wrote those stories today or are on electronic media talking about the fact that Labor is holding up this legislation, be very clear now: the opposition is in the chamber waiting for the debate, and yet we don't have a minister to commence the debate on a bill that the government said must be debated today. That's the point.

For those watching, what we understand now is that this Prime Minister is all about spin—shallow—all about playing games and not about focusing on the aspirations and needs of workers and businesses in this land. Today he has been exposed. He wants to play games. He doesn't want to focus on the needs of the economy. He doesn't want to look after workers or business. He should be ashamed of himself.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a government led by a marketing guy who spends more time working out what the slogan will be for any particular program than he does on how it will actually operate. I was actually surprised today that the childcare package he put together also had a slogan for a title—of course. During this program we've seen JobMaker, JobSeeker, JobTrainer, JobKeeper—they just roll off. They spend so much time on it, but what they didn't spend time on earlier this year was thinking through the fact that, if they doubled it Newstart without wage subsidies, they would send a signal to business that people could be laid off and the safety net would be there. So what happened? The queues formed outside Centrelink offices right around the country. At a time when Labor had put forward support for wage subsidies, they were opposed by this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister and this government said that they weren't necessary.

In the lead-up to today, I was at a childcare centre with the shadow minister and the member for Bean this morning, and again I was asked: 'Is Labor going to hold up this legislation?' and I thought to myself, because I'd looked at the blue, 'They haven't even listed it for debate. So how do we hold something up that hasn't been listed?' I also pointed towards the fact that we have been constructive throughout this. We haven't held up any of their legislation, in spite of the fact that there were huge gaps in the wage subsidy program: for casuals, for university workers, for people in the arts and entertainment sector and for people at specific companies like dnata. We pointed out those flaws. But we didn't block their bills. We pointed out the flaws: that some people were earning more than they used to, at the same time as a single mum with a couple of kids, working in a casual job for 11 months, got nothing—got left behind. We pointed out that the superannuation changes would be abused and would lead to people being left with less income in retirement and being forced into circumstances whereby, as a result of that, there would be a greater burden on future budgets. On their so-called HomeBuilder program, we pointed out the weaknesses that were there. We pointed out that they should be investing in social housing. But we didn't block it.

Here we are pointing out not that we have a problem with young people getting subsidies, but that we've asked questions over details, as is appropriate—including whether an older worker aged 36 could lose their job, to be replaced by someone aged 34 with a wage subsidy. We've asked about those circumstances, and the government haven't had any answers.

We have pointed out that, in past recessions, it has been workers over the age of 35 who've often found themselves unemployed, not for a week or a month or a year but for the rest of their lives—forgotten; left behind. And we've pointed out that the government needs to have a plan for those aged 35. The government's responded that, if you're over 50, they have a plan. Yes, they do have a program—they have a program in which 40 per cent of participants have found themselves unemployed six months after they've participated in that scheme, and we've pointed out that flaw that's there for older workers.

We have been constructive the whole way through. And that contrasts with what they did during the global financial crisis, when they sat on these opposition benches here and had more than 30 divisions, till 3 am, trying to block support for economic stimulus and jobs. That's what they did.

This Prime Minister sat there looking at his phone while the budget reply was on, not looking up once, thinking, 'Oh, can I move he be no longer heard?' which is their standard. They don't want to hear any proper debate. So the reason this should be adopted is: let's have a debate about this. We're not blockers. We're constructive. They're the wreckers in Australian politics. They're the great dividers. Their only vision is division. They seek to divide the country, time and time again. And here we are exposing their stunt. They'll roll over here. They'll support this suspension, because they know that their position, and what the Prime Minister's office have briefed out, has no credibility. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the minister.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak to the bill before the House. I want to say to the opposition listening that of course the government welcomes the debate on our government legislation.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause for a moment; the minister will take a seat. The bill hasn't been called on yet. If it suits the convenience of the House, can we move on to the committee business while the bill comes to the chamber.

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

The parliament has just essentially moved to the start of debate. I'm next on the speakers list—I'm taking the call on behalf of the opposition. The minister has already introduced the bill and given a second reading speech, and I'd like to be able to respond.

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

I'd just say to members that, in terms of the cooperation of the House, the resolution has been passed, and whilst of course it stipulates all other business not proceed and this take priority—it might help that the Manager of Opposition Business was back here. The resolution has been passed; that's obviously not at issue. His motion stipulates that the House now deal with those matters. There are practicalities, as you've seen before at various times, where those on the left have argued certain numbers of bills should be present for people to be able to participate. Because it has come on very suddenly, the legislation just isn't here. The House staff are seeking to get it all quickly. I'm just going to put a proposition to the House and then hear from the assistant minister. If we want to just wait, we can sit here and wait and I can have whatever sort of discussion you'd like to have. What we do have is not government business—there's no government business left—but there are a couple of committee reports.

Mr Gosling interjecting—

The member for Solomon can leave under 94(a). I'm not going to have people barking at me from the back of the chamber.

The member for Solomon then left the chamber.

The assistant minister has been seeking the call.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: I just want to note that the government is ready to debate this legislation, but to give the clerks time, given that there was no notice or warning of this motion from the opposition, that it was a surprise for the parliament, I would propose to adopt deputy speaker's suggestion that we move to the committee business while we're waiting simply for an administrative point to come forward.

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

The resolution that I moved has been carried unanimously by the House. It is no reflection on the staff of the parliament that the bill is not ready. It is, though, a reflection on the government. The government have been telling and stating outside this parliament that this bill was ready to go, and they have been arguing that the opposition was what was holding it back. I think the only way to make the point that that is not the case is that I deny leave for us to deal with any other business and we wait until the government produces what they claimed was urgent.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill has been introduced and the second reading has been issued. The bill is ready to debate. Speakers are here, ready to debate. The issue is purely a procedural one of the parliament. It's offensive for the shadow minister to introduce—he signed off on this motion to bring the bill on without notice. We've agreed to do that. All we are waiting for is an administrative procedure to go forward. The government is ready. You're ready. The speakers are ready. As soon as the bill is here, we'll debate it. If they want to do this without notice, that's the consequence. It's unreasonable for the Manager of Opposition Business to say we can't do committee business while we wait. As soon as administratively it's ready, we're ready to go.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

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

You haven't suspended standing order 94(a), I can promise you! You have not, okay? So, if I hear the Manager of Opposition Business correctly, basically the next item of business is that and we don't deal with the committee reports. That was the suggestion.

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

I respect the suggestion that you've made and the goodwill with which it's made, but the House has voted unanimously for a particular course of action. We would only be able to change that course either by leave being granted or through the fresh suspension of standing orders.

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

That's absolutely right.

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

And I'm making clear I'm not giving leave for a different course of action other than what the government have been telling people since they started briefing yesterday was going to happen today.

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

Yes.