Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022:

(1) on Tuesday, 8 November when the bill is called on, the Leader of the Opposition, or a Member representing, speaking for no longer than 30 minutes;

(2) the time limit for other Members speaking on the second reading debate being 10 minutes;

(3) on Wednesday, 9 November, the second reading debate continuing when the bill is called on;

(4) notwithstanding standing order 31, at 8 pm on Wednesday, 9 November, the bill being called on for further consideration;

(5) the second reading debate continuing until either:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) a Minister requires that the debate be adjourned at no earlier than 10 pm, at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 10 November at 9 am;

(6) from 9 pm on Wednesday, 9 November, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being 5 minutes;

(7) from 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 9 November until the adjournment of the House:

(a) any division called for being deferred until the first opportunity on Thursday, 10 November; and

(b) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker announcing that he will count the House at the first opportunity on Thursday, 10 November, if the Member then so desires;

(8) on Thursday, 10 November when the bill is called on, questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(9) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with all government amendments to be moved together, all opposition amendments to be moved together, and any crossbench Members' amendments to be moved as one set per Member, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to.

(10) should a Minister require, any question provided for under paragraph (9) being put after no less than 10 minutes of debate on each set of amendments;

(11) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

(12) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

I won't use all the time because, obviously, whatever time is not used on this has a chance of being used on the bill itself, although I suspect that, after I finish, some of the time will be used by others which also could have been used to speak on the bill itself. For the information of members, I'll just explain the process that's involved in the motion. I'll say a few things quickly as to why, and then let the House get on with the debate.

The motion that is now before the House has the following impacts. First of all, speaking times go immediately from 15 minutes down to 10, with the exception of the first speech given either by the Leader of the Opposition or on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. That's a half-hour speech. I think it's inappropriate for that to be given anywhere but in the House, and I also think it should always be for the full time, so that's been left as it is. For everyone else, it goes from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. Once the bill is brought on, we'll continue debating it in that way today. Once it's brought on tomorrow, the debating will continue with 10-minute speeches. When we get to 7.30—and we've tried this once, and it seemed to work. When people have prepared speeches for the adjournment, and they're often important—people have diarised them; sometimes people have even brought people down for them—I'm reluctant to stop those speeches from taking place. So what the resolution would do is that between 7.30 and 8 pm we would have the adjournment debate. At the conclusion of having the adjournment debate we would not adjourn and we would go back to debating the bill between 8 pm and 9 pm. That would happen with 10 minute speeches, and from 9 pm through till 10, speaking times would go down to five minutes.

So far, each time we've done this we've never actually made it to 10 pm. I've always made sure that, whoever the minister responsible for the legislation is, they end up being the person in the chair. This means that tomorrow night it'll be me. The way the resolution is drafted, there's no automatic adjournment at 10 pm, so, if there are still a few more people speaking, then, subject to making sure that, for the people who work in the building, we don't go for an inordinate amount of time, we'll be sensible, in terms of not using 10 pm as an absolute, hard cut-off time. The intention is to try to make sure that we can get the bill through this week and have as many people as possible able to speak.

On Thursday morning, the second reading vote would occur, so that obviously means that tomorrow night, even though we're sitting late, if you're not speaking, from 6.30 on there are no further divisions you'll be required for. So, from 6.30 pm onwards tomorrow, if people are not speaking, they would be able to leave the building safely, subject to the permission of their whip; I'd never recommend against that. Then, on Thursday morning, we'll have the vote on the second reading, followed by an in-detail stage. There is a provision within the resolution that, after the debate has been going for 10 minutes on each amendment, it can be required that the question be put, but, once again, if we have a large number of amendments then we'll have to regulate the time on that. If we don't have a large number of amendments then I expect the discussion on each of them may well go for significantly more time than that.

What this means is that, when the Senate returns for the final fortnight, this bill will be one of the many bills from the House of Representatives that await them. Those opposite, particularly those former ministers opposite, know, as do I, that once things get to the Senate we never quite understand what the process is from then on. I can see some people nodding. But I want to make sure that, at the beginning of their final fortnight, they have the opportunity to have this bill in front of them.

The priority for this bill and the reason that we want to be able to deal with this quickly have been well ventilated both within the House and within the media. Australians are facing real pressures. Part of that is prices and part of that is wages. This gives us an opportunity to do something about wages, and I'm hoping that the parliament, both this house and the other, are able to act on that as quickly as possible.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I move:

That all words after paragraph (1) be omitted and the following be inserted:

(2) the question on the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 not be put until such time as every other Member willing to speak on the question has spoken for up to 15 minutes as provided for under standing order 1.

The amendment that I am moving on behalf of the opposition is designed to allow all members of the House to participate in a full and proper debate on the government's industrial relations bill. The motion that the Leader of the House has moved is a cynical exercise in seeking to ram through a detailed and complex piece of legislation and very largely avoid all of the normal procedures and processes in this place.

Now, I say to the House: be very wary when the Leader of the House comes in here and uses his most reasonable tone. That should put you on notice. That should put you on inquiry that he's up to something. He is up to something. Let me be clear here: the opposition is implacably opposed to the trashing of normal parliamentary processes, which the Leader of the House is proposing, and we are doubly opposed to the use of this motion to ram through the House of Representatives this radical industrial relations bill. Let's be clear: this bill represents the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. It has also been handled very badly. We've seen the minister proposing amendments on a near daily basis. Just last night he put out a statement flagging even more amendments. The process has been shambolic. Just yesterday we saw the government refuse to support a sensible proposal from the opposition, supported by a large number of the crossbench, to establish a joint select committee to investigate this bill. I do express the opposition's thanks to those crossbench members who supported that motion.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the government's cynical attempts to ram this bill through the House of Representatives is that it simply does not want to allow for the proper processes of scrutiny and debate, or for those who will be affected by this bill—employers and employees, and of course expert stakeholders—to have the opportunity to express their concerns.

Equally troubling is the limiting of the opportunity for members of the House to make their views known, to inform the debate and to help all Australians understand the full implications of what the government is proposing. Many Australians will rightly be suspicious of the government's proposals, and the more they learn, the more suspicious they will be. And their suspicion should only be increased by the fact that the government is transparently seeking to avoid proper scrutiny by using its numbers to force this bill through the House of Representatives.

Why is this amendment required? It's required because there ought to be proper scrutiny and examination of a bill which is exceptionally complex—249 pages—and let's not forget it was only introduced in the last sitting week. What we've seen from the government to date is precisely the opposite approach to that which is required in relation to a lengthy and detailed bill of this nature. It's clear already that concerns are being raised very widely across the Australian community about what this bill will mean, the risk that it presents, the very real risk of increased strikes, increased industrial action and the impact on small businesses being exposed to thuggish union behaviour, and greatly expanded opportunities for the union movement to come and make small businesses an offer they can't refuse.

It's clear that there are very real concerns, and well-informed concerns, amongst the business community. Small, medium and large businesses alike are aligned in their opposition, their very grave and expressed concern about what is contained in this bill. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group have cautioned against rushing this bill through. They have specifically cautioned against what the Leader of the House is seeking to do in the motion that he has moved this afternoon.

What they had to say was this:

… it is clear that the government should slow down and consult more widely and more meaningfully. They must be open to the amendments necessary to prevent harmful unintended consequences.

Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group added 'the process cannot be rushed' and he urged government to 'take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes'. The Minerals Council chief executive, Tania Constable, said the government was seeking to 'ram this far-reaching reform through with no real opportunity for scrutiny'. These are the bodies representing a very substantial proportion of the elements of Australia's economy which generate the prosperity on which we all rely, the prosperity that funds schools and roads and hospitals and all the incidences of a civilised society. This government is seeking to ram through a piece of radical industrial relations reform completely in the face of the consistent and clear advice of a whole range of peak bodies and representative bodies across the economy.

But it's not just business groups. We've seen similar sentiments expressed in the other place. Senator David Pocock has said that the government's bill is too rushed to be scrutinised. These are sentiments echoed by Senator Lambie, who said the government was trying to 'hide or rush stuff through'. Australians deserve to have their concerns fully heard and fully ventilated, particularly in the face of a piece of legislation put forward by the government that will mean more strikes, more unions coming into small businesses where they have not been before. It is a recipe for chaos in our economy. This bill abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, meaning that the militant CFMMEU will once again be able to ride roughshod over building sites across the country. It means a return to the pattern bargaining that bedevilled Australia's economy in the strike-ridden 1970s. It is completely unacceptable that a bill of this nature would be rammed through the House in the way that the motion moved by the Leader of the House proposes. The government are clearly dancing to the tune of the union movement, whose donations helped them get elected, and are seeking to get this through as quickly as possible.

The effect of the amendment that the opposition has moved is that if it were passed it would mean that the normal speaking times of 15 minutes and, crucially, the normal consideration in detail process in the House of Representatives, would be maintained. Let's be clear: consideration in detail is the opportunity to move amendments to the bill and to change the legislation. It is the natural, ordinary, important, basic work of this chamber of the parliament. The executive government are seeking to turn this House into a rubber stamp rather than allowing it to operate the way it was designed to operate in the Constitution. They're doing that in cynical furtherance of the agenda of their political paymasters.

All this is in sharp contrast to what was promised to the Australian people before the election. We heard repeatedly from the now Prime Minister that apparently he had changed his spots. He was suggesting a new, kinder, gentler politics with more integrity. He said he wanted to 'change the way we do politics in Australia'. In a former life, the now Leader of the House railed against what he described as 'trashing of parliamentary norms'. He's now a very enthusiastic trasher. The very same minister who when in opposition railed repeatedly against the supposed trashing of parliamentary norms has repeatedly used the government's numbers to force changes to the standing orders to ram legislation through this House. That is what is being proposed here on a matter of extraordinary importance to the Australian economy, a matter of great significance to all Australians, and a matter which deserves proper scrutiny not least because of the complexity, length and detail of the legislation. It's 249 pages introduced only in the last week of sitting.

What we need is a proper process in which all of those elected to this place can have the opportunity to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is what the amendment that the opposition is moving will do. It seeks to undo the damage of the motion that the Leader of the House has moved. I commend the opposition's amendment to the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business seconded?

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, just eight business days after the introduction into the House of perhaps the most significant industrial relations reform proposed since the Work Choices legislation in 2006, we're now being asked to truncate due process around the review of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Coming from a background of small business and having managed, built and grown multi-employee businesses across a number of sectors, I confess that, while I welcome discussion around this reform, I am immediately concerned that the due process that should support a robust review of this magnitude of legislation is being severely truncated.

With my most recent experience having been in the area of building communities and campaigns to bring people, businesses and organisations along when advocating for significant reform, there is much in this current process that leaves me feeling that, despite assurances that this rushed process is in everyone's best interest, there are many—and there will be many in my community—who will be left with significant concerns as to what this legislation means for them, their businesses and indeed their jobs. Unfortunately, I suggest that, even after a flurry of briefings, for which I am incredibly grateful, and a commitment to personally review every drafted proposed amendment, this bill is still very much a work in progress. Surely, if we are to learn anything from the failed Work Choices legislation, it is that, if it is worth doing the work, it's worth getting it right right from the beginning rather than rushing headlong into significant form that is not tested for its unintended consequences.

This is the broadest reform to the Industrial Relations framework we have seen in more than a decade, and I as North Sydney's federal voice in the chamber, have had less than a fortnight to consult with my community to ensure its implications are truly considered. I do not support truncating this debate.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to voice my disappointment with the government after having sat place for three years where debate was curtailed and after on a number of occasions we jumped straight through the consideration in detailed stage. This motion effectively is curtailing that consideration in detail stage. I accept and respect that there is an attempt to move beyond the use of suspension of standing orders and gagging debate altogether, and I appreciate that effort, but it is nevertheless a mechanism by which we are curtailing the very important role this place should have in scrutinising legislation in the third reading stage, around consideration in detail, around having the opportunity to question the minister responsible in relation to this legislation, and also in relation to debating amendments. Now we have under this motion a proposal where they will all be bundled together under one person and there will be very limited time for debate on each amendment.

Some may be cynical and say that, ultimately, government has the numbers, so what does it matter? It does matter when courts are later considering the implication or inference from this legislation. When they are trying to convey meaning, they will look at second reading speeches, they will look at the explanatory memorandum and they will look at questions raised during the consideration in detail stage. They will take direction from what the minister may have said as to what was the intention behind the wording of legislation. This is a very important stage.

As the member for North Sydney has said, this is really important legislation to get right. We are absolutely in support of raising wages, but the reality is that the urgency with which this is being pushed through from a debate point of view is not going to translate to wages. We know enterprise bargaining takes time. If anything, by adding the complexity of some of the changes in this legislation, it is likely to take even longer. The reality for the people on the ground—and I have heard the minister and others talk about this being about raising wages for women and feminised industries. With respect, by bundling it all in, we are losing the advantage of some of the good changes that are in this legislation around the BOOT test. They are being completely superseded by the divisive debate around the more contentious elements.

I strongly support and urge the government to consider the separation of this bill and to pass without delay the elements that have consensus, that have social support and that have social licence. Business, unions and everyone has come together to make those good changes to the BOOT test and other elements. They are not contested. But around the multiemployer aspect these streams are contentious. They haven't had consideration. They were first exposed only some eight days ago. As the member for North Sydney has said, we have all scrambled to get as many briefings as possible and to try to consult with our communities, but there is no way I have had the opportunity to consult properly, so through this motion there will not only not be proper scrutiny in the consideration in detail stage; we also will not have been able to bring the community on board to understand or even be supportive of all the changes that are proposed in this legislation.

The unfortunate outcome is legislation that may well imbalance what had been really good and had introduced really good changes. That message is completely lost to many communities because of the desire to rush the final part of this bill. I think that's a really unfortunate situation to have put the parliament and the government in, so I don't support the motion because I do believe that consideration in detail is incredibly important. Scrutiny is important, and I would urge the government to think about their approach. The Leader of the House was very vocal at the start of this parliament and during the last parliament about wanting the processes of this place and the parliament to be respected. He said that we need to restore integrity to this institution. I strongly say that this is not how we go about it.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a time in this place when speeches were not timed. Then, when the timing came in, there were many members present at the time who were deeply concerned. We're in a position today where we have this piece of legislation that's more than 260 pages long. A draft bill was not circulated to the crossbench and, I assume, also not to the opposition, and yet many of us we will get just get five minutes in this place to discuss this piece of legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Over and over again this year we've heard that it's so urgent. We're being told that the urgency of the legislation is more important than the scrutiny of the legislation. Well, when you rush things through, you make mistakes. The point of this place is it's supposed to be the contest of ideas. It's supposed to be the place where you rigorously debate, and, if the government believe in their legislation, they should be open for that debate and they should allow that debate to be free-flowing. But that's not what we are seeing with this motion.

This is a gag motion by any other name, and we're seeing it over and over again with every piece of legislation. I think that that thwarts the good work that we should be doing in this place, and ultimately it thwarts democracy. I would urge the government: please reconsider your position with this. Again, I think this motion shows contempt for all of us and the work we're supposed to be doing in here. I think we can be much better. In the last parliament all of us were upset when the then government would gag debate, especially the now Leader of the House. Yet, to me, this motion is really very little different.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I may be wrong, but I think I might be the longest-serving cabinet minister, or senior cabinet minister, anyway, in this parliament—in another place, mind you. But whenever we were in trouble and we had legislation which was, so to say, controversial, we rushed it through as fast as we could get it through. I have no doubt that that's what's happening here. Even though I am supportive of the tenet of this bill, I remain somewhat cynical about the intent of the current question before the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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