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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Last year, with the Secure Jobs Better Pay Bill, the parliament passed legislation to improve job security, increase wages and close the gender pay gap. It worked.

We have had the strongest jobs growth for the first year of any Australian government. Half a million jobs have now been created, and 85 per cent of those jobs have been full time. Wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade. The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever, and the number of days lost to industrial action has fallen sharply.

But many Australians are not receiving the full benefit of these changes, because of loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. For these workers the minimum standards in awards and enterprise agreements are words on a page, with little relevance to their daily lives.

The businesses which use these loopholes are able to undercut Australia's best employers in a race to the bottom.

If we want workers to be paid properly we need to close the loopholes.

If we want casuals to have a pathway to secure work we need to close the loopholes.

If we want enterprise agreements to determine minimum rates of pay at a workplace, we need to close the loopholes.

If we want gig workers and those in road transport to have minimum standards, we need to close the loopholes.

Those workers have waited long enough, so today I ask the parliament to come together and close the loopholes that undercut pay and conditions this year.

In relation to wage theft, it is already a crime for a worker to steal from an employer, as it should be. But it's not a crime for an employer to steal from a worker. We will close this loophole.

An employer convicted of intentional wage theft could face up to 10 years imprisonment. Significantly, courts will be able to impose fines of up to three times the amount of the wage underpayment in both civil and criminal contexts, allowing penalties to be proportionate to the scale of the misconduct.

Employers who take reasonable steps to pay the correct amounts, or who make honest mistakes, will not be criminally prosecuted.

The Fair Work Ombudsman will be able to enter cooperation agreements with employers who come forward, and, as was requested by COSBOA, a new Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code will provide assurance to small-business employers that they can't be pursued criminally if they take appropriate steps to comply with the law.

Maximum civil penalties for wage underpayment, including reckless wage underpayment, will be increased, implementing recommendation 5 of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce.

There are two key challenges in stamping out wage underpayments: one is how you detect the problem early, and a second is how you help workers—often very vulnerable workers—to speak up in the workplace. We are making two changes to address these issues.

The first is an amendment to the current process allowing worker representatives to access workplaces to support workers.

Currently, the Fair Work Commission can decide to allow a representative to enter a workplace without 24 hours notice if there is a reasonable prospect of the destruction or concealment of evidence. We will give the commission the capacity to also grant right of entry where it is satisfied there is a reasonable suspicion of wage underpayment.

There can be cases where the paperwork is impeccable but wage theft is occurring. For example, if a worker is being directed to clock off but is still required to work after that, you will only uncover this by attending without notice.

Existing safeguards applying to right of entry will continue. This bill makes no changes to section 483AA for access to non-member records and keeps the prohibition on accessing residential premises.

Secondly, a common feature of many high-profile wage underpayment cases is that, when they are discovered, we find the problem has been going on for years and years. People are too afraid to speak up, and there are no processes in place to help them do so. We need to make sure that, if someone is not being treated fairly at work, it's discovered early. That's why this bill contains important new protections and rights for workplace delegates, including paid access to relevant training—with small businesses exempt from this requirement.

These changes make it more likely that there is a fellow employee at the workplace who is trained and knows the rules. This means more underpayment issues will be resolved early and quickly without involving anyone from outside the workplace.

The next loophole involves casual employment.

Casual employment suits many Australians and plays an important role in our workplaces.

But when someone is called 'casual' on their pay slip or their contract yet is rostered like a permanent worker, expected to accept shifts like a permanent worker, and has a job likely to continue into the future indefinitely, then there's a clear loophole. A worker like this should be able to choose secure employment if they want it.

The ability to treat someone as a casual against their wishes, even if they are working like a permanent worker, is an unfair loophole. And we will close it.

A casual will still be defined as someone who does not have a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work, but the bill will enable employees and their employers to look at what's really happening, not just what their contract says. Employees will be able to notify their employer that they wish to be permanent if they believe they no longer meet the casual definition.

Providing certainty to business, casual employees will remain casual unless they actively choose otherwise; and where an employee chooses to become permanent, no back pay will accrue.

Most casuals who are eligible won't want to convert. Most will prefer to keep their loading. But those casuals who maybe are supporting a household with that job are more likely to want security. Their rent isn't casual; their bills aren't casual. They need a better option for security.

The Fair Work Commission will have the ability to resolve any disputes, including through arbitration as a last resort or in exceptional circumstances.

The bill also prohibits 'sham' casual arrangements, which will stop employers deliberately and unreasonably misrepresenting to an employee that their employment is casual when it is not.

The next problem is the labour hire loophole.

There's a legitimate role for labour hire in Australia—for surge work, for specialist work, or to provide temporary replacement workers.

Because of the inherent insecurity, labour hire workers are usually paid higher rates of pay, and those cases are completely unaffected by this legislation.

But when a business agrees on rates of pay in an enterprise agreement, and then asks labour hire workers to work for less—this is a labour hire loophole and this bill will close it.

On application, the Fair Work Commission will be able to make an order requiring labour hire workers to be paid at least the minimum rates in a host business's enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission must not make the order unless it is fair and reasonable to do so, for example where it finds an arrangement is for the provision of services rather than labour. Orders can only apply to pay rates; not to non-monetary conditions.

To be very clear—this reform does not prevent employers paying their employees more in recognition of their skills, qualifications and experience.

It does not apply to hosts who are small businesses; or to independent contractors; or to training arrangements.

The bill contains broad anti-avoidance protections that will stop businesses deliberately changing and manipulating their operations to try to get around these new obligations.

The Fair Work Commission will help businesses to implement these obligations, including through developing guidelines.

In relation to employee-like workers, the road transport industry, and unfair contracts: a definition of employment is needed.

Avoiding paying worker entitlements by calling a relationship 'independent contracting' when it is in reality an employment relationship is not appropriate and must end.

Courts will now be required to look at the totality of the relationship, not only what's on paper, to work out what is really going on.

And we need fair minimum standards for employee-like workers and the road transport industry. Currently gig workers have no minimum standards at all.

This is a loophole causing serious harm to workers and it must be closed.

At the moment if you're a worker wanting assistance, you turn up to the Fair Work Commission or the Fair Work Ombudsman and question 1 is: are you an employee? If the answer is yes, the Commission or Ombudsman works out where you fit into the system and a whole host of entitlements and rights follow. If the answer is no, all of those rights fall off a cliff.

The amendments in this bill will close the loophole and turn that cliff into a ramp, allowing the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for workers on digital platforms who do not meet the definition of employee, but nonetheless have low bargaining power, or low authority over their work or comparatively low pay—for example, people doing work via digital platforms in the NDIS, working in aged care, delivering food to people's homes, or transporting us around.

In many countries, the answer for these types of workers has been 'just make them an employee'. We are not doing that. We are going to accept the form of engagement.

But what we're asking is, within that form of engagement, surely there are some minimum standards that are appropriate.

For example, the Fair Work Commission might come up with a minimum rate of pay. In relation to rideshare, it might go for a 5-minute or per-minute rate rather than an hourly rate. Why? Because it would need to be a rate appropriate for the form of engagement.

Things like insurance, working time standards—these are possible without changing the form of engagement.

Things like rostering and overtime, though—these would change the form of engagement and are not permitted under the bill. Similarly you couldn't logically pay somebody for all the time that they're just on the app, because that would wreck the form of engagement.

Gig workers will have new rights to seek reinstatement if they've been unfairly deactivated from the platform. Gig workers have the same financial obligations as other workers and should not have their platform access and livelihood unfairly cut off without any chance of redress.

The road transport industry is currently operating in a way that is putting businesses, workers and their families under immense financial pressure and undermining the safety, sustainability and viability of the industry.

The problems are starkly illustrated in the Without trucks Australia stops inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport chaired by Senator Glenn Sterle, who joins us in the chamber now.

Acting on calls from the industry to make an urgent change, the bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for the road transport industry and to hear disputes about unfair contract terminations.

The bill contains a number of guardrails to ensure that the mistakes of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal are not repeated. A 'notice of intention' process gives parties an extended period to consider draft minimum standards orders before they become binding. Particular issues that are already comprehensively covered by other laws cannot be regulated. The Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that any order will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the viability or competitiveness of drivers. Parties affected by a potential order will have the right to be heard before the order is made; and a fail-safe process will allow an employee or employer organisation or the minister to apply to suspend the operation of an order in order to enable a full merits review to take place.

Importantly, the order will be made by an expert panel within the Fair Work Commission, which must take account of advice from a road transport advisory group, with subcommittees able to provide additional expertise—a group formally established under this bill. This is a clear requirement to ensure orders acknowledge the practical realities of the road transport sector.

We know that the challenges that drivers face are made worse with complex contractual chains in the trucking industry. To address this, the bill will provide for regulations to empower the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards for participants in road transport contractual chains. The government will continue to work with industry and union representatives to craft these regulations to ensure they are appropriate and effective in addressing pressing challenges, such as fair payment times.

And we need better protections against unfair contract terms for independent contractors.

Existing protections against unfair contract terms under the Independent Contractors Act have not worked.

This bill creates a new, low-cost and efficient jurisdiction at the Fair Work Commission for resolving disputes about unfair contract terms in services contracts, for independent contractors below a high-income threshold.

The next problem we are dealing with is fundamental.

Every worker has the right to go to work and come home safely.

Currently, manslaughter is a crime; but the same kind of culpable conduct is not prosecuted as manslaughter if it happens at work.

We will close this loophole.

This bill makes industrial manslaughter an offence—a long overdue recommendation of Marie Boland's 2018 review of the model work health and safety laws.

The offence includes penalties of $18 million for bodies corporate and 25 years imprisonment for officers. The most serious penalties should apply to recklessly or criminally negligently causing the death of a worker.

This part of the bill became essential because of the advocacy of the families of workers who never came home; some of whom are in the gallery right now.

This bill is for Kay Catanzariti and Barney Catanzariti, whose 21 year old son Ben was killed on a construction site at the Kingston foreshore here in Canberra when a concrete boom collapsed on him and two other workers.

This bill is for Shauna Branford and her husband, Peter Branford. Shauna's 39-year-old brother, Glenn Biddle, was killed at work in an explosion in North Ryde, New South Wales.

You have been tireless, resolute and courageous in advocating for reform over many years.

The Albanese government acknowledges you and your work on these important changes to the law; and we pay respects to your loved ones who are not here with us today to see this bill introduced.

The bill will also deal with other loopholes. It will expand the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to eliminate silica related diseases in Australia.

It will simplify workers' compensation for first responders with post-traumatic stress disorder, including firefighters, Australian Federal Police employees and ambulance officers in the Commonwealth jurisdiction.

It will further improve bargaining by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make enterprise agreement model terms, allowing franchisees to bargain together in the single-enterprise bargaining stream and allowing employers covered by a multi-enterprise agreement to bargain with their employees for a replacement single-enterprise agreement at any time.

It will strengthen protections against discrimination for employees subjected to family and domestic violence.

It will make sham contracting laws fairer.

It will clarify the operation of Fair Work Ombudsman compliance notices.

It will simplify registered organisation demerger provisions.

It will clarify rules for the small business redundancy exemption in insolvency contexts.

The debate about these laws has now been raging for years, ever since we announced these policies from opposition.

Three arguments are always made when people don't want to argue the merits of an issue. They will complain about consultation, they will talk about something that the issue is not or they will ask for a delay.

But my request in the debate we are about to have is simple—anyone who intends to vote against closing the loopholes should defend the loopholes. Defend them.

If someone thinks it's reasonable that wage theft not be a crime, defend it.

If someone thinks it's okay that someone who could easily be converted to secure work shouldn't have the option to do so then they should say so.

If someone believes that low-paid workers in the gig economy should have absolutely no minimum standards, they should make that case.

If someone's position is that it's fine for certain companies to agree to minimum rates of pay in an enterprise agreement and then use a loophole to completely undercut them then they should defend the loophole and make that case.

If anyone thinks it is reasonable that recklessly or negligently causing the death of a worker not be a criminal offence, they should explain why.

If these loopholes had been closed years ago our workplaces today would be safer and fairer than they are.

Nothing leaves me more convinced of the need for this legislation than the refusal of its opponents to step up and defend the loopholes that we are closing. They know that their arguments don't stack up.

In presenting this bill to the House, I want to acknowledge the advocacy of workers, of union delegates and organisers, of academics, of community sector organisations and of employers who are frustrated that their competitors use these loopholes—all of whom have said, 'Enough is enough.'

While the opposition to closing loopholes has wandered from the selfish to the absurd, at one level the political debate isn't what any of this is about.

This is about the many responsible employers—small, medium and large—who work hard every day to contribute to this country and are tired of unfair competition from those employers who do the wrong thing.

This bill is about all those members in the road transport industry who want to make a great contribution to a great industry and come home safely at night to their families. This bill is for owner-drivers like Frank Black, Tony Matthews and their trucking colleagues and industry representatives who have joined us today.

This bill is for gig workers from rideshare and food delivery who want fair minimum standards at work—people like Rosalina, Nabin and their colleagues who are with us today. This bill is for Yavuz Cikar, whose 30-year-old nephew, Burak Dogan, was killed in Sydney's inner west while working as a food delivery rider.

We are closing the loopholes for gig workers; and ensuring that the road transport industry is safer, more sustainable, more viable into the future.

This bill is for people like Chris—a cleaner who has worked here in Canberra cleaning government buildings for almost 40 years. Chris, who is here in the gallery today, has worked for six employers, and during that time every single one of them has underpaid Chris in one way or another. She got her money back eventually each time with the help of her union, and a struggle each time.

Chris, we are closing the wage theft loophole for hardworking people like you.

This bill is for people like Sanjeev, a migrant worker with two children in high school. He was planning to be here today. He can't because he's caring for an ill family member. Sanjeev is a pathology courier. For the past five years, he's worked 30 to 40 hours a week and always been employed as a casual.

Despite requests, his employer has refused to convert him to permanent employment, leaving Sanjeev without the job security that he needs for his family.

We are closing the forced permanent casual loophole for people like Sanjeev.

This bill is for Brodie, who is with us in the gallery today. Brodie works for BHP Operations Services in Queensland as an operator in production. Brodie and his directly employed workmates all work full time, all within the same part of the business, performing the same operator role.

Except that Brodie gets paid less.

This bill will close the labour hire loophole for people like Brodie.

This bill will close the loopholes which undermine and weaken our workplace relations system, and it will make Australian workplaces safer and fairer.

The loopholes that have been harming workers, families, employers, and our community can be closed here, this year—with this bill.

Let's get this done.

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

The debate must now be adjourned. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

I move:

That all words from "the next sitting" be omitted and substituted with "16 October 2023."

For the benefit of the House, I just want to explain the purpose and the objective of the motion that I am moving. I do want to be clear to members of the House that Practice requires me to confine my remarks to the question that is now before the House, and that question is about when debate should be resumed.

I'm unable to and I will not be making reference to the substantive terms of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 moved by the minister, because the motion that is before the House right now is concerned with the programming of debate. It is not in and on itself a motion which expresses an opinion of the House with respect to the bill. So, while—as is no surprise to anyone in this House—the opposition certainly does object to the bill, and there may be others who feel similarly, this is not the time for those arguments to be put or for a consideration of the substantive merits of the bill.

Instead, this amendment to the motion that's before the House is moved by me with the objective of upholding parliamentary accountability and protecting transparency against yet another attempt by the government to undermine this parliament. A legislative smash-and-grab raid is effectively what's being attempted here, and I'll return to that substantive point shortly.

Let me first speak to the procedural aspects of this motion and the amendment that I have moved to the motion. Again, I make clear that the question which is before the House—which, Deputy Speaker, you've just stated—should not be confused with the question that debate be adjourned, which is often put on the conclusion of the minister's speech. That's a question that cannot be amended or subject to debate. Instead, the question which is before the House right now is a question going to when the House wishes to resume debate on this bill. In the normal course of proceedings that would not typically be a controversial issue, because the House, in general, is not dissatisfied with programming decisions of the government. It is very clear from the standing orders, however, that it's open to any member to amend the motion which is before the House.

In this case, the motion before the House is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. On this occasion, I have moved an amendment, which will be seconded by my good friend the member for Page, that all words from 'the next sitting' be omitted and substituted with '16 October 2023'. That amendment has been worded in specifically the language that is required under Practice and under the standing orders, because the requirement is that the amendment must substitute a specific date or day.

Let me turn now to the substantive question of why the opposition is moving this amendment. As Senator Cash has said in the other place and in public and as I have also said in the media, the opposition is deeply concerned that this minister is once again attempting to ram through this parliament radical changes to Australia's industrial relations system. Let's examine for a moment the government's legislative program and what is being proposed here. What the government wants to do is to commence debate on this bill tomorrow. This leaves the opposition and all of the crossbench members of this House less than 24 hours to properly consider this voluminous bill and formulate a response.

I make the point that nobody on this side of the House has seen, previous to about 15 minutes ago, this voluminous bill. It looks like a house brick. That's not entirely surprising. We've all been expecting that, and those expectations have been fully satisfied by the voluminous size of these hundreds of pages of legislation which are now before us on the table.

We've had the opportunity, it must be said, thanks to the generosity of the minister, to look at that house brick of a bill, but we've not been given the opportunity to consider it, to review it, to assess it, to examine it, to study it, as would normally be good practice in this parliament. Of course, the opposition has internal processes, and no doubt other parties and other organisations or groupings within this parliament have their own internal processes. It would not come as any surprise to the government to know that the opposition has a process to properly examine and consider a bill through shadow cabinet processes and through party room processes.

There has been a time-honoured and well-regarded convention in this place that there should be sufficient time allowed after a bill being introduced by the minister, as has just occurred now, for others in this parliament, including the opposition but also including crossbenchers, to have the opportunity to examine the legislation. Tragically, disappointingly, this time-honoured convention is being wantonly disregarded by this minister for what can only be assumed to be political reasons. I am advised that Senator Cash, the shadow minister, the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations matters, is only now as we speak receiving a briefing from the government on the contents of this bill. It's clearly a ludicrous and laughable proposition—

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

That's pretty soon after I've moved it!

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

The minister at the table giggles and suggests that he's meeting best practice in so generously briefing the shadow minister at this time. The fact is, as we know, there's been a policy development process underway for months, but the minister has, in quite a calculated and deliberate fashion, very specifically decided to only now make available the terms of the bill, the several hundred pages we can see weighing down the table in a considerable fashion. That has only been shared with the House in the last 30 minutes, and the timetable that the government has put is that all others in this parliament should be required to get across these hundreds of pages and to begin participating in the debate tomorrow.

There is absolutely nothing to stop the minister demonstrating his bona fides, demonstrating his reasonableness by indicating right now that what he will do is agree to the amendment the opposition has moved and program this bill for debate in this House from 16 October 2023. That would be the first day of the next period of sittings. That would allow appropriate time for the opposition and for others in this parliament to study the extensive detail, the many hundreds of pages of wording in this bill, to consult with appropriate stakeholders and to then participate in a deliberative legislative process in a serious way.

Unfortunately, what we've seen from this minister instead is what can only be described as a legislative smash and grab exercise. And this isn't the first time this minister has done just this. He did this with the legislation he introduced last year—indeed, last year, we saw a threat from the minister that parliament would return on a Saturday, at extraordinary expense to taxpayers, as part of—

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

Imagine having to work on a Saturday!

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Welcome to shift work, mate!

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

I will dignify the calls from across the table by saying we all know that in this place we work at many different times of the day throughout the week and the weekend, and we all know that it is a privilege to serve our constituents. We also know that good parliamentary process involves and requires parliamentarians being given an appropriate amount of time to consider the details of what is being put before them. The chaotic way in which the minister is proposing to advance debate on this particular bill is, frankly, not worthy of him, not worthy of his party, not worthy of this parliament, not worthy of our parliamentary democracy.

It's for all of these reasons that I have moved, in the amendment to the motion that's before the House, that debate should resume on 16 October. I want to be clear in response to the minister's pre-emptive rebuttal points which have not even been made, this is not an attempt to push the bill off into the never-never, it's not an attempt to needlessly run interference. Of course it would have been open to me to move a date next year, but the opposition respects that this is a matter which is on the government's legislative agenda. We don't agree with it, but we respect that fact.

What we also ask for is the basic respect for legislative processes which allow opposition and crossbench parliamentarians the time to properly consider what is an extremely complex matter, a matter which I might say— (Time expired)

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

Manager of Opposition Business, your time has well and truly expired. I will check we have a seconder, but, first, I do want to make abundantly clear that the debate must be adjourned. We are simply discussing resumption of debate here.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

GAN (—) (): I second the motion. I'm seconding this motion because this is a question of transparency.

Can I begin by giving the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations a compliment? I've just googled you, Minister. You're a very good speaker. He was awarded the Martin Sorensen Trophy for being the best speaker at the 1994 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships, which is quite an achievement and I congratulate him on that.

Why am I seconding the motion? What I've learnt from this minister is that when he gets up and says something like, 'This is a very modest proposal,' it's usually complete overreach. When this minister gets up says, 'We've consulted widely,' it's normally been with a few union movement officials and stakeholders who've signed confidentiality clauses.

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

We're not introducing argument here.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I just wanted to pay the minister a compliment.

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

This is a debate about the motion before the House.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament needs to be given time to look at the detail of this very technical bill—just with the process that this government has taken with the bill to date, as the Manager of Opposition Business said. This government said it would be very transparent, but what its modus operandi has been—and it's been the case with this bill as well—is to gag everyone who's been part of the consultation with legally binding non-disclosure agreements. What that means is that we get this bill, but nothing about this bill has come into the public discussion before the bill got here—which is normal!—because everyone has signed a non-disclosure agreement. While Minister Burke can speak freely about it—and the government spoke about these things when it was doing the consultation process—anyone who's been opposed to this or been consulted haven't been able to speak about it. That's why this parliament needs more time to consider this, because it's disrespectful to the chamber and to the Australian people.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's that got to do with the motion?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lots—I'll keep going. The bill changed names, which was interesting. I think the bill was originally going to be called 'same pay, same job'. It's been changed now to 'closing the loophole'. There are concerns about the bill, with the cost-of-living. There are concerns about same job, same pay: how do we do this, and how do you measure that? Again, there are lots of problems with this bill, or lots of issues with this bill that need time to be discussed. While the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to move it to October is very modest, I would like to see a comprehensive Senate committee as well, with an inquiry into this which would travel the country.

If the bill is very important and so desperately needed, as the minister said, we'd like to see modelling from the Treasury before we debate this. What is the potential cost? Has the government gone to Treasury? Has it gone and got economic modelling about what this would be about? Again, there are lots of questions about this. This isn't the first time. We saw this with other bills. We've seen that this is a modus operandi of this government with lots of legislation. They say they consult, but it's with a very select, very small number of people that are signed to confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. They introduce it into parliament, and then they gag it. They have their new changes to standing orders that they move as well, which mean you can only debate the bill for 24 hours. We saw it on the gas policy. We saw it on other bills.

This government went to the last election and promised the Australian people, this chamber and the crossbenchers that this would be a really transparent government. This is again showing they're not. If you consulted, you're holding people to non-disclosure agreements, you're introducing a bill that has huge ramifications and unintended consequences that you probably don't know yet and you're holding the bill up and putting it through as quickly as you can without the committee inquiries—or the fact that we could go out and talk to the stakeholders who were consulted. As an opposition, we should have time and should be allowed to go out, consult stakeholders who have been involved in this process for the last few weeks and months and get their insights into this. That's very difficult to do when the government proposes to bring this forward tomorrow, and they will close the debate on the day that it's being debated because they wants to ram this through.

The Australian public and Australian businesses that I know want to know that this bill isn't just about paying the union pay masters and that we have a transparent process, a process that has been longstanding and tried in this parliament. I fully support what I think is a very modest proposal from the Manager of Opposition Business to extend the adjournment of this debate.

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

I can never work out if they try to make mistakes like this, if it's incompetence or what it is, but it's consistent, and I'll give them that. First of all, whenever a member of parliament was giving a first speech, we would make sure that, from opposition, even if it was a government member giving their first speech, we didn't run procedural interference, because their first speech was scheduled for a particular time, they had family members there and it was a big moment in their career. It never occurred to me that the opposition might run interference on the first speech of one of their own members, but that is what they've decided to do now on this motion. It's something I've not seen before. I wish the member for Fadden well in his first speech. He will get to give it eventually. I wish him well in that.

Now, what is being moved is actually quite extraordinary because what they have said is not that they want to debate it next week; they've said they don't want to debate this bill at all until 16 October, and they've said part of the reason they need to wait for 16 October is that they want to go through their party-room processes. Of course, in that week, their party room meets on 17 October—their party room meets the following day. So what this motion actually says is: they will take the bill, probably, to their party room meeting tomorrow, because it's been made clear that Senator Cash is being briefed right now—and I don't know of another situation where a shadow minister is being briefed on a bill as it's being introduced to the parliament, but that's what we made sure we did today, at the earliest possible moment. We made sure that there was still time for parties to be able to go through their party processes, which will happen in the meetings tomorrow. I presume they'll go through it then.

So what's proposed in this motion? Is it that the Liberal and National parties will consider this bill on 5 September, but we're not allowed to talk about it until 16 October? What would that then mean? That would then mean that, in order to get this bill across to the Senate, we would have only two weeks of debate available in the House of Representatives. And what do you reckon they would do, the moment I brought forward a debate management motion to make sure we got through in those two weeks? Of the 151 members around the House, almost everybody wants to speak on a bill like this. It's always the case. So what would happen if we had the late-night sittings and we moved speaking times down to five minutes? Does anyone think those opposite would be voting for those debate management motions—even though the only reason for doing it would be because of the game they played this morning?

What the government intends to do is this: to have four weeks of debate. What they are proposing will mean only two weeks of debate. What the government is proposing on this bill is that we try to schedule as much time as possible, in the hope that we can avoid late-night sittings, and certainly to be in a situation where we can avoid shortening speaking times. Their motion guarantees consecutive late-night sittings and shortened speaking times.

This resolution, if carried, will guarantee that the parliament, in the two weeks we will have left to debate it before the Senate will require the bill, does every single thing that up until now the Manager of Opposition Business has told us he opposes—everything. He'll always get up and give his reasonable-voice speech. He'll get up and say: 'You know, this is being rushed through, rammed through.' And today, he has the resolution designed to make sure the parliament is in that situation. Today, what he's doing—and I haven't seen an opposition try this one on before—is to actually try to block debate. It wasn't enough for them to move that the member be no further heard, one at a time. They wanted to move that the entire parliament not be heard on this bill, for an entire two weeks; that we wait until we come back on 16 October—even though their party room, they acknowledge, will have met in September and made a decision on this—just for the sport of delaying it, so they can then get angry about the consequences of the delay, which will be late nights and shorter speaking times.

Well, in a debate where, so far, those opposite have been willing to participate, and given that the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend described this bill as an 'economy-destroying piece of legislation', I reckon they know what they think of it. I reckon they already know which way they're going to vote on this bill. I reckon, as soon as they heard it was called 'closing loopholes', they knew they were opposed to it. That was enough. Just the title page would have got them onside to be the opponents of this bill. They know what their position is, and they've known from the moment we started talking about closing the loopholes.

They will consider this at their party room tomorrow. Senator Cash is being briefed on it now. And every one of the measures in the bill has been ventilated publicly in the lead-up. The comment that we heard from the member who gave the previous speech, I've got to say, really blew me away, when he said, 'People have been prevented from talking about this bill over the last few weeks.' I don't know; maybe I imagined the ads, the public debate and all the arguments that came forward. The debate has been happening out in the community. The debate has been happening in the newspapers. The debate has been happening on radio and on TV, and it's time now for the debate to happen on the floor of parliament, because the people who are affected by these loopholes have been waiting long enough for this parliament to recognise what's really happening in their lives.

Those opposite might think it's a bit inconvenient for them to have to prepare a speech so quickly. Well, it's a bit inconvenient for the casual who has been a casual working 30 to 40 hours a week for six years to not be given security of employment. Those opposite might think it's a little bit inconvenient for them to have to put their submission to shadow cabinet through tonight so it can be ready for the party room tomorrow. Well, there are a whole lot of workers in the mining sector who have suffered the inconvenience of being paid less than the people they've worked side by side with for years. Maybe their inconvenience can be the priority this time. Let's give the casual worker the priority. Let's have a little bit of inconvenience around preparing speeches here in order to deliver a better workplace for the casual worker, a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards, and a better workplace for the people who are currently in the road transport industry who have been working for this reform for years.

Let's make those sorts of changes now, instead of making the ridiculous argument that, as I say, is the exact opposite of everything the Manager of Opposition Business has argued since he took on that title. The effect of this motion is to reduce the House of Representatives debate on the closing-loopholes bill from four weeks to two weeks. The impact of this amendment is to cut short the participation of members of this House in debate on the bill that has just been introduced. The impact of the motion that has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business would be to allow you to run away and hide and try to get away with a few more weeks where you can just try to dodge the issue and not be forced to defend the loopholes that you plan to vote against closing.

The people affected have had enough of being told, 'Can we have a delay?' They've had enough of being told, 'Can we just pretend the issue is about something else?' They've had enough of being told, 'Consultation hasn't been good enough,' even though there has been more consultation on this than on any workplace relations bill in years. People have had enough of those excuses, and this motion is one of the most pathetic excuses I've seen to hide the reality that the day has come when, if you go to vote against closing the loopholes, it will be time to front up and defend the loopholes. If those opposite aren't ready to defend the status quo, to defend the rotten deal for casuals, to defend the rotten deal for people who are affected by the labour hire loophole, to defend the rotten deal that gig workers have at the moment—well, if those opposite aren't ready, we are. Members on the government benches are ready to have this debate. We're ready to have this argument. We're ready to close the loopholes. If there are some members opposite who think, 'Maybe I would rather hold my personal speech until October,' guess what? We'll still be debating it in October. You'll still get to make your speeches then. Those two weeks of debate are still there. They're still available. The only effect of this amendment is to cut out this week and next week and to mean that fewer members of parliament will get to speak, and speaking times will get cut short. It's the sort of amendment you only move when you're scared of the debate you're about to walk into.

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

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

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

The question now is that the motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting be agreed to.

Question agreed to.