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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 being called on immediately.

I'll explain to the House why I'm doing this. For those of you who were listening to the Leader of the House in his earlier mellifluous, calm, 'nothing to see here' presentation, he was busy giving the impression that it is nothing out of the ordinary for the government to sit there, arms folded and do nothing, when a message comes from the Senate saying that a bill has been passed. It's perfectly standard, apparently! Are there pieces of evidence which suggest that it's very far from standard and is, in fact, part of a sneaky strategy that the Leader of the House and the government have been passing all day to avoid being put in a position where they could move quickly to introduce safeguards for workers that they have been arguing around the country are important?

There's one powerful piece of evidence that it was pretty sneaky stuff. That powerful piece of evidence is that, around midday when the first message from the Senate arrived—the first in respect of four bills which were passed by the Senate last week—what the government chose to do after the first reading of the bill was to move that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting—in other words, deal with the matter as a responsible government managing the flow of legislation would do. Of course, when the second message from the Senate came on shortly after question time, it turned out the Leader of the House was on a go-slow. The Leader of the House was on a stop-work. He just wandered off. Nothing happened. There were shrieks of silence. There was complete inactivity. There was no hand on the tiller. That is something that all Australians who care about good government should be very concerned about, but it should also put you on notice that this is very sneaky stuff going on from the Leader of the House.

I will point to a second piece of evidence that this is very sneaky stuff. If we have a look at the daily program circulated by the authority of the Leader of the House, no less, what does it say that the government is going to do in respect of four bills coming from the Senate? In respect of the first of them—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023—it says: 'First reading. Second reading to be made an order of the day for the next sitting.' That's exactly what happened it midday. At least, that's what the Leader of the House attempted to do at midday, but we then moved a motion to have this matter brought on as quickly as possible. When the message in respect of the second of these four bills came from the Senate, what did the Leader of the House do? Nothing! He sat there—no action. Stop work—all out. On this rare occasion, this was not done at a time when a concrete slab had been poured, but it was very much in the finest traditions of the unions that are constituent members, funders and paymasters of the Labor Party. Why did the Leader of the House do that? Why did he do precisely the opposite of what was stated on the daily program circulated under the very authority of the Leader of the House? Why did he do that? Why did he do that in respect of the next bill when a message came from the Senate? That was the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill. Why has he just done it again—the third shameful piece of inaction?

It's the third time he has chosen to do precisely the opposite of what the document circulated under his own authority to all parliamentarians and members of this House says. The document says: 'First reading. Second reading to be made an order of the day for the next sitting.' Then when the opposition asked, 'It seems a bit irregular; why is this happening?' according to the Leader of the House it was nothing out of the ordinary and there was nothing to see. In fact, there was everything to see. It put the opposition in the unpalatable position of there being no option but to move that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 being called on immediately. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because the Leader of the House and the government have chosen not to act. We are therefore moving a suspension of standing orders so this matter can be called on for those who consider that it is an important opportunity for the parliament to act quickly to legislate a measure for which there is agreement between the government, the opposition and, I am advised, many members of the crossbench. This is an opportunity to move quickly to legislate and to bring into effect measures that are given effect under the first responders bill.

This is very important legislation. It would amend the law relating to work health and safety and workers' compensation and rehabilitation. In particular, it would give fairer treatment to first responders. That might include, for example, people who have been employed as a firefighter, an ambulance officer or in other very important occupations. This is the reason why the opposition is moving this. It's because this is an opportunity for the government to join with the opposition and the crossbench to move quickly to legislate a measure which the government has expressly said it supports. But, for reasons that are frankly inexplicable, the government is choosing to sit on its hands.

We were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt when it came to the first bill of the four that were before the House. There was every opportunity for the Leader of the House and the government to indicate that they would be supporting the bill. We could have moved very quickly. But, unfortunately, that's not the approach the government has taken. What is troubling is that we have seen the same approach taken on bill after bill. It's particularly troubling that we have seen some pretty sneaky behaviour by the government to seek to avoid the operation of the normal processes of this place. But the suspension of standing orders that I am moving would allow this parliament to deal with this matter with the alacrity it deserves. That is why it is urgent that standing and sessional orders be suspended.

It is quite remarkable that the government and just about every member who has spoken in the second reading debate has given passionate arguments as to why these measures in relation to first responders are so important. On this side of the House, we agree. Indeed, all material stakeholders within our society agree. The chance this House now has is to vote very quickly to put this legislation into force. We heard how many words from the Leader of the House saying, 'If it were not for these procedural motions from the opposition there would be an opportunity to return to the bill'? But we know that all that would do is allow more time for debate. What the opposition is proposing, and what this measure is directed to achieve, is the opportunity for this House to vote quickly and to put in place immediately the measures that apply to the benefit of first responders. It is quite extraordinary that the Labor Party, the supposed champion of the worker, is not wanting to do this. It's not wanting to seize the opportunity the Senate in its wisdom has provided to this House. This House can join with the Senate. This House can demonstrate a bipartisan approach and work together to put in place in very short order these desirable and necessary changes in relation to first responders. It is for these reasons that I commend this suspension to the House.

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

Is there a seconder for this motion?

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

I second the motion to suspend the standing orders.

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

Is there a written copy of the motion?

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

There is, and I have just signed it. I'll put this into context. We have a larger omnibus bill that is being debated in this chamber and will go through to the Senate at a later date. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is very aware of the public comment that there are many contentious parts of the ominous bill. I acknowledge that it will get voted through this House, but the Senate has already reflected that many areas of the ominous bill will have a lot of debate and a lot of amendments. A lot of things will go on. That bill, as the minister said, will probably look nothing like it does now. It's very common, as the minister said, to have an IR piece of legislation that doesn't have amendments in the Senate and goes off to committee and then a whole lot of other things happen.

What we're talking about now is a private senator's bill that has come to the House from the Senate. There are four elements of the larger omnibus bill that the Senate has passed already. They have said: 'There will be no amendments to this part of the legislation. We're good with this. We see this is important for workers.' That chamber has passed that and sent it to us.

We're saying to the government: 'We know that four elements of your larger omnibus bill are going to be accepted by that chamber with no amendments.' The minister should be ecstatic about this. No minister really wants to see amendments to their legislation. This special IR legislation is going to go through with no amendments. So the government and the minister have a choice today. They can say: 'There are contentious parts of the ominous bill. There will be a lot of amendments moved. There will be committees and delay. The benefits for workers may not happen until well into next year.' So the minister and the government have the choice today to pass the four elements in this chamber, knowing they will pass the Senate as well.

This motion is about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023. We had one about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 before. I'll just touch on what this bill is. This change will simplify workers compensation systems and will provide, unless proven otherwise, the presumption that PTSD suffered by first responders was likely contributed to by their employment as a first responder. That's obviously a great part of the larger omnibus bill. We support that part of the bill. We support and think that it's important for first responders to be appropriately protected and have access to workers compensation systems easily and in a timely manner. That's what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 is about.

I acknowledge what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said earlier—that we may be perceived as being pre-emptive and that we may be perceived as not allowing the Senate to have normal due process. If I were the minister and the government, I would say: 'This is a really important part of the larger omnibus bill. This is an opportunity for the government to get this particular section of the larger bill through this chamber today.' Given that the government has the opportunity right now to pass this bill in this chamber, I would say that all first responders would say that the government should do that. Yes, it might not be the normal process. Yes, it is a private senator's bill that has come from the Senate, which is not the normal convention. Yes, it is before some committee processes have happened. Will there be amendments moved on this particular section of the bill in the Senate? Maybe not. Maybe everyone will say that this is exactly how it should be worded or written.

I would say to the government and to the minister that this is a really important section of this larger bill. I would say to the government and to the minister that I think every first responder in this country would say that they think you should support this bill. I support the motion put by the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

I'll deal with some procedural issues before I deal with the substance of what's before us. The Manager of Opposition Business went through what's in the blue, the daily program, and said that it was somehow in there an expectation that the Leader of the House, being me, was definitely going to be the one who would move that it be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The blue says that that will be moved by someone. But, when something comes through as a private members' bill, there is no presumption that it will be done by a minister. I know I did it on the first one, and I then endured a wonderful hour and a half of speeches telling me why it was a terrible thing to have done. And so I didn't do it on the three subsequent motions.

Apparently, all of those speeches for the hour and a half, which was what prevented the first bill from ever making it onto the Notice Paper, were apparently not true, if you were to believe the Manager of Opposition Business. He said in his speech on that first bill that we could have moved very quickly. Yes, we could have. But I couldn't give the right of reply speech until no-one else was jumping. The only way to move more quickly was either to (a) not filibuster or (b) for me to move that the member be no further heard or that the question be put, which I reckon, if I'd done so, the opposition would have had a problem and voted against that. The reason it wasn't done quickly was the behaviour of the opposition. That's what happened.

In terms of whether it can it be done, they say, 'When a bill comes from the Senate, normally the minister stands up and puts it on the Notice Paper.' Yes, they do because normally it's a government bill. But we have in the chamber right now the Leader of the Greens, the member for Melbourne, who, I remember, a couple of terms ago stood up and moved what the Manager of Opposition Business had been invited to move by the Speaker, which is simply that it be made an order of the day. Then, having moved it, you have carriage of it. And the second reading speech was then given by the member for Melbourne. That approach, which, if you check with the clerks, you read your procedure and you learn your rules, has happened in the past. And, as I say, of the 151 members of the parliament, not everyone's expected to do, but I'm probably expected to, and the Manager of Opposition Business is probably expected to. It doesn't happen when it's a government bill because of course when it's a government bill the minister's going to stand up.

In the first bill today, I did stand up and take it. But the Manager of Opposition Business had a problem with that and now apparently also has a problem when the opposite occurs. But it certainly never occurred to me that we would end up, when the second message came, with a long moment of silence where nothing happened. So we're going through a process now where we're going to end up with, of the four bills, none of them on the Notice Paper simply because of the—I won't use the noun, because that'd be unparliamentary—idiocy of the way this has been handled by the Manager of Opposition Business.

For the bill that's in front of us, there were some important issues made by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business about what the view of first responders would be. We've had evidence on that both publicly and to the Senate inquiry. When you think about who first responders are, what this part of the closing loopholes bill does is acknowledge that, for first responders, PTSD can be presumed. If you've got PTSD, you shouldn't have to then go and prove it's because of your job. In the nine years that I was in opposition, I have no recollection of the government of the day doing anything in this area. Now they claim to be very passionate about it. If they're willing to support those parts of the closing loopholes bill when we get to the closing loopholes bill, that's great.

But it is also a concern of first responders that they don't only want this dealt with; they also want to avoid some of the forms of trauma. They also want the sections of this bill that deal with road safety, which make it safer for gig economy workers on the roads and make it safer for transport drivers for the road section. You don't just say, 'Oh, let's just presume you're all going to get PTSD because you're going to be turning up to those horrific accidents.' Let's also deal with the parts of the legislation that say, 'Let's avoid that.' Similarly, there's nothing more traumatic for first responders than when they turn up to a workplace death. That's why people want to keep the section of the bill, in exactly this context, that deals with industrial manslaughter, because if it's a crime to cause someone's death out of work it should be a crime to cause someone's death at work. But somehow that one's not urgent. You can't separate those issues from the PTSD issue.

What is the view of different first responder organisations? We got told before, 'All the first responders would just want this pulled out and dealt with.' Well, I'll tell you that's not the case. Scott Weber, CEO of the Police Federation of Australia—which I would have thought would, as an organisation representing the different state police federations, have a reasonable idea about what a whole lot of first responders think—said:

The bill needs to get up in its entirety … It's critically important this legislation go through in its entirety and quite soon …

The Police Federation of Australia doesn't cover the Federal Police, so what does Alex Caruana, the president of the AFP Association, say? 'We support the bill in its entirety.' What did we have in evidence? Simone Haigh, a working paramedic and president of the Ambulance Employees Sub Branch of the Health and Community Services Union Tasmania—listen to this one—said:

We see that the whole bill needs to go through together, not just separating us out for presumptive PTSD legislation.

If those opposite are serious in their speeches in caring at all about how this will affect frontline workers, they should look at what the organisations that represent them have said. They should look at the simplicity of the concept of wanting to make sure that you have a situation where you avoid horrific accident sites and turn up to fewer of them.

If those organisations are against dealing with these provisions separately, what are the organisations that are in favour? The Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and Master Builders Australia. How many of them had, in advance, called for this PTSD provision? I hadn't been lobbied about it. How many of that list of organisations had called for silica to be added to the role of the asbestos agency? It wasn't there. How many of them were willing—until they thought, 'Maybe we can say, "Split the bill," and that's a way of delaying it'—to call for anything other than the defeat of the bill in its entirety? There's a really simple reason for that. This bill addresses underpayment. It addresses people being underpaid, whether they're underpaid through the labour hire loophole or because they're in the gig economy with no minimum standards or because they are victims of wage theft. Those organisations all have people who pay their membership to help keep the wages bill low. It's part of their job.

So why are they suddenly supporting this? Is it because they're desperate to quickly see through provisions that they have never once in their history supported? No, and no-one thinks that's the case. This is a device, in the same way Senator Cash straightaway got behind the idea of splitting the bill: because they think that if they do this then next year they can argue, 'Oh, we've dealt with the urgent bits and we can keep putting this on for delay after delay after delay.' The original delay that the opposition called for was until October. The next delay they called for was until as late as February. Now they're saying 'no earlier than February'. There will be a further delay because, as long as there is any prospect of people being paid properly, the Liberal and National parties have a problem with it. When they were in government, we had wage theft legislation in front of the parliament. It was introduced by them, and they voted down their own provisions. This is another device to protect underpayment for workers. People know exactly what it is, and, outside of this room, in the little meetings that they have, those opposite know exactly what this is as well, because not one of them has ever called for any of these provisions prior to them being introduced by this government. They don't believe this is urgent. It's another delaying game and should be opposed.

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

The time has now expired.

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

The question is that the motion be agreed to.