Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

Amendments (10) to (13)—and I want to make this very clear—do not relate to the regulation of independent contracting arrangements. These are amendments which themselves propose to amend the government’s Work Choices legislation. They are fairly important, although obviously highly problematic, amendments, but I want to comment about the process. I think it was almost a year ago that we were in this chamber debating the Work Choices legislation. From memory, at that time 330-odd amendments were provided to the opposition and minor parties less than 40 minutes before the debate began. The bill and explanatory memorandum ran to over 1,500 pages in total, I think, and then several hundred amendments were provided less than 40 minutes before the debate began. I recall a number of senators, including Labor senators, very strongly making their views known about the inappropriateness of the government ramming through legislation with this level complexity in such a short time. Such concerns are obviously in addition to our concerns and our opposition to the extreme ideology which is at the heart of the government’s ‘Work No Choices’ legislation.

The government did not come in and say: ‘By the way, we need to amend the Workplace Relations Act because we’ve made some mistakes as you said we would. We need to deal with a range of issues where we appear not to have got it right, as demonstrated out there in the real world by subsequent events relating to how people have actually understood their rights and entitlements—in particular, employers getting more power to reduce wages and conditions than was originally planned.’ The government did not do that; what it has done, in the week the Independent Contractors Bill and consequential amendments are scheduled to be debated, is tack onto that legislative program a whole range of amendments relating to issues other than independent contracting issues. It really is another demonstration of the disregard for proper parliamentary processes that this government is demonstrating.

We have a situation where some reasonably technical amendments have not had the opportunity to go through the Senate committee process. They have not been considered by the relevant committee. On top of Labor’s opposition to the entirety of the government’s ‘Work No Choices’ legislation, we are also opposed to poor legislative processes. There is a reason why the Senate has used a process of sending bills—particularly complex, difficult or controversial bills—to committees, with the government then considering the committee’s recommendations. Australia’s laws have been better for that. We had an example today already where the outworker provisions of the Independent Contractors Bill have, after the Senate committee unanimously recommended it, been removed from the bill. That is an example of the Senate committee process working. And I want to add my acknowledgement of the work done by Senator Troeth in this regard. She has convinced the government to back off from what was extremely unfair legislation in relation to outworkers.

But such a process has not occurred in relation to these provisions. These provisions deal with issues such as redundancy entitlements and stand-downs which Labor regards as entirely objectionable. They deal with the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard and a range of other matters contained in schedule 6.

It is yet another example of the way in which this government not only has failed the policy test and the fairness test but has failed the competency test. This is extremely complex legislation. The government ought to have redrafted the entire Workplace Relations Act. Instead it chose to bundle into this parliament 1,500 pages of amendments plus explanatory memoranda and then, on the morning of the debate commencing in the Senate, put up 330-odd amendments. Now, in the context of discussing another bill, the government is tacking on a whole range of amendments to its industrial relations laws. That is what is happening—without the benefit of the Senate having perused them properly through the Senate committee process.

Frankly, it is another abrogation of parliamentary responsibility, of legislative responsibility, on behalf of the government that it is choosing to bypass the Senate committee process and that it is choosing to tack on these amendments to this discussion today. I am happy to have a further discussion shortly about the content of some of the amendments. I am not sure whether my colleague wants to make a contribution—it does not appear so. Senator Murray and Senator Siewert may wish to speak in relation to these amendments first.