Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We put in a lot of amendments, yes, but the government put in pages and pages and pages of amendments to the legislation due to mistakes and loopholes that were identified through the committee process. Though that process was rushed, I think the committee sat for five days going through the legislation. We identified many loopholes—for example, for clothing workers, where there was a huge gap, and there were many other loopholes. We identified those through a rigorous committee process, fast-tracked as it was during that time. Many of us thought we needed a longer time to consider the legislation.

But here we are faced with the legislation hitting the deck sometime at the end of May, at a time when the committee can only meet in the week between 4 June and 8 June—so pick a date during that week. At most that gives us around a week from when the legislation hits the deck and is tabled to when we are sitting as a committee to review the act.

That gives stakeholders and the public about three or four days to look at the legislation and get a submission in. It gives the committee members only that amount of time to look at the legislation and, say, two or three days to read what will be a substantial number of submissions. We had dozens and dozens of submissions to the original Work Choices legislation. You can expect that we will get a number of substantive submissions from the community on these amendments. They will have to be studied very closely. The community will have a week and the committee will have less than a week to review these changes, to see if they are doing what the government say they will do—whether they are actually carrying out their intent or whether there is another series of loopholes that you could drive a truck through. We will have basically a week to consider these changes which are supposed to be substantive ones that will, supposedly, bring reform to the way that AWAs work.

I do not know if the Greens are going to be able to support the legislation, because I have not seen it. I suspect—in fact, I am pretty certain—it will not go as far as the Greens would like it to go. So we need time to assess the legislation, to assess what the community and the stakeholders say about the legislation and maybe even draft some amendments that will fix some of the holes that may or may not be there. But the point is that we need time to do that. The government are treating this place and the community with contempt if they think that a little over a week is enough time to consider substantive changes and to see if they are really going to deliver on what they have said and on what the community needs in terms of a safety net for the government’s new, so-called reformed, Work Choices. We need to see if the legislation actually addresses the fundamental flaws and provides the safety net that the government are saying is needed. A week is a contempt; the government are treating us with contempt. If the government were serious about getting real input they would allow the committee and the community a substantial amount of time to consider these changes. The Greens will not be supporting this referral date, although I reiterate that we support the referral to the committee. But, quite clearly, the government are treating that process with contempt by limiting it to 14 June, particularly in light of the fact that we will not be seeing the legislation until the end of May. The time for us to consider it as the committee is so short it is laughable.