Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support these bills, and I commend Senators Lambie and David Pocock for bringing these very important matters before the Senate. As has been discussed already this morning in this debate, these bills cover elements of the overarching omnibus bill that the government has brought forward. These are the most urgent matters that relate to the bill. The argument of the government has been that every part of the closing loopholes bill is urgent and needs to be dealt with. That's their contention. If that were the case then the urgent elements they're talking about would commence with royal assent to the bill, but we know that the bill has commencement dates that are some way off into the future. The bills we're discussing here—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023—can all commence right away.

These are elements that can support right away the people that these bills affect.

I want to acknowledge Senators Lambie and Pocock for their work that they've done in bringing this forward but also for their participation in the inquiry that we're holding. As Senator Sheldon said, it's a comprehensive inquiry. It certainly is. I've been to every single one of the hearings that we've held. I think Senator Sheldon and I are the only two that have been to every one, but I know that Senators Lambie and Pocock have really stepped up and done their fair share in making sure that they're getting themselves across the bills and asking some very insightful questions of witnesses throughout that inquiry.

The thing that we really have heard consistently in every hearing that we've held—there have been five hearings so far—is that these elements that are in the broader omnibus bill are supported. They're not controversial. There is support from everyone. There's really no reason why they should be delayed because of the examination that is required for the more controversial elements of the closing loopholes bill. So this really does need to be supported.

Maybe it's cynical—I've only been here four and a bit years—but I am disappointed that the government have put these in their broader industrial relations reform bill, because they really should have been dealt with separately in the first place anyway. We shouldn't have had to go through what we went through this morning in suspending standing orders to allow the debate ion this to occur. The government should have just brought them through discretely to enable their passage quite efficiently. But I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that's following this that they were put into the broader industrial relations reform bill so that it would just put greater pressure, particularly upon the crossbench and, indeed, the entire Senate to try to get it through because they're urgent and they need to happen, as a way to carry through the more contentious elements of the broader bill and certainly the elements of the bill that really shouldn't be there at all—for example, the union delegates rights. Those elements were to commence on 1 January, I understand. It's a demonstration that that's really what this is actually about, that this is just about repaying the debt that the Labor Party have got to the unions, back to those that put them here in the first place, and so that's really what this is about.

Senator Sheldon spoke and he conceded that the broader bill is complex. We certainly are in agreement there, and I think everyone acknowledges that it is comprehensive as well, as he also said That's right. He acknowledged the comprehensive nature of it and the complexity, which has justified the need to have a really solid and comprehensive examination of the bill. I at this point want to thank all members of that committee for the way that we've been able to go through that inquiry while we're coming at it from very different angles. The way that that committee is able to operate, going through some very complex issues—contentious issues in many cases. We don't speak over the top of each other. We're civil with each other. We get through the questions and we allow each other to do that. I commend Senator Sheldon for the way that he chairs that committee. So he's right to talk about the fact that it has been a good inquiry, that there has been and continues to be good examination of the issues.

But I've got to say that throughout the inquiry not once have I heard anyone raise any issue with these particular bills that Senators Lambie and Pocock are bringing forward, which undermines the argument that has been made by the government that we really shouldn't be doing it in this way and that we should just essentially pass the closing the loopholes bill substantively and quickly. Senator Sheldon also said that it's unusual that we would be dealing with these bills now while there's still an inquiry going on into the closing the loopholes bill. But, as I said, no evidence has come forward that would suggest in any way that there needs to be a pause or there needs to be further examination of the parts of the closing the loopholes bill that these bills address. No-one has brought any evidence on that and no-one has come and asked questions that would even question the validity of these bills and whether or not they are going to meet the needs they address.

Senator Sheldon said there may have to be amendments to the parts of the closing the loopholes bill that these bills address. Again, we haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that is the case. In any case, even if there were, those amendments could still be considered at a later time. We amend bills in this place all the time, so it's not right to use that as the reason for why we shouldn't be doing what we're doing here today.

As I said, the vast majority of witnesses that appeared before or made a submission to the inquiry—there have been 167 submissions to the overall inquiry—have indicated their support for carving out the less contentious provisions of the bill. That's exactly what we're doing here today, because these bills relate to silica related diseases and to discrimination against people suffering family or domestic violence or using redundancy payments for the same purpose.

During the Sydney public hearing, Senator David Pocock, who gave a contribution earlier today, asked the Australian Federal Police Association when they knew that the presumptive legislation—something the association have been advocating for some time—would be included in the omnibus bill. The association's response was that they didn't know that it was going to be part of the omnibus bill. So they were consulted on this very important issue for them and they were given assurances—from what we got from their evidence—that this was an important issue that the government wanted to deal with, but at no time were they ever told that this was going to be caught up in, I believe, the cynical way that these bills have been caught up in the overall omnibus bill. This is despite the government saying they've had extensive consultation with these stakeholders. The association were not told at any time that this was going to be caught up in the omnibus bill.

This is why it's important that the presumptive legislation be passed as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate reason why it's caught up. These non-contentious provisions need to pass so that measures, like those covered in the presumptive legislation, can commence as soon as possible. Those measures would commence on 1 January—in just a month and a half's time.

The same applies to the other non-controversial provisions of the bill. Regarding silica safety and silica related diseases, the Master Builders said only a couple of days ago:

Amendments to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 alter the functions of ASEA to include coordinating action on silica safety and silica-related diseases.

We support ASEA being handed this additional role. Master Builders considers that ASEA has made a significant and positive difference in discharging its existing remit to improve the level of asbestos-related awareness, coordination and safety outcomes.

They were urging the government to pass these bills and to support these bills. So there is wide support for the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023. It's disappointing that it was included as part of the overall omnibus bill, because it is a necessary examination of those issues raised by the Master Builders, and its inclusion in the omnibus bill is potentially delaying the commencement of the provisions in the legislation before the Senate today.

But, through the work of Senators Lambie and David Pocock in bringing these matters before the Senate, we have the chance to vote on these aspects of the government's bill immediately, today. In doing so—if these bills are supported—we'll be able to see these non-contentious but very important provisions support the individuals and families who need them.