David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to a message to the House of Representatives, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended s would prevent the opposition moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to a message to the House of Representatives to be moved and be determined immediately.

Last week, the Senate unanimously voted for four of the 21 schedules of the government's omnibus IR bill. These are PTSD provisions for first responders, family and domestic violence provisions that would strengthen existing legislation, adding silicosis to be aligned with asbestos and important redundancy provisions where a larger business becomes a small business and people who hang on the longest to support that business often end up not getting a redundancy. It seems to me that politics is largely about negotiation and compromise, and it seems like that has been done in the Senate, where four parts of the 21-part omnibus bill have been split at the will of the Senate and passed without even a call for a division. Clearly, there is very strong support in the Senate. We have endorsed these bills, we have passed them, and the House of Representatives should now look at these bills.

My commitment to people in the ACT when I was elected was to look at each piece of legislation on its merits. I'm not here to be a rubber stamp, and I'm not here to stand in the way of much-needed protections for workers. But I am here to ensure that there is scrutiny and to stand up for the ACT.

There are clear loopholes that need to be closed. No-one is going to stand up and say that what Qantas has been doing with labour hire is okay. But this is an enormous bill. It has a 500-page explanatory memorandum and 200 pages of legislation. Whilst there are clear issues with, say, Qantas, this bill goes economy wide. When you have that, you have to be looking at the unintended consequences. As an example, for those unfamiliar with some of the details of this bill, as it's currently drafted, the same job, same pay provisions would apply to athletes. You could have Nathan Cleary being paid the same as a first-year rookie. I think anyone in the community would say, 'Hang on; that's not what this is intended for.'

Based on the fact that these measures are economy wide, parts of the crossbench have said we need more time to deal with this—noting the Jacqui Lambie Network's constant concerns about resourcing for the crossbench. Senator Watt, in answer to a question from Senator Lambie, talked about wage theft and industrial manslaughter. I'd be very happy to consider those provisions separately now, but it also highlighted that there is some misunderstanding about this omnibus bill. Minister Watt made a very clear point about wage theft, but my understanding is that the provision related to wage theft comes into effect 1 January 2025, so there's a long time until anyone will be done for wage theft. I think it adds to the argument that, with provisions that come in on 1 July or later, we should take the time to get this right for the Australian workers and for small business. We should do our duty as elected representatives to really ensure that we're working through any unintended consequences and sorting them out.

For the last industrial relations omnibus bill, the government moved 150 amendments to their own bill on day 1 in the House. We've had dozens and dozens of amendments to this bill flagged by the government, but we're yet to see those details. When it comes to these four provisions out of 21, there's clear support from the Senate. This is about simply sending a message to the House of Representatives that the Senate has made its position clear on these four bills, and it's time for the House of Representatives to deal with them.