Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 10th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 10 OF 2023

7 September 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Paul Scarr

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 10 OF 2023

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 6.38 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 March 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by

18 October 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Pacific) Bill 2023.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

7 September 2023

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

in the public interest ahead of the next Federal Election.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

12 February 2024

Possible reporting date:

4 March 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complex issue needing wide ranging consultation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Multiple stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September—November

Possible reporting date:

27 November 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/princi pal issues for consideration:

Significant reforms to workplace relations that need further interrogation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

unions, employer groups

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

1 Nov 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a commjttee

Name of bill:

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Legislation implements a number of key workplace relations policies.

Possible submi ssions or evidence from:

Business groups, trade unions, academics, Law Council

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment

Possible hearing date(s):

To be settled with committee chair

Possible reporting date:

1 November 2023

(signed)

A Urquhart

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complex issue needing wide ranging consultation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Multiple stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September—October

Possible reporting date:

18 October 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a commjttee

Name of bill:

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Provide stakeholders an opportunity to speak to the measures in the Bill enabling electronic and digital execution of statutory declarations.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Governance Institute of Australia Business Council of Australia Australian Banking Association Law Council of Australia Australian Lawyers Alliance Docusign

Adobe

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

TBC

Possible reporting date:

18 October 2023

(signed)

A Urquhart

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complex issue needing wide ranging consultation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Multiple stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September—November

Possible reporting d ate:

14 November 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Matter of public concern and environmental significance.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Environmental, industry and government bodies.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Mid-Late September.

Possible reporting date:

27 October 2023

A Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

To enable consultation with community members and experts

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Environmental organisations, community members, academics and other relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

TBC

Possible reporting date:

14 November 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motions as circulated in the chamber in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 1 February 2024".

What we are debating here today is fundamental to our democracy. It is also fundamental to the role of each and every one of us, we 76 people privileged in Australia to stand in the Australian Senate and have the ability to discharge our roles as senators. The Constitution places the Senate as the second chamber. We have extensive powers to review. We have extensive powers to approve or even to reject legislation as well as to judge and hold others—in particular, the government—to account. Now, part of the role that we have as senators—and, quite frankly, it's why we came to this place—is to be involved in the committee process. That is how we as senators get to interrogate the legislation that a government, whether it is a Labor government or a Liberal-National government, presents to the Australian Senate. We go through the committee process and we get an opportunity to interrogate.

You would think that Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, who before the election told the Australian people that his government would be the most transparent government this nation had ever seen, would actually do the decent thing by the employers of this nation, in particular the small businesses who rely on us to do the right thing by them so they can keep their employees employed, in particular at a time when we have a cost-of-living crisis, and would not be rushing through this parliament almost 800 pages of the most complex legislation this nation has ever seen.

And what is worse: there is no reason for this to be done. Why do I say that? It is because the bulk of the legislation commences on 1 July next year. For the government—the government who stood there prior to the election and told the Australian people, 'Transparency: that's you'll get from us,' to actually today, shamefully, be saying not just to the Australian people—because, believe you me, this will impact the Australian people—but to the businesses out there, the people who employ employees. This government says it's the party of the workers, but they forget an employee needs an employer. If you don't have an employer, guess what. You're not an employee. And you are saying to the employers of this nation: 'We don't care. Cost? About $9 billion. We're happy for you to actually absorb that.'

Complexity—it is almost 800 pages. I ask anyone in the gallery: if you were given 800 pages of complex legislation that was going to affect your business, would you not ask the government to actually give this chamber the opportunity to properly scrutinise it on your behalf? Quite frankly, it's going to affect you, ultimately. If your kids are casuals, guess what. It's going to affect your kids. If your kids work for a labour-hire company, it's going to affect your kids. If your kids value being independent contractors because they like being their own bosses—they don't actually want to work for an employer, and that's why they chose to be independent contractors—well, guess what: it's also going to affect them.

Our fantastic small businesses in this country are currently saying to this government, 'Please.' I know the legislation will ultimately go through this place. I know that. The last lot of legislation did. But it doesn't start till 1 July. So please give an opportunity to this Senate, to the small businesses of this nation and to the employers who actually wake up every day and provide the employees with their jobs. If your kid doesn't have an employer, guess what: your kid doesn't have a job. That's what small businesses are saying: 'Yes, we're going to get more cost. Yes, we're going to get more complexity. Boy, are we confused. But can you at least give the Australian Senate the opportunity to ask questions on our behalf?' I would implore the Senate: please agree to the amendment and give us the time to properly understand and interrogate this legislation.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to Senator Cash's amendment to the motion for adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report on 23 November 2023".

People in this place who have watched Senator Cash and the Liberal Party's position on these matters might not be shocked to know that I don't imagine that even by February there would be a material change to the views that those opposite have on this bill. We will make sure that there are officials available. We will make sure that briefings are available. We will make sure that we answer the questions—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I have just ensured that the Senate listened in silence to your contribution, and Senator Gallagher is entitled to the same respect.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will be very helpful in supporting senators and their interest in this bill, including through briefings that can be provided and, of course, the important work that the legislation committee will do. We believe this is enough time for people to get across the detail, particularly when they will be supported by the work of the Public Service and briefings that can be provided, to allow for debate to occur in the final weeks of this year. So the government respectfully puts that a 23 November reporting date is appropriate. We don't believe there is a need to delay this to February, which is what the coalition are seeking to do, because they oppose the bill. Fundamentally they don't want this bill to be debated in this place. This allows for a reasonable amount of time for it to come back and be considered by this chamber.

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

This is unacceptable. Even with that small concession that's been made, there is not enough time. What we're talking about is nearly 530 pages, through the explanatory memorandum and then the legislation. How can employers possibly get their heads around all of this?

Senator Gallagher said that it's not possible that we would change our minds. Well, that's not the point. We're trying to change your minds. We're trying to capture the minds and the intent of businesses across this country so that you can actually understand the impact this bill is going to have and make the appropriate decisions in relation to this bill, because we are hearing from employers right across this country that this bill is going to have a chilling effect on employment and on our economy. Productivity is going to drop. It is critical that we allow for proper consideration of this bill.

Let me just bring the senators' minds back to the previous term of government, when we had legislation in relation to industrial relations that went through. We allowed 3½ months for consideration of various legislation in regard to industrial relations. We held a proper inquiry that went across the country and allowed time for us to engage with stakeholders right across the country. We heard from employers, from the trade unions and from other stakeholders who had an interest in and an understanding of the legislation.

With the proper time, you get the ability to engage with stakeholders. I am already about 130 pages through this. It is not about how long it takes me to read a bill; it's about the stakeholders we have got to engage with. They then need to be able to go back to their members, survey their members, understand their members. We're talking about employers here. We're particularly talking about small businesses, who don't have time to go through the complexities of this, so they need the time and ability to engage with their various peak bodies to be able to understand the complexity of this bill so they can put forward their views so it can be considered by this place. For the government to not allow the proper consideration of this bill by this Senate and by the stakeholders that intersect with it is absolutely shameful. I call on my crossbench senators to not pass this amendment to a very sensible proposal by Senator Cash here to allow for this inquiry to go ahead and conclude by February next year.

It's simple. As Senator Cash said, the full implementation of this bill doesn't occur until July, so there's plenty of time for any implementation of whatever is eventually passed by this Senate, by this parliament, to occur before its introduction into practice in the industrial relations system. I mean, we're not actually asking for much. That extra time allows us to have all of the hearings concluded by Christmas and then allowing that period for the report to be presented. We give time for the secretariat to do their job.

The last bill, the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill you put forward, you only allowed 21 days. In fact, the committee was having hearings while submitters were still putting their submissions in. The secretariat had less than 24 hours to turn around a report. That was obviously ridiculous. While the late-November report won't allow for that sort of ridiculous time frame, it is still nonetheless not satisfactory that the proper time and consideration are given for this very important legislation.

I want to finish on this point: this inquiry must go to Western Australia. The hearings must be held in Western Australia because we know, and we're hearing it from the resource industry, that this bill has a disproportionate impact on Western Australian businesses, in particular in the resource sector. It has a disproportionate impact on them, particularly the fact that we're bringing in labour hire and also services companies. There's no definition on what 'labour hire' actually means. It means any business, any person providing a service into a workplace. It's unacceptable. It must go to Perth. The time to take us through to February allows us to be able to do that, to get across the country and make sure that stakeholders are able to— (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank through you, President, Senator Birmingham. For four years, I have been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent-casual rort in central Queensland miners and Hunter Valley miners—four years! I have written twice to the previous member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon. I have written once and hand delivered to Daniel Repacholi's office a letter asking them to get involved. They both have not replied. They never replied. They stood up and spoke in this chamber about closing the loophole. There is no loophole. We know what the cause of this is. There is no loophole; it is people not doing their jobs. Four years and Labor has not done a thing. They put the crow bar through the spokes to stop me. This is an insult to miners. We need an inquiry that is going to have hearings in Central Queensland and in the Hunter because these miners need to be heard. We'll she you where the loophole is. There's a huge loophole but it's not the loophole the Labor Party is talking about. This bill has an explanatory memorandum 520-something pages long because it's a cover-up bill. The bill itself is up to 240 pages.

I've spoken in this chamber on many occasions about how the Fair Work Act is already complex, intricate and designed for the IR club, not for workers—and not for small business. This will make it far worse. We need to have a complete and thorough inquiry of it, and extensive scrutiny. I will not be supporting the government's amendment of the coalition's amendment. Miners need to be heard and small business, in particular, need to be heard because they're the two losers from the Fair Work Act, due to its complexity and its prescriptiveness. So I won't be supporting the government's amendment of the coalition amendment. I will support the coalition amendment.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government is facing a growing crisis of transparency. This is a government that has spent the last few weeks giving answer after an answer about its Qatar Airways decision. They keep changing and they never stack up. There's an inability to actually give a clear-cut and transparent response about how on earth they came to make a decision such as that, with consequential impacts for so many Australian jobs, so many Australian families and the prices they pay.

It's a government that has decided, with no consultation with the opposition or elsewhere, to dramatically overhaul the process for how it reports ministers' use of special purpose aircraft, and it's sitting behind a veil and veneer of security concerns in relation to how they're doing that. It's a government that now wants substantial legislation through, but has drafted this legislation in secret. It has amazing nondisclosure agreements, where those who wanted to be consulted have to sign nondisclosure agreements just to be consulted about the drafting of the legislation that's being debated as part of this Selection of Bills Committee report.

We're now asking for a transparent process, which stands in stark contrast to the way in which this legislation has been developed and to the way in which the Albanese Labor government is conducting its business and affairs—a transparent process where the Senate does its job, where senators get to do their jobs and where the Australian public and people, who will be affected dramatically by this legislation, will get to have their say. They should get to have a fair say, a fair dinkum say, about the impact and implications of this legislation. Let's understand that this bill—the so-called 'closing the loopholes' bill, which should really be called the 'opening the doors to greater union influence bill'—which was developed in secret, is nearly 800 pages long. And those near-800 pages have required an explanatory memorandum of about 500 pages to try to explain the near-800 pages!

The opposition is firmly of the view that there are fundamental problems with this bill. Fundamental problems where, yes, as Senator Gallagher indicated, there are large things we could not, would not and will never support. We're very clear-cut about that. But when we have nearly 800 pages of proposed legislative changes, the devil will also be in detail. We have in this Senate an active crossbench, a diverse crossbench, and their votes will determine a number of key issues in this bill. As that detail is explored, that could be the fate upon which some crucial elements hinge. That's why it needs to be explored properly and thoroughly.

It's also, clearly, why the government wants to avoid this scrutiny. They want to avoid this scrutiny because they're afraid of the detail being exposed. They're afraid of there being enough time for Australian employers and, most importantly, Australian employees—those just doing work, day-to-day, in their lives—to have time to understand the full consequences of this; to understand the detail and to have the opportunity to make a submission or to appear before an inquiry. And that inquiry should have hearings in Perth and hearings in other parts of Australia that will be dramatically impacted as well.

Why does this matter so much? It matters for two key reasons. One is that it goes to the jobs and opportunities that Australians have—the individual jobs that Australians have and the choices that they get to make, as Senator Cash touched on. But it also goes to the overall management of our economy.

We face an increasing economic problem in this country. Yesterday's national accounts show we have a per capita recession under way. The economy grew only because the Australian population grew. Productivity has been nosediving under this government, down some two per cent in the last quarter. We have serious economic problems, and what does a bill like this do? It hurts business productivity. It hurts business competitiveness. It will drive up prices for Australians at a time when they cannot afford to pay more and it will limit the ability for jobs to be created at a time when Australians need the opportunity of those jobs evermore. That's why it needs scrutiny. That's why it needs the longer timeframe as proposed by my colleague Senator Cash.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report on 8 November 2023."

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator RUSTON (—) (): I move an amendment to Senator Gallagher's amendment, as follows:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 14 November 2023".

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to support Senator Ruston's—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Davey, the time for the debate has now expired. The question is that the amendment to Senator Gallagher's amendment, as moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to. Is a division required? Ring the bells for four minutes. Senator Urquhart?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 101(3), I request that one-minute bells be rung for this division because we're all in the chamber. The pairs have not changed.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, you will observe that I have at all times sought from the whips the length of time that they require to sort the pairs. If one whip wants one minute and the other whip wants four minutes, I have consistently gone with four minutes. Ring the bells for four minutes. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston to Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the adoption of the amended Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.