Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of private senators' bills as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for consideration of a matter—namely, a motion relating to the consideration of private senators' bills to be moved and determined immediately.

I am moving to suspend standing orders today to have these four bills—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—debated and decided upon as quickly as possible.

These four bills are sensible changes to the law that are not controversial. They should never have been part of legislation that includes very complex changes to employment law. They include simple changes that do a lot for some of Australia's most vulnerable people: acknowledging PTSD for our first responders; stopping discrimination for victims of domestic violence; bringing silica in line with asbestos; and getting rid of redundancy exemptions for large businesses during insolvency. They are all easy for the Senate to agree to. They are sensible and they are the government's own policies.

These bills are actually in the government's own words. Senator Pocock and I lifted them straight from the government's beast of a bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill. Lumping these four things in with complex changes like the definition of 'casual work', the gig economy and union delegate powers was always the wrong thing to do. They are using it as leverage. We're not playing this game, not when it comes to people's lives and wellbeing. They are challenging proposals that require more time and attention. So I want to get on with these four bills. I want to get them done now so that those people out there who these bills will affect can start getting on with their lives and get the attention that they need immediately.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this motion for a number of reasons, both process reasons and issues of substance. In terms of the process, we are very much used to the crossbench objecting to a range of practices that they have themselves used today in seeking to move this motion and seeking to have these bills brought on for debate. I have personally had conversations with the members of the crossbench who are moving this motion and who are doing exactly the things that they complain about government and opposition senators doing. It is rather disappointing to see those crossbench members engaging in exactly the same kind of behaviour that they say is completely out of line any time the government does it.

What am I talking about? For starters, to my knowledge, we received no notice whatsoever of this motion being put.

Senator Lambie, you might think that's a laughing matter, but I know what would happen if we came into the chamber and tried to move a motion like this without giving you any notice of that. It is pretty unfortunate and, I would say, rude to move that sort of motion without the courtesy of providing notice of that motion. That's the first thing that this motion does that is apparently not okay when the government does it.

Secondly, it seeks to guillotine debate. We know that the crossbench always object—or say they object—any time there is a suggestion that debate should be guillotined. Thirdly, and probably more importantly, what this motion seeks to do is to bring on for debate and passage legislation that is actually currently being considered by a Senate inquiry. I would have thought that the proper process is to allow that Senate inquiry to report.

And the minister has already flagged that he will be making amendments based on evidence that has come forward in that Senate inquiry, and that is being capably led, I know, by Senator Sheldon. So why the crossbench thinks that it's okay to seek to pass legislation that is currently being considered by a Senate inquiry is beyond me, but maybe that's something we should think about doing something in the future as well! But we actually have more respect for the Senate processes than it seems certain people do, in moving this motion.

Fourthly, what this motion does is seek to pass legislation that was only introduced this week. We know that there's a longstanding convention that legislation is not passed the same week as it's introduced unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. So I'm pretty surprised and pretty disappointed that crossbench members who like to hold themselves out as the guardians of Senate practice have in four ways completely ignored that Senate practice in order to try to pass this motion.

But, beyond those process reasons, there are also good reasons of substance to oppose this motion. For starters, it seeks to prolong debit on these bills beyond the usual allocation of private senators' time. There is no reason that these bills couldn't be handled in the usual way, in the usual allocation of private senators' bills. Again, there's a longstanding convention in this place for private senators' time to be allocated, and we've always facilitated that. It's there in the agenda today. There's an hour and 10 minutes available for the debate of these bills. But what this motion seeks to do is to extend debate and further eat into government business time, which will impede us considering and passing very important legislation for the country.

This week we've spent the entire week debating one piece of legislation, being the sea dumping bill, and we'll now—

If you're suggesting we should guillotine it, maybe you should talk to your leader.

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

You're offended by guillotines!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who's running the opposition? Is it the leader or is it you?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, through me.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will eat into time to debate that legislation. There is important national security legislation that's been listed for debate. It's been there all week, and we haven't been able to get to it because of repeated committee stages and repeated questions from members of the opposition and the Greens and that will be delayed further because of this motion.

Also, of course, there's the substance of these bills which ignores the fact that right now workers are being underpaid and ripped off and are not going to be fixed because the crossbench is working with the opposition to address some issues and not the rip-offs that are happening in the Australian workplace.

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

I actually rise to support the suspension motion that has been moved by Senator Lambie. Let's talk about why—in particular in direct response to what Senator Watt has said. The best that the government could come up with in relation to why Minister Burke will not split this bill to put forward, as has been put sensibly in a motion this morning, what are considered to be the non-controversial parts of the bill has just ben articulated by Senator Watt—and that is we're actually holding up people getting the correct benefits. Well, let's go through how that stacks up in the start dates of the bill.

Based on that statement, you would assume that what they're referring to are start dates of 1 January 2024, but, unless Minister Watt hasn't read the legislation or unless Minister Burke is not over his own legislation, let me tell you when the start dates are: casual employee changes, 1 July 2024; casual conversion, 1 July 2024; regulated labour hire arrangement cannot come into effect before—wait for it colleagues—1 November 2024; unfair contractual terms, 1 July 2024; and wage theft, 1 January 2025. Good grief! It's getting worse. Guess what, colleagues. Guess what comes into effect on 1 January 2024. Can anyone guess?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us!

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

Union delegate rights. You've got to be kidding me! So at least be upfront in relation to why you want to push this bill through the Senate this year.

They're your own start dates. And what starts on 1 January? The rights of unions to go into workplaces around this country.

But let's have a look at the four pieces of legislation that we're being asked to discuss this morning. They are, word for word, taken from the government's own legislation. So, effectively what Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock are doing is giving the government the opportunity to vote on their own legislation this morning and be constructive. The coalition is going to be constructive. The crossbenchers are going to be constructive. I don't know what the Australian Greens are going to do, but they may well be constructive, too, to enable these important parts of legislation—important parts that business groups across Australia also agree should be split from this bill—to be put through the Senate. Then we can continue our role as a Senate and properly scrutinise the more complex and controversial parts of the legislation.

So let's look this morning at what the crossbenchers are looking at doing. They are looking to provide the asbestos agency with the remit in relation to silica diseases. Well, that is work that was started under the former coalition government. A report has just been released by Safe Work Australia. I would have thought that, given the recommendations from Safe Work Australia, this is something where the government would say: 'Yes. It is appropriate. It is not controversial. It can be progressed today through the Australian Senate.'

And they're going to be using, as a political weapon, discrimination against people who are suffering family or domestic violence. Now, you tell me: if businesses across Australia are saying that they are comfortable with the change that is being proposed—and we're comfortable with the change, and the crossbench are comfortable—why would you not pursue that again today through the Australian Senate? And what about the redundancy payments for Australian workers? That's something Minister Burke could happily progress through today. So, when a larger business becomes a small business—due to, say, insolvency—those workers will still be entitled to a redundancy payment. I thought that was getting workers paid, but, conveniently, Minister Watt and Mr Burke don't agree with that.

But of course something that I personally looked at when last in opposition—and I worked with former senator Gavin Marshall on this—was reversing the presumption in relation to first responders who get posttraumatic stress syndrome. Labor can be as political as they like, but guess what? We're going to be constructive, and I support the suspension of standing orders.

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

We absolutely support these elements of the so-called closing-loopholes bill that we are now dealing with, that we will deal with. And I want to commend Senators Pocock and Lambie for their initiative in pulling out these four sections of the bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because the bills that we're dealing with this morning, which are carved out from the original fair work bill, are 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, including access to PTSD compensation. These are all worthwhile, all simple, all carved out of the original legislation from Labor—exact copies.

The motion to reorder allows a sensible amount of time for debate, given that these are not controversial issues and they've so far received wide support from stakeholders. I agree with Senator Lambie that the closing-loopholes bill, in its entirety, is just a cover-up, a trick. That's all they're doing. Combining the bills under the 'loopholes' tag is dishonest, and that's what the Labor Party is doing with this bill. It's fundamentally dishonest. They are protecting and covering up the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Coal Long Service Leave Corporation, and Minister Burke and his staff, who were aware of some illegalities, some crimes, that have been committed in the topics that I've been discussion for the past four years in this place.

That's why this bill is being lumped in, Senator Cash. We've got a lovely title, 'Closing Loopholes'.

There are some fantastic elements of it; I agree with Senator Lambie. But they're hiding it under a dog. They're protecting their own rackets.

Ensuring that all questions on the bills are put at 11.30 today will ensure that we get these sensible measures passed, as Senator Cash and Senator Lambie have said. It would be nice to pass some legislation in the Senate. That's another reason why we need this suspension of standing orders motion. The government has been stuck on its non-sensical sea dumping bill, now in its fourth day. I heard Senator Pocock talking about it the other day. Why would you call it a sea dumping bill—putting pollution in the form of phosphates, nitrogen and iron into the ocean as an experiment? They can't even name their bill correctly, using a decent term. Maybe it is correct, Senator Pocock, through you, Chair. It's a sea dumping bill—that's your title—and you can't withstand the scrutiny that your own sloppy sea dumping bill has brought upon you. You can't withstand the scrutiny, and you're still going. That is what is happening with this motion. The Senate is slapping the government and saying, 'This is how you get some legislation through.' So I want to thank Senators Lambie and Pocock again.

We need to pass this motion for the insolvency practitioners that will be done over when the headcount falls below the small business threshold and will miss out on entitlements. This has wide industry support and is an aberration. We should deal with it now, as this motion proposes. People who are suffering from family and domestic violence should have access to protections in the Fair Work Act—sooner rather than later. That isn't controversial. We need to deal with it now, as this motion proposes. We need to get on with the job with these four bills. I commend Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock, and we support this suspension of standing orders.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to say that splitting these bills will have a massive detrimental effect on many, many people. I'll go to that in a moment. On the committee process that's taken place—and when we go to tomorrow's committee meeting, which I'll talk about in my five minutes—we have had a cooperative, constructive, hard-argued, hard-cross-examined series of witnesses that have come before the inquiry in the Senate. Both Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock have played a very constructive and informative role and have raised a series of thoughtful issues with regard to the debate. I also want to include that even the opposition has raised issues that are worth consideration from everybody across the parliament.

During that debate and those discussions, it became very clear that there is a need for a proper process to take place and that it's not only about the process but also about the capacity to consider all the opinions that are delivered during those particular hearings. This is an extremely dangerous and unusual process—part of the way through a Senate inquiry that is taking place into a bill that comprehensively deals with the complexities of people trying to gain the system. I say 'the complexities' because the issues being raised are with regard to same job, same pay and the right to a voice in a workplace, and the things that deal with fundamental questions about safety in the workplace, where people have an opportunity to turn around and speak out.

There were issues raised regarding the matters that are suggested in the private member's bill, which we'll appropriately debate regardless of the circumstances. I'll have some words to say when the debate takes place. The time for that debate is set aside so that we can deal with other matters. I'll go to the heart of the processes of some of the matters that have been suggested within the bill. Scott Weber from the Police Federation of Australia said:

The bill needs to get up in its entirety … this is a holistic approach in regard to keeping all Australians safe and also reducing the workload of police officers … It's critically important this legislation go through in its entirety and quite soon …

Paramedics who gave evidence to the inquiry also put very similar positions about their concerns.

Simone Haigh, a working paramedic and the president of the Ambulance Employees Sub-branch of the Health and Community Services Union in Tasmania, said:

I think the option is to push it all through quickly, basically. It's there for everybody. It's hard but I think we really need to support everybody in this. I know there are people out there who are struggling, but they do know that if we don't look after everybody we will be worse off as emergency service workers because we are the ones who pick up the slack … Everybody has the right to come home from work every day and not be killed on their job just because they're racing to get food to someone's house.

She went on to make a number of other observations.

Quite clearly, the point is that, for these matters to be properly dealt with, they all need to be dealt with within the Fair Work legislation. They need to be dealt with at least after the Senate inquiry and proper consideration by the Senate of that inquiry so that all the parties can appropriately give due consideration to all the issues that are raised. It isn't just a matter of process for the sake of process. These are significant pieces of legislation that deal with a complex set of circumstances that are occurring right across workplaces across the country, and there is a need to bring a comprehensive response to safety issues and labour issues, to getting wages moving and to dealing with the opposition from those within the big business community that have a different view. They've expressed their view, but I tell you what: I'm quite interested to hear exactly what that legislation entails and be able to consider all those matters when we go through some more hearings tomorrow. This is before we've gone back to the department to ask critical questions about every element of the legislation.

This is a ludicrous situation. We're actually debating a bill and, shortly, we'll be extending the consideration of a bill that's going to be given proper consideration as result of a full day's hearing tomorrow. I understand that at one point it was complained that we didn't have enough time. Now we've got no time. (Time expired)

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put on the motion moved by Senator Lambie and Senator David Pocock to suspend standing orders.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie and Senator David Pocock to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of private senators' bills may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question now be put on a procedural motion moved by Senator Lambie.

Question agreed to.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask that the government's opposition to that motion be recorded.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be recorded. The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the routine of business be as follows:

(a) consideration of the following bills only:

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023,

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023,

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023; and

(b) if consideration of the bills has not concluded by 11.30 am, the question on all remaining stages of the bills be put,

(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(d) after consideration of the bills has finally concluded, the Senate shall return to its routine of business.

Question agreed to.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Again, I ask that the government's opposition to the motion be recorded.