David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The government denied the senator leave to move a motion, and we don't support the motion to suspend standing orders. I'll confine my remarks to the suspension rather than the broader issues around industrial relations reform. The first point is that we have an incredibly busy program to get to today, and so this is, I think, an attempt to waste the Senate's time on a matter where we have other, more pressing and more important issues. The Senate has—

Well, I listened to people in silence, so I would appreciate having the same courtesy extended to me. The point is—and Senator Pocock made it—that the Senate formed its view on this last week. That is clear to the House of Representatives. Now, what the House of Representatives chooses to do with that is a matter for the House of Representatives, not the Senate. That vote was held last week. If it was clear, as Senator Pocock argues, then let the House of Representatives determine how to deal with that. I don't think we would take too kindly to the House of Representatives telling us how to order our program when we come and sit in this place. I can't recall the House of Representatives ever passing a motion to tell the Senate how to order its priorities and programs, and I don't think the Senate should be doing that to the House of Representatives.

I think the more pressing issues today are to get to the government's legislation program and allow the House of Representatives to do what it needs to do with whatever work gets sent its way from the Senate. I understand there was the opportunity for a procedural issue to deal with that this week and that it wasn't dealt with appropriately by the opposition. That's my understanding. So it was probably more about the opposition in the House of Representatives getting their house in order if they wanted to prioritise this matter this week. That wasn't done, and it's over to the House of Representatives to choose how it deals with this.

But the Senate has set times for these matters. We dealt with the private senators' bills last week. There is absolutely no reason why this should be taking up more time this morning, and I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

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

I rise, on behalf of the coalition, to support the suspension motion that has been moved by Senator Pocock. The irony of us now having to speak on it is that, had the government allowed Senator Pocock and the crossbench to move their motion—guess what, everybody?—we would already have had the vote. The Senate would then have shown its will to the chamber and—guess what?—we would already be on the next item of business. We've had the minister stand up here and give us a lecture in relation to wasting the time of the Senate, when I think a clear reading of Hansard will show that the actions taken by the government in (a) first denying leave, and then (b) seeking to put the vote, have, ironically, chewed up the time of the Senate.

Let us have a look at the motion that has been put before the Senate by Senators Lambie and Pocock: 'motion by leave'—if leave had been given, as I said, we would already have voted on it—'that a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the following bills together'. They are the bills that employers across Australia have agreed, the crossbench have agreed and the coalition have agreed are the non-controversial parts of what is an incredibly complex, incredibly controversial piece of legislation. But, in the spirit of being constructive and assisting the government in passing the parts of its legislation that the Senate agrees can actually go through, this motion has been moved today.

Ironically, when this was looked at by the Senate last week, I note that the entire chamber itself agreed that these bills should be passed. What then occurred, though, when it went to the House—and it's a quirk of the way the House works, and I see that Minister Burke is now saying, 'The opposition didn't quite get it right, and it meant we couldn't debate them.' As Senator Gallagher has correctly pointed out, the House controls its own destiny. They could have listed the bills on the Notice Paper. They could have done a lot of things if they actually wanted to debate these bills. If they wanted to work in a bipartisan manner with the opposition and with the crossbench, they could have rearranged their own business last week, and, guess what, we wouldn't have to be standing here today having a debate in relation to the four bills that, as I said, are considered to be the non-controversial parts of the legislation—the parts where employers across Australia have said, 'We agree these are important'—and we could actually put them through.

Colleagues, I think sometimes Labor forget what the role of the Senate is. Indeed, the last time I checked, we were called the states house, the house of review. We can continue with our important role as senators and discharge the responsibility that our respective states have bestowed upon us, and that is to properly scrutinise the rest of the legislation.

I do have to say I was a little concerned by comments made by Minister Burke in the other place last week which, in fact, were reflected in the comments that were put forward by the government about the motion moved last week—that apparently a vote for the motion was a vote for delay. When questioned about this in the House, Minister Burke made it clear that the government had no intention of following the will of the Senate in terms of when the committee reports next year, on 1 February, and they were going to bypass that; they wanted the committee to report earlier and they wanted to ram the bill through. Well, guess what? Sometimes in life you have to understand that that is not the will of the Senate. The will of the Senate was clearly articulated. In terms of the scrutiny of this bill, the Senate will now report next February. After that, it's up to the government. As for the four pieces of legislation we have here, the will of the Senate is clear: they should be passed.

Again I go to the irony of now being able to speak to this motion. Had the government just allowed Senator David Pocock and Senator Lambie to put their bill, it would have already been voted on and the government could have got on with the business of the day. But you decided to be too smart by half.

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

What an absolute load of rot. If you want to hear about irony, the irony is Senator Cash of all people coming and lecturing the Senate about proper procedure and obeying rules and laws and procedures. I don't need to go over the history of Senator Cash when it comes to those issues.

But let's be very clear about what's going on here. What's going on here is a deal between the coalition and parts of the crossbench to engage in delay tactics. This is all about delay tactics so that we can't get to government business, which would enable us to deal with very important bills that the opposition has been very clear about for some time now, those being amendments to the Crimes Act, amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and, of course, the migration amendments that the government has put forward today as well. These are really important matters to deal with. They deal with matters of national security and personal security. But, instead of engaging in debate about those things and addressing the issues that have arisen, particularly in relation to the High Court decision of a few days ago, we've got more games between the coalition and parts of the crossbench to delay debate on those bills.

We have Senator Cash, on behalf of the opposition, saying that we could have dealt with this quickly if only we'd given leave to Senator Pocock. Why then did the opposition decide to vote against the closure motion that we just moved only moments ago? We attempted to close debate on this nonsense motion that seeks to direct the House of Representatives to do something, which the Senate, of course, has no right to do. It is a nonsense motion, with all due respect to Senator Pocock, and it's being supported by the coalition in an attempt to delay debate on the important bills: amendments to the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy, and, of course, the migration bill. Every minute we spend dealing with this nonsense motion that seeks to direct the House of Representatives on what to do is a minute that we are not dealing with those issues around the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy act or those migration amendments.

All week, we've been lectured by the opposition about the need to get on and deal with the migration amendments, and now, as we attempt to move towards that and in the process deal with those other amendments on the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy Act, what do we see the opposition do? We see them again facilitate delays, filibustering and motions from the crossbench which have absolutely no power to find the House of Representatives in the first place.

We think that we should get on with government business. I note that this motion wasn't moved before we had private senators' time this morning. I note that it wasn't moved before we even got to private senators' time. It was only moved when we had the opportunity to get into government business and deal with those important matters of national and personal security which we've been attempting to deal with this morning.

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

You're guillotining, Murray.

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

Senator Ruston, you are out of order.

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

The opposition had the opportunity just moments ago to assist us to close this debate and move on to those bills, and instead, as they did all of last week, they enabled filibustering from the crossbench in order to stop government business from proceeding. We should get on with it, we should not be entertaining nonsense motions that have no binding effect on the House of Representatives and we should deal with those important matters of national and personal security that the government has put on the agenda for today.

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

What an opportunity for the government to show that it believes in truth, integrity and honesty. What do they do? They run away from it. Senator Watt's talking about the delays. No, it's scrutiny. It's proper scrutiny. That's all we want. We want some urgency around bills that the government brought into the parliament saying that they were urgent and vital. What do we see? He's leaving. They're running away from it. Urgent bills? That's why we want to support this suspension: so that we can vote on the motion of Senators Pocock and Lambie.

This is about the Senate exercising the will of the Senate. The will of the Senate said, 'We want these bills passed urgently.' It went down to the House and has been put on the bottom of the order. To me, that shows the inconsistency with what Labor is saying about these bills and what the truth is. It proves that Labor is lying about the urgency of these bills. Senator Pocock reminded us very clearly of the long time frame for the wage theft provisions to be put in place—2025, I think he said. What is the government covering up?

We'll see more when we get to scrutiny of the other five sections of that bill, but I've been championing the cause of Hunter Valley and Central Queensland coalminers, and the only way that an enterprise agreement less than the award can be put in place is through an agreement with the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley. That's the only way. There is no loophole in the coal industry; it just needs enforcement of the Fair Work Act, which the Fair Work Ombudsman has dodged, the Fair Work Commission has dodged, the MEU has contravened deliberately, and some employers and some labour hire firms have deliberately compromised. There's no loophole; this is just designed to deflect and cover up. We will be getting to the bottom of this because I'm tired of these miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley being put down. They're still on below-award pay despite what the government is saying.

We want scrutiny. We want it now.

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

It's very interesting to hear Minister Watt making his comments about the order of business in this chamber. I've been in this chamber for seven years now, through both sides of government, whether it be the coalition or Labor. I have never seen a government as dysfunctional as this government is at the moment. They guillotine and shut down debate. They don't even know what legislation they want to put up on a daily basis. They don't inform the Senate. We don't get the bills. We don't know what is happening. It's at the last minute that the government deals with issues.

When Senator Watt said, 'We want to deal with important bills,' I remembered the Prime Minister taking to the election that the workers of Australia were the most important people and that we've got to look after their rights and look after the workers. It was always 'Labor for the workers.' That's what I've always heard. But what has happened is that a bill has been put up that carves out of their dysfunctional IR bill to deal with the four most important issues for the workers of Australia. I'll tell you what the problem is: they're embarrassed that those four carved-out issues in the IR bill have passed the Senate, and they don't want it to go to the lower house and be dealt with. That's the whole problem. They don't want it dealt with and passed in the lower house. They couldn't possibly knock it back. It's part of their bill. They don't want to knock it back, because then they won't know what to do with the rest of their bill, since they know it won't get through the Senate. You're not interested in the Australian people, in the workers out there. This is all politics that you are playing.

Minister Watt got up and said 'important bills'. I'll tell you what those are. One is the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. It's administrative. All it does is move the time when someone is declared to be bankrupt to a few days down the track of when they actually get it in the hands of the authorities to declare them as bankrupt. The other is the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. It is basically giving the minister the ability to extend the parole period. That's what it's about. The other part is about illicit drugs coming into Australia. 'Oh, we don't want illicit drugs in Australia,' but here you are in the Australian Capital Territory, where you're allowing them to have illicit drugs, and you said nothing about it. So why is this bill so important? Like I said, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

This should have been dealt with. If you really care about the workers out there, then you should just pass this. You've wasted the time of the Senate. You could have done it, but you've actually stopped it. It could have been passed. If you had let it go to the lower house, if you had let it pass today, it would have proven to the Australian people that you really do care about them. But this has proven you don't. You really don't. It's all politics that you're playing at the expense of the Australian people, which disgusts me to no end. I hope that people see this. I hope that people see through the Labor Party and the games that you play in this place. Get your act together if you want to lead this country.

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

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question is that standing orders be suspended.

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

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

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That a motion relating to a message to the House of Representatives may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Question agreed to.

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

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

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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:

That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the following bills together:

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

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

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

(iv) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—Again, I would like to record the government's opposition to that motion.