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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives to be moved and determined immediately.

In September of this year Senator David Pocock and I stood with first responders to ask Minister Burke to split four elements of the industrial relations legislation, what the government calls its closing loopholes bill. The first amendment would mean that federal police, paramedics and firefighters wouldn't have to prove that they have PTSD and go through those traumatic circumstances. The second amendment would protect victims of family and domestic violence being sacked or discriminated against in their workplaces. The third amendment protects redundancy payments for workers when a large business becomes a small business due to insolvency. The fourth amendment brings silicosis into line with asbestosis. These amendments shouldn't have been put into industrial relations legislation in the first place. It was a low-down act to do so, and I call that out this morning.

We have urged Minister Burke to split out these four uncontroversial elements so that we can put these protections in place for vulnerable Australians and so that we can do it this year, because, especially when it comes to PTSD and domestic violence, these areas are so important, according to the Greens and the Labor Party. We've kept asking the minister to do right thing and he's kept stubbornly refusing, pretty much to the point where he doesn't even come and speak to us now.

So we split the bill and we got the support of the coalition and the crossbench, and I thank them both for that. We even gave the minister the split bills, and we were talking about our intentions in the media. In the last Senate sitting we brought the bills on and they passed. The government didn't vote against them. They were silent. That's right—they were silent. God forbid, wouldn't that look bad on social media, eh? Imagine that on social media—voting against legislation dealing with domestic violence and PTSD being brought in, effective immediately.

Then the bills went to the House, where all the government had to do was vote on their own legislation. Senator Pocock and I were hoping, and I was praying, that the minister and the government would finally wake up to themselves and do the right thing, instead of worrying about right of entry having to start on 1 January. Apparently, right of entry for any union is more important than PTSD. It's more important than domestic violence. It's more important than silicosis. What do you know? The bills are not even on the Notice Paper today. But that doesn't matter. They've passed the Senate and can be passed by the government right now in the other place.

Today we are asking the Senate to seek a conference between the Senate and the House because it seems that the minister is not big enough or man enough to man up and get this resolved. I mean, it should be damn embarrassing for the government that we have had to go to this extent to get this done. That is where we are at today. This conference would allow the chamber to seek agreement on a bill when the procedure of exchanging messages fails to promote a full understanding of the issues involved.

Senator Pocock and I are serious about this, we want these protections in place by Christmas, and there isn't one damn reason why they shouldn't be—not one reason, apart from you using those four things as hostages so you can get the rest of your bill done, which is absolutely shameful in itself. We all want what is best for the Australian people and sometimes that means admitting your mistakes and fixing them.

We are about to come into a fire season. We are going to be heavily relying on those first responders. That is what we're going to be doing. But you don't want to give them some relief before Christmas time so they can stop fighting a bureaucratic system that, I can assure you—take it from somebody who knows—not only destroys you as a person but destroys your family and those around you; that is what it does. It is time to stop making these sorts of people—our first responders and people in the AFP—prove that they have PTSD from their jobs. This is beyond a joke, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. So now that is what I am calling for.

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

The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders. This is a similar approach.

Look, I am not going to take lectures on industrial relations from those opposite. Let me say, this is the most you have been concerned about workers' rights for the entire history of the Liberal Party. You couldn't give a hoot about it. Let's be clear, what you care about is disrupting the program and not dealing with water. That is what you care about. You are the party of WorkChoices—remember that? You are the party that has opposed improving workers' rights with every bone in your bodies since you were elected into this place. That is the approach you take, so don't start getting to us about workers' rights because history will show, and history does show, the approach that you have taken on industrial relations. It is convenient for you, I accept, to align yourself with Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. I accept that. It is convenient. It is a stunt from your point of view. You have no commitment to the issues that are being debated.

The government has a program this week that we are working through. We have important legislation, including water—which, again, I accept you guys don't want to deal with—that you would like to delay. That is the program we have set up. The Senate passed a motion last week which we voted against. The House has its program and that determines how it will deal with matters that are before the House, so we won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I know that the minister has been seeking to work with crossbenchers on these important reforms. We were very happy to deal with them this side of Christmas—let's not forget that—but what has happened is people have selected certain elements that they want to deal with but not deal with other parts of the bill and take out those bits. We wanted to deal with this bill; you didn't. You didn't want to deal with the bill. That is what happened. You delayed it through the Selection of Bills Committee report. You kicked the bill off it so it couldn't be dealt with.

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

Are you serious?

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

Yes, I am serious. That is the position that was taken.

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

Through me.

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

Sorry, Deputy President.

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

Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to raise the point of order about speaking through the President.

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

I have it in hand. Minister.

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

I know the truth hurts but, when the selection of bills came here, you organised for a longer referral so we couldn't deal with them this year. The government wanted to deal with them. We wanted to deal with them in their entirety, even if there were parts that people didn't support. You have that debate and you move those amendments. You don't select the bits that are convenient for you that you want to deal with and trash the rest of it. Let us be clear about what happened two sitting weeks ago when the bills were sent to the House of Representatives. No motion was moved to make them an order of the day, meaning they fell away.

This is not the responsibility of the government. They were not government bills. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives conducted a filibuster rather than moving a motion to put them on the Notice Paper. No arrangements were made to put the bills before the House, so no bills exist in the House of Representatives because the opposition stuffed up the procedure and no other member of the House of Representatives was arranged. I understand that this has been explained to Senator Lambie around how that procedure was stuffed up—

Honourable senators interjecting—

It was on your heads, actually. We will not agree with this. We see it for what it is, which is a delaying tactic and a disrupting tactic. That's why you're aligning on this, because you do not agree with positive industrial relations reforms. Otherwise, some of these things might have been done when you were in government, except they weren't. What a surprise! Your history shows the approach you've taken on industrial relations. You are trying to disrupt the program. We accept that we've lost half an hour and that we'll perhaps get to order before question time, if we're lucky, but that is not the government's position. We will not agree to the suspension. We do not support the motion that's been circulated.

I would encourage crossbench senators to continue to work with Minister Burke to try and secure the successful package of this important set of reforms. They're important for working people across the country, and we want to work with the crossbench to ensure that they get done—all of the reforms, not just part of the reforms, all of them done together.

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

The Albanese government is proving again and again that it just doesn't listen; that it doesn't listen to Australians and their concerns; that it doesn't listen, as Australians are feeling pain in a range of ways; that it doesn't listen to the business community and those expressing genuine concerns about the enormous complexity and the real risks that exist in their large industrial relations reform proposals; and, in this debate, that it doesn't listen to the crossbench and it doesn't listen to the Senate. It won't listen and is unwilling to budge. It's showing not only that it doesn't listen but that it is stubborn—relentlessly stubborn.

The government has now for weeks had a crystal-clear opportunity to pass key parts of its industrial relations agenda, to pass the very issues that Senator Lambie spoke so passionately about in relation to small-business redundancies, protections against discrimination, asbestos safety and first responders. All of these matters could pass the parliament and be law by Christmas, and the only people standing in the way is the Labor Party. The Albanese government is standing in the way of their own legislation. What's their justification? Their justification is that, on their basis, it's all or nothing. It's our way or the highway. That's the Labor Party approach. And what is their way? Well, of course, a raft of new union powers, a raft of measures that have been identified as being of deep concern in the way they will hurt the Australian economy and of deep concern, in particular, in the way they will hurt productivity. Has anybody heard Treasurer Jim Chalmers talk about the need to lift productivity?

An opposition senator: No!

I have heard him say it. The problem is that the only piece of major economic reform this government has is one that will harm productivity and that will drive productivity down, not up. Senators Lambie and Pocock have wisely identified issues within the government's bill that could progress that identify and address genuine issues, as Senator Lambie has spoken about so passionately. If the government were not so stubborn, they could get these matters past, and then other parts of their bill could still be considered in the normal way. Senators Lambie and Pocock have made clear that they are willing to work with the government in terms of addressing these matters. All they have asked for is time in relation to things in the government's legislation that won't come into effect until the middle of next year or until the end of next year, or even, in some cases, until the year after. Senator Cash has outlined to this chamber previously that there is no urgency for many of the things in the government's bill, but there is urgency for some of the things in the bills presented by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is the Labor Party's stubbornness, their trickery, their feeling of the wrong priorities, that is seeing the Labor Party oppose these efforts.

So we support this suspension and consideration of what is a historic motion being proposed by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is a historic motion calling for a conference between the two houses. No such motion has passed this chamber since 22 June 1950, but that is the passion Senators Lambie and Pocock feel in deploying a tactic that will force representatives of both chambers together. That's necessary because what the government is doing in the House of Representatives is basically sweeping the crossbench proposal under the carpet and just saying, 'Not really here, not going to look at it, just going to ignore it.' They haven't had the courage or the guts to vote against what the crossbenchers have done. They haven't had the courage or the guts to put on time for it to be debated or listed. They're doing a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type of act and not even looking at this proposal or these bills.

Congratulations to the crossbench for calling out the trickery, the contempt and the stubbornness of the Albanese government. The chance is here for the government to change course and get these bills passed by Christmas. This motion shouldn't even be necessary, but we absolutely support it as a means to resolve this impasse.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imagine being lectured by Senator Birmingham and the coalition about productivity growth after a decade of the lowest ever productivity growth in our national history by a government that didn't understand the levers of productivity growth in the modern economy. It was the worst achievement ever in our history. Jobs were lost and investment went because of their mismanagement. Imagine taking a lecture from these jokers about productivity growth. That is the most dishonest, inappropriate, disconnected-from-reality kind of proposition that you could ever imagine.

I understand Senator Lambie's proposition. I understand why she would adopt that proposition. There are a series of items in this bill that she instinctively supports and some others she finds more difficulty with. She would prefer to be able to deal just with the ones that she instinctively supports and deal with the others later. I understand that proposition. I don't agree with it. I think it's not the way that legislation works in this place, and it certainly wasn't the way—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it certainly wasn't the way that you lot dealt with legislation.

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

Senator Ayres, through me.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do wonder, though, about the mechanism that Senator Lambie has proposed. I wonder where she got the advice to propose that recommendation?

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

Senator Ayres, just be careful here. I don't want any imputation of improper motive.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll make it all right, don't worry.

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

I think you should reflect on your comments.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether the source of the advice, whether it's in her office or colleagues or over here or wherever it is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

or there. I wonder whether she has had the opportunity to consider something that is on the face of it procedurally risky, but also constitutionally risky in terms of the way we're dealing with legislation. As Senator Birmingham said, it has not been used since 1950, not since the 1950s. That is a very risky proposition for this place to consider. Now, I think that it's a bad idea for it to be pursued. I'm very sceptical of the alternative party of government here thinking that this is a good idea.

What is this bill really all about besides the matters that Senator Lambie has set out? It is about dealing with the gig economy. Workers are being killed in the gig economy while delivering your lunches and dinners on their bicycles in every capital city around this country, and you want to put it off. It's not important enough for you lot. It is also about same job, same pay. I understand why you want to continue the labour hire rorts and loopholes. I don't think Senator Lambie ought to put that off into the never-never, which is the proposal here. It is about wage theft. The wages of ordinary people, particularly young workers in hospitality and retail, are being wilfully stolen from them, and the alternative party of government says: 'Nothing to see here. Let it go.' That is the proposition here.

This government is not going to support the cherry-picking of elements of our industrial relations legislation. We are working in a careful way through fixing an outdated and broken industrial relations system that has undermined productivity, undermined investment confidence and undermined cooperation in our workplaces. If you care about cooperation in our workplaces, if you care about cooperation productivity growth and if you care about cooperation business investment in the Australian economy, the way forward is all about supporting our industrial relations reforms. What we won't cop from the party that destroyed Australian manufacturing, that offshored vehicle manufacturing and that saw manufacturing shrink is a lecture about manufacturing in this country.

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

I want to remind the Senate that this motion from Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock is in support of the Senate's will. The Senate has already decided this. That's all we want. Secondly, has anybody in the Labor Party heard of the 'Kevin Rudd slide' or the 'Julia Gillard slide'? The press is now reporting that the 'Anthony Albanese slide' is at an even steeper rate than the 'Rudd slide' and the 'Gillard slide'. All are self made and imploding. And then Senator Ayres has the hide to impugn Senator Lambie as if she couldn't think of this herself. They can't think for themselves, because they rely upon one party boss to drive them. That's it. This is egregious damage to Senator Lambie, and I support Senator Lambie in her own right.

I also remind the Labor Party of housing, energy and immigration. They are destroying and gutting farming and gutting infrastructure, and now they want to tell lies about industrial relations with the closing loopholes bill that Senators Lambie and Pocock have seen their way through and from which they pulled out the four key elements that are genuine, which were lumped in there to hide the egregious loophole-closing when there is no such loophole. All we need is to enforce the Fair Work Act. The provisions are already there. This goes to honesty—or lack of honesty—in the Labor Party government, and it goes to their repeated, deep, ingrained fear of scrutiny. I'll be supporting Senators Lambie and Pocock.

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

What have we got here? We have got a government that is clearly trying to hide a set of provisions contained in a bill by trying to cover them up. These are some of the most sensitive issues that could be delivered by Christmas to a whole heap of people in this country. Those people probably would be absolutely looking forward to receiving the kind of support that has been demonstrated by the huge bravery of the crossbench senators who sought to pull out these four components from the industrial relations bill that was put forward by this government.

I acknowledge both Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock and the fact they have seen the importance of these four particular components of the bill, which they thought were so important that they needed to be separated out so that they could be moved quickly and so that appropriate scrutiny could be shone over the rest of this bill. We know that the reminder of the industrial relations bill has some very significant components that would impact massively on the productivity of this nation, on the workers of this nation and on the business of this nation, and they deserve and require a much longer and harder level of scrutiny than we are seeing with the government trying to push this bill through this place. At the actions of the crossbench senators, we've seen four really important components extracted from the bill, about which there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever, and it is the will of this chamber for those four components to be passed immediately.

As Senator Roberts just pointed out, what we're seeing here today is the government, through the action of refusing to allow this to go forward to conference, actually saying that the will of this Senate is to be disregarded. I think that is probably the most important and the most unfortunate thing about this debate today. Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock and the crossbench, with the support of the coalition, want to test this for real. By having a conference of both the houses, the entire will of this parliament will be tested as to whether these four really important components of the industrial relations legislation should be allowed to progress without any further delay. That's all we're asking for this place to do. But for some reason the government do not want this to go ahead.

So the question has got to be: why are they doing this? Quite simply, the reason they're doing it is they are holding hostage these really important elements which would allow first responders to not have to go through a lengthy process in relation to proving PTSD, which would put a protection in place for people with asbestos, which would make sure that big businesses that become small businesses in terms of redundancies aren't able to hide behind a loophole and which would allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to not be discriminated against. How on earth can you stop these things going forward?

Stop holding these particular pieces of this legislation hostage to the dirty work that you want to do on behalf of your union mates. Allow the will of this parliament to be determined, and allow Senators Lambie and Pocock and the rest of the crossbench to at least test the will of this place, instead of holding pieces of this legislation to hostage because of your political desires.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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

I move:

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

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

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

I move:

That—

(a) notwithstanding standing orders 127(1) and 156(3), the Senate requests a conference with the House of Representatives on the following bills sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence:

(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; and

(b) the House of Representatives be informed that, in the event of a conference being agreed to, the Senate will be represented at the conference by twelve managers, comprised of Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator David Pocock, four senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and four senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two senators nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

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

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.