Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I can never work out if they try to make mistakes like this, if it's incompetence or what it is, but it's consistent, and I'll give them that. First of all, whenever a member of parliament was giving a first speech, we would make sure that, from opposition, even if it was a government member giving their first speech, we didn't run procedural interference, because their first speech was scheduled for a particular time, they had family members there and it was a big moment in their career. It never occurred to me that the opposition might run interference on the first speech of one of their own members, but that is what they've decided to do now on this motion. It's something I've not seen before. I wish the member for Fadden well in his first speech. He will get to give it eventually. I wish him well in that.

Now, what is being moved is actually quite extraordinary because what they have said is not that they want to debate it next week; they've said they don't want to debate this bill at all until 16 October, and they've said part of the reason they need to wait for 16 October is that they want to go through their party-room processes. Of course, in that week, their party room meets on 17 October—their party room meets the following day. So what this motion actually says is: they will take the bill, probably, to their party room meeting tomorrow, because it's been made clear that Senator Cash is being briefed right now—and I don't know of another situation where a shadow minister is being briefed on a bill as it's being introduced to the parliament, but that's what we made sure we did today, at the earliest possible moment. We made sure that there was still time for parties to be able to go through their party processes, which will happen in the meetings tomorrow. I presume they'll go through it then.

So what's proposed in this motion? Is it that the Liberal and National parties will consider this bill on 5 September, but we're not allowed to talk about it until 16 October? What would that then mean? That would then mean that, in order to get this bill across to the Senate, we would have only two weeks of debate available in the House of Representatives. And what do you reckon they would do, the moment I brought forward a debate management motion to make sure we got through in those two weeks? Of the 151 members around the House, almost everybody wants to speak on a bill like this. It's always the case. So what would happen if we had the late-night sittings and we moved speaking times down to five minutes? Does anyone think those opposite would be voting for those debate management motions—even though the only reason for doing it would be because of the game they played this morning?

What the government intends to do is this: to have four weeks of debate. What they are proposing will mean only two weeks of debate. What the government is proposing on this bill is that we try to schedule as much time as possible, in the hope that we can avoid late-night sittings, and certainly to be in a situation where we can avoid shortening speaking times. Their motion guarantees consecutive late-night sittings and shortened speaking times.

This resolution, if carried, will guarantee that the parliament, in the two weeks we will have left to debate it before the Senate will require the bill, does every single thing that up until now the Manager of Opposition Business has told us he opposes—everything. He'll always get up and give his reasonable-voice speech. He'll get up and say: 'You know, this is being rushed through, rammed through.' And today, he has the resolution designed to make sure the parliament is in that situation. Today, what he's doing—and I haven't seen an opposition try this one on before—is to actually try to block debate. It wasn't enough for them to move that the member be no further heard, one at a time. They wanted to move that the entire parliament not be heard on this bill, for an entire two weeks; that we wait until we come back on 16 October—even though their party room, they acknowledge, will have met in September and made a decision on this—just for the sport of delaying it, so they can then get angry about the consequences of the delay, which will be late nights and shorter speaking times.

Well, in a debate where, so far, those opposite have been willing to participate, and given that the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend described this bill as an 'economy-destroying piece of legislation', I reckon they know what they think of it. I reckon they already know which way they're going to vote on this bill. I reckon, as soon as they heard it was called 'closing loopholes', they knew they were opposed to it. That was enough. Just the title page would have got them onside to be the opponents of this bill. They know what their position is, and they've known from the moment we started talking about closing the loopholes.

They will consider this at their party room tomorrow. Senator Cash is being briefed on it now. And every one of the measures in the bill has been ventilated publicly in the lead-up. The comment that we heard from the member who gave the previous speech, I've got to say, really blew me away, when he said, 'People have been prevented from talking about this bill over the last few weeks.' I don't know; maybe I imagined the ads, the public debate and all the arguments that came forward. The debate has been happening out in the community. The debate has been happening in the newspapers. The debate has been happening on radio and on TV, and it's time now for the debate to happen on the floor of parliament, because the people who are affected by these loopholes have been waiting long enough for this parliament to recognise what's really happening in their lives.

Those opposite might think it's a bit inconvenient for them to have to prepare a speech so quickly. Well, it's a bit inconvenient for the casual who has been a casual working 30 to 40 hours a week for six years to not be given security of employment. Those opposite might think it's a little bit inconvenient for them to have to put their submission to shadow cabinet through tonight so it can be ready for the party room tomorrow. Well, there are a whole lot of workers in the mining sector who have suffered the inconvenience of being paid less than the people they've worked side by side with for years. Maybe their inconvenience can be the priority this time. Let's give the casual worker the priority. Let's have a little bit of inconvenience around preparing speeches here in order to deliver a better workplace for the casual worker, a better workplace for the gig worker, who currently has no minimum standards, and a better workplace for the people who are currently in the road transport industry who have been working for this reform for years.

Let's make those sorts of changes now, instead of making the ridiculous argument that, as I say, is the exact opposite of everything the Manager of Opposition Business has argued since he took on that title. The effect of this motion is to reduce the House of Representatives debate on the closing-loopholes bill from four weeks to two weeks. The impact of this amendment is to cut short the participation of members of this House in debate on the bill that has just been introduced. The impact of the motion that has been moved by the Manager of Opposition Business would be to allow you to run away and hide and try to get away with a few more weeks where you can just try to dodge the issue and not be forced to defend the loopholes that you plan to vote against closing.

The people affected have had enough of being told, 'Can we have a delay?' They've had enough of being told, 'Can we just pretend the issue is about something else?' They've had enough of being told, 'Consultation hasn't been good enough,' even though there has been more consultation on this than on any workplace relations bill in years. People have had enough of those excuses, and this motion is one of the most pathetic excuses I've seen to hide the reality that the day has come when, if you go to vote against closing the loopholes, it will be time to front up and defend the loopholes. If those opposite aren't ready to defend the status quo, to defend the rotten deal for casuals, to defend the rotten deal for people who are affected by the labour hire loophole, to defend the rotten deal that gig workers have at the moment—well, if those opposite aren't ready, we are. Members on the government benches are ready to have this debate. We're ready to have this argument. We're ready to close the loopholes. If there are some members opposite who think, 'Maybe I would rather hold my personal speech until October,' guess what? We'll still be debating it in October. You'll still get to make your speeches then. Those two weeks of debate are still there. They're still available. The only effect of this amendment is to cut out this week and next week and to mean that fewer members of parliament will get to speak, and speaking times will get cut short. It's the sort of amendment you only move when you're scared of the debate you're about to walk into.

See this speech in context