Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I just wish that this position that the opposition's House of Representatives tactics committee has taken was the same position that their Senate tactics committee has taken. Right now, as I understand it, their Senate tactics committee are indicating in the other place that they want this bill to go off to a Senate inquiry, not to be put through straightaway. If the opposition members of the House have decided that this is urgent, can they tell their Senate colleagues, because nothing makes any difference out there to the rest of Australia until the bill has gone through both houses and is able to become law. If their position is, 'Let's push it through here today, but we couldn't care less whether it becomes law,' that gets us nowhere.

Part of the challenge here for those opposite is the fact that their leadership construction, if we can call it that, is something we have never seen before in the history of Federation. The deputy leader of the Liberals is no longer in this House. They looked throughout the whole of the parliament and they couldn't find a single person to be their deputy leader, so the deputy leader of the Liberals is a senator. But the deputy leader of the Liberals, who is a senator, does not lead the Liberals in the Senate; there's another person who leads the Liberals in the Senate. In fact, the deputy leader of the Liberals in the Senate is still not the deputy leader of the Liberals. And the Nationals have managed to have a leader of the Nationals who is in the Senate but is not the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate. I can see why they've ended up jumbled with all of this.

My request is simple: if they have decided that they want to be constructive, and if they have looked across all the policy ideas that are out there and realised the way to be constructive is to back government legislation, then we welcome that. But we take the Manager of Opposition Business at his word, when he said that the opposition stood ready to support any legislation dealing with the current circumstances—the fuel crisis. For that reason, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

"That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Bill 2026 and the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 being called on immediately to be debated concurrently and having precedence over all other business;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bills proceeding without interruption, with the time for each speech limited to 5 minutes;

(3) questions then being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bills;

(4) if required, a consideration in detail stage of each of the bills, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and

(d) one question to be put that the bills [as amended] be agreed to;

(5) any remaining questions required to conclude consideration in detail being put from no later than 1 pm; and

(6) when the bills have been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of each of the bills."

I don't think we need 'any variation to these arrangements being moved by the Manager of Opposition Business', because we will be giving him what he wants. I am really pleased they are willing to support the changes to the Fair Work Act, because when those principles to give decent conditions to, and to secure the future of, the trucking industry were put in the Fair Work Act, they opposed them. But apparently they only oppose the six-month consultation period.

See this speech in context