Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just waiting for the government to indicate what it intends to do procedurally in relation to the bill but that has just been the subject of the message. Are we going to get an indication of what the government intends to do?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one has risen to their feet?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, if the government is not going to move how this is being dealt with, is it open to me to move how it is dealt with?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a private member, you are entitled to move that it be listed.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the bill be considered immediately.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not in order as a private member. Page 581 of the Practice shows that if you wish to list it for future business you're able to do so.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to you, Mr Speaker is both in relation to this bill and the previous bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023. We've had a message from the Senate: can you enlighten the House as to what has happened procedurally? Are we to infer that the government is not now proceeding to a first reading of these bills?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just refer back to my earlier remarks on page 581 to the Manager of Opposition Business:

A private Member takes responsibility for a private Senator's bill by moving, on the occasion of the bill's first reading in the House, that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting (no seconder is required). The bill is then listed on the Notice Paper …

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, Mr Speaker, that's not the situation we're in. No member has moved, first of all, in relation to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill—there was no minister at the table, so there has been no motion indicating what is to happen to that bill. So I'm seeking an indication from you or, indeed, from the Leader of the House, as to what is to happen, firstly to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill? And, secondly, what is to happen in relation to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, consistent with the procedure that was observed in relation to the first of these four bills, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023?

What happened with that bill, of course, was that upon you announcing that the message had been received, the Leader of the House stood and there was a first reading. He then moved that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. I'm seeking your ruling as to what happens now.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the Leader of the House.

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

I presume this is a point of order that you're seeking a ruling on, so this is just a contribution. There are four different messages being received from the Senate. The presiding officer has an obligation to report those messages to us. What we do with those messages is a matter for the House. On the first of those messages: I moved that it be made an order of the day. I understand why an amendment was moved to consider it immediately; the thing that I don't understand is why there was then a filibuster so that we got to 1.30 without any of the questions being resolved. As a result, that motion will appear in future on the Notice Paper under government business.

On the second one—there are four—the antidiscrimination one: I understand that it has been reported to the House and no-one moved anything. That's a right of the House, if no-one wants to move anything. So then we get to the third message, which I think is where we're up to now. Particularly when government legislation comes in, there's very much an obligation on the Leader of the House to take the lead on how government legislation is dealt with. Ministers don't have that obligation for business that arises is private member's business. It's completely up to the Manager of Opposition Business—as I've done previously, years ago in the past—or for crossbenchers, or whoever wants to jump, to jump up. But there's certainly no obligation on anyone in the House to deal with a message. It's up to members.

So the first one has gone as a result of the filibuster, and that will be on the Notice Paper. The second one the House chose not to deal with, and we're now up to the third message. If a member chooses to deal with that, they can, but it's certainly not incumbent on us to do that.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point that, because of the way the notice in relation to Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill was handled, it should be recommitted. Certainly on this side of the House, in good faith, we were waiting for the government to stand up and deal with it exactly as it did with the first of these. If what the Leader of the House is now admitting is that he's engaged in some sharp practice to allow this to go through so that the government can achieve its objective of not having this matter dealt with immediately, I think there should clearly be a recommittal.

Let's first turn to the notice from the Senate which is before the House at the moment, which is transmitting the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 for concurrence. If the Leader of the House is not going to move that the matter be dealt with, if he is again proposing to remain silent in the rather curious way that he's just done in relation to the second bill—part, I might say, of a pretty deliberate effort to avoid this bill coming on for debate in the full knowledge that both the opposition and, I'd venture to suggest, a number of the members of the crossbench are eager to see—if the Leader of the House—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. I want to hear from the manager.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is not going to deal with this, then I will move as a private member that the bill be dealt with immediately.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are unable to do under the standing orders. I refer you to the Practice on page 581, just so everyone is clear on what you can and can't do. I'm in the hands of the House here. If no minister takes action on a message, under convention:

A private Member takes responsibility for a private Senator's bill by moving, on the occasion of the bill's first reading in the House, that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting—

So you're entitled to do that.

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

Previously, that has happened.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just ask you to repeat that?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On page 581 of the Practice:

A private Member takes responsibility for a private Senator's bill by moving, on the occasion of the bill's first reading in the House, that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting (no seconder is required).

I'll just deal with the manager, and then I'll turn to the member for North Sydney.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In view of what's a pretty deliberate and transparent attempt by the government to evade these matters coming on—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. We're just going to deal with this in a systematic way.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 be brought on for debate immediately.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so we're clear, the question before the House is a suspension of standing orders. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm confident it will be seconded by one of my colleagues.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This to deal with the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, the bill received from the Senate before the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I now proceed to speak to my motion, Mr Speaker. Again, for the benefit of all those in the House, what I am moving is: 'That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 be brought on for debate immediately.' The reason that I am moving this is that it is clear from the conduct of the government that it is doing everything it possibly can to avoid having a debate on and, importantly, moving to vote on these four pieces of legislation, of which the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 is one.

The reason that standing and sessional orders need to be suspended is that, first of all, the substance of the matters in this bill are matters of substance which go to important rights for workers, particularly the amendments to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act to broaden the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. This would allow the agency to play a central role in coordinating, monitoring and reporting on national efforts to eliminate asbestos and silicon related diseases in Australia and to support those affected by these diseases. This is a matter of importance because, thanks to work done in the Senate, there is now a bill before the House which would allow the House to deal with this matter immediately. I refer, of course, to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, the bill that's been the subject of the message we've just received. That was debated and voted on by the Senate last week, and the Senate passed this bill.

There is now the option for the House to consider this matter immediately. It is not a contentious proposition that these matters are of considerable importance. Let me quote, for example, the member for McEwen. He's not somebody I would typically quote, but on this occasion I am pleased to quote the member for McEwen. He had this to say:

The need to extend the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to address silica related diseases is something that was brought home to me through meetings with the ACTU …

Let's be very clear about what is going on in this House. The provisions that were contained in a bill moved by the government, rejoicing in the Orwellian name of 'Closing Loopholes', packages together some extremely politically contentious matters which are all about the government responding to the aspirations and desires of its paymasters in the union movement. It packages together those contentious matters with matters that are widely accepted as necessary to be dealt with, as a matter of urgency, by the union movement, the business community, the government, the opposition and, I'm informed, by most, if not all, of the crossbenchers. This is an opportunity for this House to deal with that matter immediately.

We've seen a consistent pattern, by this government today, of doing everything it can to avoid this House engaging efficiently and promptly with these bills. We've seen this government doing everything it could to delay these being brought on and, I may also say, doing everything it could to avoid being put in a position where it needs to vote on these matters. But the effect of this suspension of standing orders motion, Mr Speaker—and through you to the House—is that it allows the Australian people, and indeed this House, to see very clearly where this government stands on these matters.

There is an opportunity for the government to join with the opposition—and, I'm informed, some, if not all, of the crossbench—in support of this bill, to pass this bill immediately. This bill would have the effect of broadening the powers of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. This government has done everything it could to avoid being put in a position where it needs to deal with this matter in this House. But I'd suggest that that is not, from the point of view of this House and its members, a satisfactory way to deal with this matter.

So the effect of the suspension of standing orders that I am moving is that, if the suspension is passed, it would put me in a position to move that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 be brought on for debate and, indeed, a vote, immediately. That is the simple proposition that I am putting to the House. There's 25 minutes of debate on this particular bill. I'm conscious that there may be crossbench colleagues who wish to speak, so I will conclude my contribution here, and I hope that crossbench colleagues who have views may choose to express them.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to second the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. I will put what is going on here into context, for the benefit of the House. As we know, the government had a—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will get the member to resume his seat for a moment. I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

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

I'll be brief, because I don't want to take the member's time. The motion has been moved and seconded, but we don't have a copy of it in writing, which is required otherwise it's not before the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just allow that to occur, just to make sure we follow the protocols of the House. To assist the House, I will allow the member for Page to continue.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to put into context what is going on in the chamber, the government has its Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill, which has gone through the Senate. The Senate passed four amendments to that legislation, and this is one of them. At the moment, we are talking about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023. What we could do right now is pass this specific amendment, which is part of a bigger bill that the government hasn't been able to get through the Senate yet.

This is, in reality, a goodwill gesture from the opposition. We are saying four things could happen right now. Members of the government spoke very passionately about this element, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, when the bigger bill was going through. They spoke about the urgency with which it needed to happen. So what we are doing is an element of goodwill. The opposition and, I'm sure, many crossbenchers got up and spoke about the first amendment today and were happy to support this.

Why would we want to rush this through? When you talk about occupational health and safety nothing is more important than the asbestos safety and eradication bill. It will expand the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and will allow the agency to play a role in monitoring and reporting on national efforts to eliminate asbestos and silica related diseases in Australia and support those affected by the diseases. The agency is well regarded for its role, and the bill would provide the agency with silica oversight functions and would allow it to leverage its experience with asbestos and take on cross-portfolio coordination.

It will be really interesting to see what the government does here. This bill is one of four on which we are saying to the government: these four elements of the bill were important to you. We are saying that the opposition, and many crossbenchers also, will vote for this to happen today. So it is over to the government. Do they want these benefits? Do they want this amendment and others to come into force for workers in the Australian economy now or not? That is their decision. It will be interesting to see what they vote on because they spoke very passionately about the importance of this bill in particular, about its importance for the health and safety of Australian workers.

The Senate in its wisdom went through a process and has sent back to the House these four amendments as separate bills. We are saying that we don't want the government to put them on the Notice Paper and kick them out into the never-never. We do not think that is in the interests of Australian workers. I commend the crossbenchers who spoke on an earlier amendment this morning. We are trying to be constructive. We are trying to make this particular issue come into force for Australian workers earlier than it otherwise would be. This one specifically is important in that it relates to the health and health benefits of Australian workers.

This will be important. Is this just politics for the government and they won't take this measure of goodwill from the opposition to pass this now? Are they going to take their bat and go home and not allow to pass this amendment, which is good from the Australian workforce. They have the support of the opposition in this chamber, and of many crossbenchers as well. The minister is very passionate about this part of the closing loopholes bill. I encourage the minister to take this gesture of goodwill and let us pass this amendment today.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I had wanted to speak during the debate this morning, but, of course, as I had been the mover of the motion I had to wait for there to be no-one else to rise because, otherwise, giving the right of reply would have closed off debate.

The reason the first resolution today will never get voted on is the hijinks of the opposition. They thought there'd be a clever game to filibuster, they thought they'd dare me into moving that the question be put and, all the while, they were simply behaving in a way that prevented their own amendment from being put. Then we had a complaint from the Manager of Opposition Business that somehow it was unreasonable that, having spent the whole morning complaining about the resolution the government had moved, when the next message came the government didn't stand up and move a resolution. It turned out that without the government moving a resolution the opposition chose not to either. So the second bill has no response from the House.

I don't expect every member of the House to be ruthlessly following procedure, but I would have thought the Manager of Opposition Business would have a cursory glance at what's happening with procedure, particularly when there are bills that are not government bills that are coming through as messages. Now we're on the third of those. What is in front of us is not what was just put by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business just claimed something that is not accurate. He claimed that the 'closing loopholes' bill has gone to the Senate and that they have considered it, made amendments and sent back different parts of it. That identical claim was made in similar terms in the debate this morning. It's similar to some of the coverage where people have said that, somehow, the bill I introduced has been split in the Senate. The bill is still here. The bill is listed for debate and listed for debate today.

The question that is before us now with this suspension is: today, do we debate which of two options? Do we debate a bill that only deals with the impact of what I introduced on the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, or do we deal with a bill that deals with every single clause of that and also deals with every other loophole that has been introduced to this House? That's the choice. Either way, we end up today debating the impact of including silica as one of the things the asbestos agency has to deal with. Either way, the House will debate that today. But the question is: do we only deal with that, or do we deal with that plus the other measures that are loopholes the government has said it wants to close?

You might ask the question: if those opposite are so passionate about this one, why is it that, for nine years, nothing was done on it? If they are so passionate about the impact of silica dust, why was it that, when I turned up to my Safe Work Australia meeting as minister and there were all the states, there had been no attempt to do the work we then commissioned on the deadly impact of kitchen benchtops? Why was it that none of that work had been done? For each of the four measures the Senate has been sending messages on, how many of those four did any member of the opposition in government or in opposition call on me to introduce? The answer is: not one. Not one of them! So don't come in here suddenly saying that you think you're going to position the government and we'll feel bad and we'll look like we're on the back foot. We want to debate all those measures, and we intend to do it today. That's why we're opposing the suspension.

If we think, 'Is this a tactic to delay or not from them?'—think about this: the first thing they did when I introduced the 'closing loopholes' bill was to attempt to delay it for six weeks. The very next day, they changed their position and, instead of delaying it till October to commence debate, they wanted to delay it until February. Then the Senate, immediately after they passed these individual bills, voted to change the requirements for the Senate committee that was looking into the provisions that are in these bills—provisions that stakeholders have made submissions on and that the committee is very likely to recommend amendments to. What did those opposite or their counterparts in the other place do? They immediately moved to change the reporting requirements for the Senate committee from it having to report by 1 February next year to 'it must not report before'. So they deliberately have created a situation where the consultation has been commenced on this bill that you want to debate now. You say, 'Oh, let's just put it straight through.' Stakeholders have put forward submissions, wanting amendments to it. There's a Senate committee still considering it. That Senate committee was likely to have been in a position to report next week, but the Liberal and National parties voted in the Senate to say that, even if it is ready—even if it has considered those submissions and is ready to make a recommendation—they won't allow it to. That's how the Liberal and National parties voted.

For each of the provisions—on PTSD, on silica, which is what we have here, and on the small business redundancy issue that we dealt with earlier—there are submissions that people have made in good faith. Who are these people? They're very often people who have lived experience and whose lives have been in some way destroyed or changed from what they otherwise might have been because of exactly these issues. They've made submissions asking for amendments. Those opposite will pretend to be the friends of the issue. Having asked for submissions, they have then said, 'But you're not allowed to report until 1 February, but let's just put it through in its first form anyway.'

It is always the case, particularly in this portfolio, that government legislation introduced here ends up being amended as a result of a Senate inquiry. You don't get to introduce industrial relations or workplace relations legislation without a Senate inquiry, and you always end up with amendments as a result. But never before have I seen a situation where the opposition and crossbench in the Senate, who traditionally are the champions of due process, have decided to start that due process and then not allow it to be concluded before the legislation gets locked in.

So why would this have unfolded? I have a lot of respect for Senator David Pocock, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Lambie, but Senator Lambie, on Radio National, made it clear. Why were these the four issues? Because those were the ones on which they could get the agreement of the other side. So that's what we've got here. It is not that these issues are the only ones that make a difference to people's lives. I'll tell you what: spend five minutes with people who've lost a loved one at work and ask them whether we should have industrial manslaughter laws. Somehow there's been a decision that they're not urgent. Ask a casual working permanent shifts who could easily be transferred into secure employment because they have a firm advance commitment, but whose employer refuses to do that, whether they'd like to be able to do that. Ask them whether, without secure employment, they have any chance of being able to get a loan from the bank. What does that mean for their lives? But those opposite have decided: 'Oh, that's not urgent. Push that off.'

Similarly, ask someone on a mine site. Those opposite will talk a lot about coal, but they won't talk a lot about the workers. Ask someone on a mine site who is being paid less than the person beside them, even though they've both worked there for the same length of time, simply because of the accident that one is employed by a labour hire company and the other isn't. They have the same qualifications and are doing the same job. One of those people is being underpaid. Tell them that, with everything that's going on with cost of living, we shouldn't be dealing with their underpayment. I'm sure everybody here, including me, has gig workers delivering food to their home sometimes on a weekend. It is not that those gig workers have unreasonable minimum rates; they have no minimum rates. I'm not willing to tell them that their concerns are second rate.

I want us to bring on the bill, which is listed for today, that deals with all the loopholes, including the one that those opposite say is urgent today. We will have lost a big chunk of today's debate time on this, but we will get a chance to debate every one of these provisions. We'll end up doing some late nights to make sure we do, but we owe it to the people whose lives are affected to ensure that a whole bill goes through. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to suspend the standing and sessional orders be agreed to.