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

I won't speak long on this. I appreciate that any debate management motion is controversial in the House. I had planned at the start of the week that we weren't going to have manage this debate. We lost a large amount of time yesterday for purposes that still mystify me, where the opposition ran a particular strategy to make sure that four private members' bills did not turn up on the notice paper. They were successful in that strategy, but how on earth that was in their interests is beyond me. As a result of losing those hours of debate, it means now, in the ordinary time of the parliament, we're not going to be able to get through this bill this week.

While previously those opposite have objected when I've shortened the time from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, on this occasion I haven't done that. This simply keeps it at 15 minutes. We'll have the normal adjournment debate between 7.30 and 8.00, but then we'll continue debating the closing loopholes bill until 10.30, and then tomorrow we will do the same. On Thursday morning we will vote on the second reading. There are a couple of announcements that have to happen at the second reading of the bill that are covered, but after that we won't proceed with the in-detail stage until the bill is brought back on, and I advise the House of that to give people ample time to prepare amendments, which some members of the crossbench in particular have asked for. I won't be bringing the bill back for the in-detail stage until parliament returns for that final week.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023:

(1) on Tuesday, 14 November when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the bill is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance and any quorum or division deferred under standing orders 55 and 133, the debate continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;

(2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the debate continuing until either:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) 10.30 pm;   .at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 15 November at 9 am;

(3) on Wednesday, 15 November, when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the bill is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance, the debate continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;

(4) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the debate continuing until either:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) 10.30 pm;   .at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 16 November at 9 am; and

(5) immediately following prayers on Thursday, 16 November, if necessary to complete the second reading stage of the bill, the bill being called on and questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill and any messages from the Governor-General under standing order 147 being announced;

(6) debate on the bill to then be automatically adjourned;

(7) when the bill is considered in detail, any detail amendments to be moved together as one set for the government, one set for the opposition, and one set per crossbench Member, with:

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

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

(c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and   .one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to.

(8) any question on amendments provided for under paragraph (7) being put after no more than 20 minutes of debate, unless a Minister sets further periods of 10 minutes for debate;

(9) when the third reading of the bill is moved by a Minister, the question being put immediately without amendment or debate; and

(10) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

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

I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister:

That paragraph (8) be omitted.

I want to explain why the opposition is doing this. The Leader of the House is proposing a number of things in this motion. The first is that we have some late nights to consider the omnibus fair work amendment, and the opposition has no problem with that. We're here to consider and debate legislation. I won't respond to the Leader of the House's attempt to attribute responsibility for this motion to others; the Leader of the House and the government have the numbers, and the Leader of the House is fully responsible for what happens in this House.

He's also responsible for paragraph (8) of this motion that has been moved. The effect of paragraph (8) is that there will be only 20 minutes of consideration-in-detail debate on each set of amendments. The government is seeking to crunch down the time for consideration in detail to stymie the meaningful work of this House and its members in considering and debating amendments and, indeed, the detail of the legislation line by line.

The Leader of the House has spoken about the second reading debate, which of course continues. That will see a series of government MPs repeating talking points about this government's so-called 'closing loopholes' bill. What he has sought to do at the same time is to crunch down—to minimise—the time allocated to this House to do its actual meaningful work which occurs during the consideration in detail process. Sadly, this is part of a pattern we have seen from this government and from this minister in the way that he and it have sought to deal with this closing the loopholes bill. This government fought tooth and nail against there being a proper Senate inquiry into this bill, which runs for hundreds of pages. Notoriously, the bill was introduced and there was little time to consider it before the second reading debate resumed—a timing that was quite different to the orthodox way in which bills progress in this House.

What's being proposed here seeks to gut, effectively, the normal operations of the consideration in detail process. Twenty minutes is a ridiculously short amount of time to allow detailed engagement on specific issues. I'd make the point that it would limit to 20 minutes each the time the crossbench members would have to engage in the consideration in detail stage of the debate. I might make the point also that the substance of what the Leader of the House is doing here is entirely at odds with his fine rhetoric during one of his many flourishes to which we were treated to yesterday. He had this to say:

I won't be cutting the speaking time, but I'm going to have to provide extra time for the House …

That's exactly what he's doing: he is cutting, in an extremely blatant way, the time available to members to engage in the consideration in detail process. That's the substance of the motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House today. That's why the opposition is moving to omit the objectionable paragraph (8), so that all members of this House—government, crossbench and opposition—have the opportunity to participate in the consideration in detail process and allow that process to work through as the standing orders contemplate, allowing this House to do its proper work.

Unfortunately, what the Leader of the House is trying to do, and what the government is trying to do, is to dramatically compress and constrain the operation of the consideration in detail stage of this debate. It's the most important part of the debate; it's the part of the debate in which any member has the opportunity to propose amendments and, of course, any member has the opportunity to ask questions of the minister. And this is on a bill, it must be said, which goes for several hundred pages and is on areas of enormous complexity. In his previous role, this Leader of the House spoke many times about the role of the House as a place of review and of scrutiny. It's the place where, on behalf of the Australian people, parliamentarians can test and scrutinise legislation being put forward by the government, including individual provisions. That's precisely what the consideration in detail process is supposed to do. And of course it's also the place where members can put forward amendments and have those debated on their merits. They can do their work to propose changes or ways in which the legislation might work more effectively.

But notwithstanding the many years of fine rhetoric on these topics that we heard from the Leader of the House in his previous role, now that he's got his hand on the levers he's not interested—not interested at all—in members of this House having the opportunity to engage in a meaningful way in what is, arguably, the most important stage of a bill going through this House. And so it's for that reason that the opposition is moving this amendment so that the consideration of detail process can happen in a meaningful fashion rather than being gutted, as the Leader of the House has sought to do.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the amendment?

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

I second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, that amendment being the elimination of paragraph (8):

any question on amendments provided for under paragraph (7) being put after no more than 20 minutes of debate, unless a Minister sets further periods of 10 minutes for debate;

As the Manager of Opposition Business has just articulated very well, this is basically a gag order on what is an exceptionally important piece of legislation. The minister lamented earlier that it was never his fault. It's never the government's fault. He lamented the terrible things that we, as the opposition, did yesterday. They are the only reason he has to do this. We wasted time. We've cut debating time for this bill. This is the terrible thing we did. I will just remind the chamber that what we were doing yesterday was offering the government the opportunity to fast-track four section of this larger omnibus bill that could've already passed the chamber. They could've got up and supported those four elements of the bill and we could've moved on and done that, but the government chose not to do that. The government chose not to have us help them support four elements of this bill yesterday. The bill literally could've been fast-tracked.

As the Manager of Opposition Business just said, this government has a pattern of gag motions and of stopping this parliament from debating. If time is such a critical thing—if we need this time and we're cutting time short—I would remind the chamber that the government saw fit to cancelled a whole sitting week of parliament just recently. We lost four days of parliamentary debate through that process. The government saw fit to completely wipe a whole sitting of this parliament. To lament the terrible things that the opposition are doing—we took two or three hours yesterday to go through a process that we thought could've fast-tracked some elements of the bill—they're saying, 'You're terrible people. Now, because you've done that, we unfortunately have to do this.'

We support the extra hours of sitting. We support going through till 10.30 to debate this bill. As the Manager of Opposition Business said, the part that they're trying to gag is the consideration in detail. This is where a lot of amendments will be put. This is where a lot of hose amendments are discussed. The government are showing no interest in and no respect for the processes of this chamber. They can't lament time when, having just cancelled a week's sitting of parliament, they say, 'Oh, we haven't got time now. We've got to cut short the consideration in detail on what is a very important bill.'

This is a complex piece of legislation. This is, I think, overreach. These changes to the industrial relations system are very complex, and a lot of amendments will be moved, and they are amendments that will have been well considered. They will be amendments that a lot of people will want to have the right and the respect of going through the proper parliamentary process.

I say to the Leader of the House: the time that you say was wasted yesterday was time in which you literally could've supported those elements of the bill so as to have them already passed. You say that we're short of time. Well, you cancelled a week's sitting of parliament, which didn't seem to be a problem, yet you're now saying that you're short of time. This is complex legislation. This is important legislation. There will be many serious amendments moved. Again, this is a pattern of this new government. It's a bit of hubris and arrogance from this new government, I think. It's a gag order, and I support and second the motion of the Manager of Opposition Business.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that certain words be omitted from the motion. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House to echo some of the messages that we've just heard from the Manager of Opposition Business and his seconder. The reality of this industrial relations reform is that it is a huge piece of legislation. There are many elements in employment law which will be affected by the passage of this legislation. That was recognised by the referral of this legislation to a Senate committee for it to be reviewed. That Senate committee is not due to report on that until February.

In considering what was offered within this bill, colleagues of the crossbench worked in the Senate to send back to this House four pieces in this legislation where there is absolutely no controversy—where we could all stand to support it. Even today, we've seen a joint letter come out from employment groups, including the Business Council of Australia; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Australian Energy Producers; Australian Industry Group; Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association; Australian Retailers Association; Council of Small Business Organisations; Master Builders; Minerals Council; national farmers; Recruitment, Consulting & Staffing Association; and the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association. All of those employers have come out lamenting the fact that we did not move to pass those four bills through the House yesterday, when we had the opportunity to move to support first responders, to enhance protections from discrimination for workers experiencing domestic violence, to protect the small business redundancy exemptions in insolvencies and to extend the role of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to cover silica and silicosis.

Those issues are noncontentious, but there is much in the rest of the bill that still remains contentious. To not enable this House to fully debate any possible amendments, when it comes to consideration in detail; to seek to move them in bulk, en masse; to push it from this House back to the Senate before this calendar year ends, is merely a process of expediency. The reality is that, without the Senate reporting until February next year, we have time, as a parliament, to properly look at this legislation and make sure we prosecute it to its fullest.

I stand today to say that North Sydney doesn't, as a general matter, support motions that seek to stymie debate in this House, and again today I stand to say: we'll do the extra hours this week, but it is disappointing that the consideration-in-detail component of this debate looks to be cognated and to be rushed through. I think Australians expect us to do better than that, particularly with a piece of legislation that has such wideranging potential impact.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the suspension. I would argue that there's no need to change the arrangements for debate of the 'closing loopholes' legislation. We could have sat last week. We didn't. As the member for North Sydney has already said, the Senate committee scrutinising the bill won't report until February. In all likelihood, the bill that then comes back from the Senate will be substantially different from the legislation we're debating today in the House, and some of its measures indeed would not take effect until the end of 2025. So, in short, we have time. It doesn't matter whether the rest of the omnibus legislation passes this House after parliament returns in the New Year.

The crossbench offered the government the opportunity to deal with the measures that are universally regarded as urgent. Not only was that offer rejected; the government wasted an afternoon of the House's time using standing orders to reject those proposals one by one, and then to consign them to the bottom of the Notice Paper. The only really substantive point that the Leader of the House made during the hours of debate yesterday was this: why just these four measures, when there are other matters that make a difference to people's lives? And then the Leader of the House evidenced industrial manslaughter. I would support that being brought forward. And I suspect the crossbench in the Senate and the House would do so, too. So to the minister I say: if there are urgent measures, bring them on. The minister might also discover it's the same story with other elements of the bill—the amendments on casuals and permanent shifts, for example—now that he's won the support of some key employer organisations. So talking to the House today about a shortage of time, when there has been an opportunity to deal with these issues in an orderly way, I think is a bit rich.

I do welcome the opportunities that the minister has given me and the crossbench, and also staff, to discuss this legislation. But, in saying that, the government has known for months that the crossbench had deep reservations about the consequences of some sections of this enormous bill—a couple of hundred pages long and with a several-hundred-pages-long explanatory memorandum—involving significant changes to our industrial relations system. I've told the minister this directly. I've appealed to him personally to deal with the uncontentious parts of the legislation first. The government's critical of the employer organisations, which have simply thrown up their hands and declared the bill should be rejected holus-bolus. The crossbench is not aiming to do that. The minister can't have it both ways. The crossbench has offered a way to deal with all the measures in the bill in a methodical manner, taking the uncontentious issues first.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise briefly in support of this motion and to echo the comments of the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein. As a new member in this place, I have sat through a number of sitting weeks relatively recently where I have wondered what the point is, as I've watched people debate across the House, and it honestly feels like everyone is filibustering to fill the time when this bill is up ahead. This is a really, really important bill. It is a bill that my community is very engaged in—but it is incredibly complex. It seems like exactly the wrong bill to be trying to force through the House, particularly given that, as my colleagues have noted, this bill will not be passed by any chance before February next year. We have another sitting week coming and we have just had a sitting week cancelled, which would've been a great opportunity to get through the second reading speeches and really have a proper debate on all the amendments.

I know we're going to have to move amendments in bulk, through this motion. Again, when the bill is this complex—and it's hundreds and hundreds of pages—the idea of moving that level of complexity of amendments, in bulk, and then having a very short debate around them, is contrary to what we're trying to do here in the House, which is to have a proper examination of the legislation before us.

I'd also like to echo the points made by my other crossbench colleagues. The crossbenchers in the other place and here are willing to work with the government on trying to move forward issues that are urgent and that will make a real difference to people right now—particularly around first responders and the upcoming fire season, which we are all extremely concerned about. It also includes, as businesses start to really buckle under the pressure of the economic times, making sure people are protected adequately in terms of their redundancy. There are good reasons to do this quickly. We could be doing this quickly. There is an opportunity to do that now.

I call on the government—and I will be open-minded—to look at whether there are other options or other parts of the bill that we could move forward on quickly, and to then have more extensive debates on the things that we know we're not going to deal with until early next year.

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

I want to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I want to respond differently to the opposition issues from the crossbench issues. With respect to the opposition, for example, the debate management motion—that both opposition members who just spoke voted for—used to be, 'Take consideration in detail for 30 minutes,' full stop. That's what used to happen, not, 'You can have each amendment for 20 minutes and the minister can extend it if there are still people wanting to speak.' The whole thing was 30 minutes, full stop. I just don't accept for there to be any parallel drawn that somehow we're behaving the way the previous government behaved. Secondly, we now have a situation where the opposition have decided it is clever to filibuster and to keep debates going for no particular purpose. They did it when I was sick—on the calendar—just trying to keep it going for as long as possible. They did it in a moment of madness yesterday, which had the exact opposite impact of what they were trying to achieve. But they'd decided the game of filibustering was fun.

For that reason, in consideration in detail—where members can speak more than once, and you can actually have a couple of people just decide they're going to play sport forever—given the way the opposition is currently behaving, I believe we do need to manage that debate. I am mindful, though, of issues that've been raised with me privately by crossbenchers, and have been raised in the debate right now, about some of the challenges in a bill like this where a member feels that they need to move some issues separately. I am interested in finding a way to be able to deal with that. At the moment, this only allows each crossbencher to move one amendment, or a large amendment in block, and an argument has been put to me that that creates challenges for people being able to properly represent their constituency.

The final clause of this allows a variation on the arrangement to be moved by a minister. I give an undertaking to the crossbench that I want to negotiate with them and have a conversation. I accept they will vote against us on the amendment now. That has been made clear. Notwithstanding that, I think there is a reasonable point that has been made that doesn't go to the concept of filibustering forever but does go to the concept of being able to properly represent their constituencies by being able to move more than one amendment. Working out how we can do that without things going on forever and having fair rules across the parliament is something I think we can achieve. I want to give that undertaking to the crossbench, notwithstanding that they're about to vote against me.

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

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.