Senate debates

Tuesday, 28 November 2023

Business

Conference with House of Representatives

12:01 pm

Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share 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.

Comments

No comments