Consideration of Legislation

Tony Burke

One of the amendments that was circulated by the member for Wentworth is one that the government's in a position to agree to, and so the member for Wentworth did not move those two amendments earlier. So, to allow that to be put separately—and I apologise to the opposition; we've only very recently advised them of this—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution agreed to by the House on 14 November 2023 relating to the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 being varied to permit the Member for Wentworth to move an additional set of amendments, and to permit separate questions to be put on the Member's sets of amendments.

Paul Fletcher

This motion that the Leader of the House has just moved is nothing but a consequence of the chaotic mismanagement of legislative processes under this government. We heard the Leader of the House at earlier stages today talk about the fact they had allowed plenty of time for debate, that it's extended over weeks. Of course, there is one critical point that he neglected to mention when he was speaking in his most reasonable tone—which should always put you on notice, if you've had any dealings at all with the Leader of the House. He failed to make clear that in fact what has happened is that he's allowed time for second reading speeches where a series of Labor Party members of this House had the chance to get up and repay what they owe the unions that funded their campaigns to get here by spitting out a predigested set of talking points, but he has not allowed any appropriate time for consideration of the detailed and complex issues which this bill brings forward.

There are 270 pages in this bill. There were 30-plus pages of government amendments which were introduced just yesterday, made available just yesterday, and the consideration-in-detail debate began last night. But what is most troubling for any Australian who cares about the role of the parliament in performing its job, in engaging in scrutiny of what the executive and government are doing, in holding government to account, is that the Leader of the House has procured that this process is occurring under the terms of a debate management motion, moved by him and passed by the government using its numbers, which says that when the bill is considered in detail any detailed amendments be moved together as one set for the government, one set for the opposition and one set for the crossbench members—and, relevantly, to the issue to crossbench members, which is what has now engaged this desperate last-minute struggle to try and find a way out of the procedural straitjacket which the Leader of the House has created for himself.

Relevantly, the motion the House passed some time ago says:

separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members …

…   …   …

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

The Leader of the House has created a procedural straitjacket for this parliament in the way that it deals with the very complex issues which are before the House today.

I want to commend members from both the opposition and the crossbench who have spoken to these points over the last couple of days and highlighted just how detailed and complex this piece of legislation is and just how detailed and complex the amendments moved by the government are, and the pressure this has put on all relevant parties—parties in the small 'p' sense—to engage and consider the complexity of them. Consideration in detail is the process where the parliament is supposed to have the opportunity to drill down and to ask things. For example, if the minister asserts airily that three pages of definition of what constitutes 'casual employment' can be read and understood quickly—that is a proposition which, on the facts, is frankly a proposition that is very difficult to sustain. It is a procedural straitjacket which the Leader of the House has created for the government. Frankly, it is, in the view of the opposition, a problem that has arisen solely because of this government's determination to constrain the time which is allowed for debate. If normal procedures had been followed, this motion would have been completely unnecessary.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders be agreed to.