|
representatives vote 2023-11-13#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-02-09 10:16:42
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023; First Reading- Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 - First Reading - Suspend the usual procedural rules
Description
<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-11-13.113.5) introduced by Manager of Opposition Business and Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Liberal), which means it failed. The motion was to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another motion be introduced.
- ### Motion text
- > *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.*
<p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>No-one has risen to their feet?</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>As a private member, you are entitled to move that it be listed.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the bill be considered immediately.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>That's not in order as a private member. Page 581 of the <i>P</i><i>ractice</i> shows that if you wish to list it for future business you're able to do so.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I'll just refer back to my earlier remarks on page 581 to the Manager of Opposition Business:</p><p class="italic">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 …</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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?</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I welcome the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>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 <i>Notice Paper</i> under government business.</p><p>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.</p><p>So the first one has gone as a result of the filibuster, and that will be on the <i>Notice Paper</i>. 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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. I want to hear from the manager.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>is not going to deal with this, then I will move as a private member that the bill be dealt with immediately.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>You are unable to do under the standing orders. I refer you to the <i>Practice</i> 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:</p><p class="italic">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—</p><p>So you're entitled to do that.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Previously, that has happened.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>Can I just ask you to repeat that?</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>On page 581 of the <i>Practice</i>:</p><p class="italic">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).</p><p>I'll just deal with the manager, and then I'll turn to the member for North Sydney.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>In view of what's a pretty deliberate and transparent attempt by the government to evade these matters coming on—</p> <p class="speaker">Government Members</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. We're just going to deal with this in a systematic way.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I'm confident it will be seconded by one of my colleagues.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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:</p><p class="italic">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 …</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Hogan</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! I will get the member to resume his seat for a moment. I want to hear from the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>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.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|