|
representatives vote 2023-11-13#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-02-09 10:20:54
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023; First Reading- Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 - First Reading - Suspend the usual procedural rules
Description
<p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-11-13.117.1) 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 order of the day for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 being called on immediately.*
<p class="italic">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 being called on immediately.</p><p>I'll explain to the House why I'm doing this. For those of you who were listening to the Leader of the House in his earlier mellifluous, calm, 'nothing to see here' presentation, he was busy giving the impression that it is nothing out of the ordinary for the government to sit there, arms folded and do nothing, when a message comes from the Senate saying that a bill has been passed. It's perfectly standard, apparently! Are there pieces of evidence which suggest that it's very far from standard and is, in fact, part of a sneaky strategy that the Leader of the House and the government have been passing all day to avoid being put in a position where they could move quickly to introduce safeguards for workers that they have been arguing around the country are important?</p><p>There's one powerful piece of evidence that it was pretty sneaky stuff. That powerful piece of evidence is that, around midday when the first message from the Senate arrived—the first in respect of four bills which were passed by the Senate last week—what the government chose to do after the first reading of the bill was to move that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting—in other words, deal with the matter as a responsible government managing the flow of legislation would do. Of course, when the second message from the Senate came on shortly after question time, it turned out the Leader of the House was on a go-slow. The Leader of the House was on a stop-work. He just wandered off. Nothing happened. There were shrieks of silence. There was complete inactivity. There was no hand on the tiller. That is something that all Australians who care about good government should be very concerned about, but it should also put you on notice that this is very sneaky stuff going on from the Leader of the House.</p><p>I will point to a second piece of evidence that this is very sneaky stuff. If we have a look at the daily program circulated by the authority of the Leader of the House, no less, what does it say that the government is going to do in respect of four bills coming from the Senate? In respect of the first of them—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023—it says: 'First reading. Second reading to be made an order of the day for the next sitting.' That's exactly what happened it midday. At least, that's what the Leader of the House attempted to do at midday, but we then moved a motion to have this matter brought on as quickly as possible. When the message in respect of the second of these four bills came from the Senate, what did the Leader of the House do? Nothing! He sat there—no action. Stop work—all out. On this rare occasion, this was not done at a time when a concrete slab had been poured, but it was very much in the finest traditions of the unions that are constituent members, funders and paymasters of the Labor Party. Why did the Leader of the House do that? Why did he do precisely the opposite of what was stated on the daily program circulated under the very authority of the Leader of the House? Why did he do that? Why did he do that in respect of the next bill when a message came from the Senate? That was the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill. Why has he just done it again—the third shameful piece of inaction?</p><p>It's the third time he has chosen to do precisely the opposite of what the document circulated under his own authority to all parliamentarians and members of this House says. The document says: 'First reading. Second reading to be made an order of the day for the next sitting.' Then when the opposition asked, 'It seems a bit irregular; why is this happening?' according to the Leader of the House it was nothing out of the ordinary and there was nothing to see. In fact, there was everything to see. It put the opposition in the unpalatable position of there being no option but to move that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of the day for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 being called on immediately. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because the Leader of the House and the government have chosen not to act. We are therefore moving a suspension of standing orders so this matter can be called on for those who consider that it is an important opportunity for the parliament to act quickly to legislate a measure for which there is agreement between the government, the opposition and, I am advised, many members of the crossbench. This is an opportunity to move quickly to legislate and to bring into effect measures that are given effect under the first responders bill.</p><p>This is very important legislation. It would amend the law relating to work health and safety and workers' compensation and rehabilitation. In particular, it would give fairer treatment to first responders. That might include, for example, people who have been employed as a firefighter, an ambulance officer or in other very important occupations. This is the reason why the opposition is moving this. It's because this is an opportunity for the government to join with the opposition and the crossbench to move quickly to legislate a measure which the government has expressly said it supports. But, for reasons that are frankly inexplicable, the government is choosing to sit on its hands.</p><p>We were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt when it came to the first bill of the four that were before the House. There was every opportunity for the Leader of the House and the government to indicate that they would be supporting the bill. We could have moved very quickly. But, unfortunately, that's not the approach the government has taken. What is troubling is that we have seen the same approach taken on bill after bill. It's particularly troubling that we have seen some pretty sneaky behaviour by the government to seek to avoid the operation of the normal processes of this place. But the suspension of standing orders that I am moving would allow this parliament to deal with this matter with the alacrity it deserves. That is why it is urgent that standing and sessional orders be suspended.</p><p>It is quite remarkable that the government and just about every member who has spoken in the second reading debate has given passionate arguments as to why these measures in relation to first responders are so important. On this side of the House, we agree. Indeed, all material stakeholders within our society agree. The chance this House now has is to vote very quickly to put this legislation into force. We heard how many words from the Leader of the House saying, 'If it were not for these procedural motions from the opposition there would be an opportunity to return to the bill'? But we know that all that would do is allow more time for debate. What the opposition is proposing, and what this measure is directed to achieve, is the opportunity for this House to vote quickly and to put in place immediately the measures that apply to the benefit of first responders. It is quite extraordinary that the Labor Party, the supposed champion of the worker, is not wanting to do this. It's not wanting to seize the opportunity the Senate in its wisdom has provided to this House. This House can join with the Senate. This House can demonstrate a bipartisan approach and work together to put in place in very short order these desirable and necessary changes in relation to first responders. It is for these reasons that I commend this suspension to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>Is there a seconder for this motion?</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Hogan</p><p>I second the motion to suspend the standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>Is there a written copy of the motion?</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Hogan</p><p>There is, and I have just signed it. I'll put this into context. We have a larger omnibus bill that is being debated in this chamber and will go through to the Senate at a later date. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is very aware of the public comment that there are many contentious parts of the ominous bill. I acknowledge that it will get voted through this House, but the Senate has already reflected that many areas of the ominous bill will have a lot of debate and a lot of amendments. A lot of things will go on. That bill, as the minister said, will probably look nothing like it does now. It's very common, as the minister said, to have an IR piece of legislation that doesn't have amendments in the Senate and goes off to committee and then a whole lot of other things happen.</p><p>What we're talking about now is a private senator's bill that has come to the House from the Senate. There are four elements of the larger omnibus bill that the Senate has passed already. They have said: 'There will be no amendments to this part of the legislation. We're good with this. We see this is important for workers.' That chamber has passed that and sent it to us.</p><p>We're saying to the government: 'We know that four elements of your larger omnibus bill are going to be accepted by that chamber with no amendments.' The minister should be ecstatic about this. No minister really wants to see amendments to their legislation. This special IR legislation is going to go through with no amendments. So the government and the minister have a choice today. They can say: 'There are contentious parts of the ominous bill. There will be a lot of amendments moved. There will be committees and delay. The benefits for workers may not happen until well into next year.' So the minister and the government have the choice today to pass the four elements in this chamber, knowing they will pass the Senate as well.</p><p>This motion is about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023. We had one about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 before. I'll just touch on what this bill is. This change will simplify workers compensation systems and will provide, unless proven otherwise, the presumption that PTSD suffered by first responders was likely contributed to by their employment as a first responder. That's obviously a great part of the larger omnibus bill. We support that part of the bill. We support and think that it's important for first responders to be appropriately protected and have access to workers compensation systems easily and in a timely manner. That's what the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 is about.</p><p>I acknowledge what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said earlier—that we may be perceived as being pre-emptive and that we may be perceived as not allowing the Senate to have normal due process. If I were the minister and the government, I would say: 'This is a really important part of the larger omnibus bill. This is an opportunity for the government to get this particular section of the larger bill through this chamber today.' Given that the government has the opportunity right now to pass this bill in this chamber, I would say that all first responders would say that the government should do that. Yes, it might not be the normal process. Yes, it is a private senator's bill that has come from the Senate, which is not the normal convention. Yes, it is before some committee processes have happened. Will there be amendments moved on this particular section of the bill in the Senate? Maybe not. Maybe everyone will say that this is exactly how it should be worded or written.</p><p>I would say to the government and to the minister that this is a really important section of this larger bill. I would say to the government and to the minister that I think every first responder in this country would say that they think you should support this bill. I support the motion put by the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|