|
senate vote 2023-11-16#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-06-23 12:08:37
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion in relation to a message to the House of Representatives, as circulated.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended s would prevent the opposition moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to a message to the House of Representatives to be moved and be determined immediately.</p><p>Last week, the Senate unanimously voted for four of the 21 schedules of the government's omnibus IR bill. These are PTSD provisions for first responders, family and domestic violence provisions that would strengthen existing legislation, adding silicosis to be aligned with asbestos and important redundancy provisions where a larger business becomes a small business and people who hang on the longest to support that business often end up not getting a redundancy. It seems to me that politics is largely about negotiation and compromise, and it seems like that has been done in the Senate, where four parts of the 21-part omnibus bill have been split at the will of the Senate and passed without even a call for a division. Clearly, there is very strong support in the Senate. We have endorsed these bills, we have passed them, and the House of Representatives should now look at these bills.</p><p>My commitment to people in the ACT when I was elected was to look at each piece of legislation on its merits. I'm not here to be a rubber stamp, and I'm not here to stand in the way of much-needed protections for workers. But I am here to ensure that there is scrutiny and to stand up for the ACT.</p><p>There are clear loopholes that need to be closed. No-one is going to stand up and say that what Qantas has been doing with labour hire is okay. But this is an enormous bill. It has a 500-page explanatory memorandum and 200 pages of legislation. Whilst there are clear issues with, say, Qantas, this bill goes economy wide. When you have that, you have to be looking at the unintended consequences. As an example, for those unfamiliar with some of the details of this bill, as it's currently drafted, the same job, same pay provisions would apply to athletes. You could have Nathan Cleary being paid the same as a first-year rookie. I think anyone in the community would say, 'Hang on; that's not what this is intended for.'</p><p>Based on the fact that these measures are economy wide, parts of the crossbench have said we need more time to deal with this—noting the Jacqui Lambie Network's constant concerns about resourcing for the crossbench. Senator Watt, in answer to a question from Senator Lambie, talked about wage theft and industrial manslaughter. I'd be very happy to consider those provisions separately now, but it also highlighted that there is some misunderstanding about this omnibus bill. Minister Watt made a very clear point about wage theft, but my understanding is that the provision related to wage theft comes into effect 1 January 2025, so there's a long time until anyone will be done for wage theft. I think it adds to the argument that, with provisions that come in on 1 July or later, we should take the time to get this right for the Australian workers and for small business. We should do our duty as elected representatives to really ensure that we're working through any unintended consequences and sorting them out.</p><p>For the last industrial relations omnibus bill, the government moved 150 amendments to their own bill on day 1 in the House. We've had dozens and dozens of amendments to this bill flagged by the government, but we're yet to see those details. When it comes to these four provisions out of 21, there's clear support from the Senate. This is about simply sending a message to the House of Representatives that the Senate has made its position clear on these four bills, and it's time for the House of Representatives to deal with them.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The government denied the senator leave to move a motion, and we don't support the motion to suspend standing orders. I'll confine my remarks to the suspension rather than the broader issues around industrial relations reform. The first point is that we have an incredibly busy program to get to today, and so this is, I think, an attempt to waste the Senate's time on a matter where we have other, more pressing and more important issues. The Senate has—</p><p>Well, I listened to people in silence, so I would appreciate having the same courtesy extended to me. The point is—and Senator Pocock made it—that the Senate formed its view on this last week. That is clear to the House of Representatives. Now, what the House of Representatives chooses to do with that is a matter for the House of Representatives, not the Senate. That vote was held last week. If it was clear, as Senator Pocock argues, then let the House of Representatives determine how to deal with that. I don't think we would take too kindly to the House of Representatives telling us how to order our program when we come and sit in this place. I can't recall the House of Representatives ever passing a motion to tell the Senate how to order its priorities and programs, and I don't think the Senate should be doing that to the House of Representatives.</p><p>I think the more pressing issues today are to get to the government's legislation program and allow the House of Representatives to do what it needs to do with whatever work gets sent its way from the Senate. I understand there was the opportunity for a procedural issue to deal with that this week and that it wasn't dealt with appropriately by the opposition. That's my understanding. So it was probably more about the opposition in the House of Representatives getting their house in order if they wanted to prioritise this matter this week. That wasn't done, and it's over to the House of Representatives to choose how it deals with this.</p><p>But the Senate has set times for these matters. We dealt with the private senators' bills last week. There is absolutely no reason why this should be taking up more time this morning, and I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher, that the question be now put, be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-16.12.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- This means that the [debate on the question](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-11-16.11.2) can continue.
-
-
|