Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:32): I actually rise to support the suspension motion that has been moved by Senator Lambie. Let's talk about why—in particular in direct response to what Senator Watt has said. The best that the government could come up with in relation to why Minister Burke will not split this bill to put forward, as has been put sensibly in a motion this morning, what are considered to be the non-controversial parts of the bill has just ben articulated by Senator Watt—and that is we're actually holding up people getting the correct benefits. Well, let's go through how that stacks up in the start dates of the bill. Based on that statement, you would assume that what they're referring to are start dates of 1 January 2024, but, unless Minister Watt hasn't read the legislation or unless Minister Burke is not over his own legislation, let me tell you when the start dates are: casual employee changes, 1 July 2024; casual conversion, 1 July 2024; regulated labour hire arrangement cannot come into effect before—wait for it colleagues—1 November 2024; unfair contractual terms, 1 July 2024; and wage theft, 1 January 2025. Good grief! It's getting worse. Guess what, colleagues. Guess what comes into effect on 1 January 2024. Can anyone guess? Senator Duniam: Tell us! Senator CASH: Union delegate rights. You've got to be kidding me! So at least be upfront in relation to why you want to push this bill through the Senate this year. They're your own start dates. And what starts on 1 January? The rights of unions to go into workplaces around this country. But let's have a look at the four pieces of legislation that we're being asked to discuss this morning. They are, word for word, taken from the government's own legislation. So, effectively what Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock are doing is giving the government the opportunity to vote on their own legislation this morning and be constructive. The coalition is going to be constructive. The crossbenchers are going to be constructive. I don't know what the Australian Greens are going to do, but they may well be constructive, too, to enable these important parts of legislation—important parts that business groups across Australia also agree should be split from this bill—to be put through the Senate. Then we can continue our role as a Senate and properly scrutinise the more complex and controversial parts of the legislation. So let's look this morning at what the crossbenchers are looking at doing. They are looking to provide the asbestos agency with the remit in relation to silica diseases. Well, that is work that was started under the former coalition government. A report has just been released by Safe Work Australia. I would have thought that, given the recommendations from Safe Work Australia, this is something where the government would say: 'Yes. It is appropriate. It is not controversial. It can be progressed today through the Australian Senate.' And they're going to be using, as a political weapon, discrimination against people who are suffering family or domestic violence. Now, you tell me: if businesses across Australia are saying that they are comfortable with the change that is being proposed—and we're comfortable with the change, and the crossbench are comfortable—why would you not pursue that again today through the Australian Senate? And what about the redundancy payments for Australian workers? That's something Minister Burke could happily progress through today. So, when a larger business becomes a small business—due to, say, insolvency—those workers will still be entitled to a redundancy payment. I thought that was getting workers paid, but, conveniently, Minister Watt and Mr Burke don't agree with that. But of course something that I personally looked at when last in opposition—and I worked with former senator Gavin Marshall on this—was reversing the presumption in relation to first responders who get posttraumatic stress syndrome. Labor can be as political as they like, but guess what? We're going to be constructive, and I support the suspension of standing orders.