Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (12:19): First of all, we're obviously opposed to suspending standing orders and we're surprised they've done this immediately before a ministerial statement on Northern Australia. I'm surprised that they have actually decided that the Northern Australia debate isn't the one they want to have. I am also quite astonished, just in terms of the tactics of those opposite, that they've waited until the bill is no longer before the House before they come in here to suspend standing orders to prevent the House from dealing with the bill. The bill's not here. It's gone. There's a red room on the other side of the water feature in the middle there, and that's where the bill has gone to. Had this suspension been moved while the bill was here—we still would have opposed it, but procedurally I would have somehow understood what they were trying to do. But now we're being asked, as a house, to lay aside a piece of legislation that ain't here. It's not here. It's just not here. In the same way as when I was accused of being outside the room and I was here, the members opposite are saying that we need to 'do something about the bill that's in the House' except it isn't. It simply isn't here. That's not the only detail that they're getting wrong, but I just want to start with this point: they went through all the things where they said, 'It's bad for this, it's bad for that,' but they never once said it was bad for people needing a pay rise. Even within their own rhetoric they know, deep down, that this legislation will get wages moving. And it's the fact that they know that that they oppose it so vehemently. You only had to look at Senator Birmingham's interview on Insiders on the weekend. He was asked by David Speers, 'What do you need to do to get wages moving?' He said you needed to do all the things that they were doing as the previous government. Well that was when wages were stagnant. What they have asked for is for exactly that approach to continue. We've seen that wages won't move unless we change the law. It is a simple fact. And it's not surprising that whenever you try to get wages moving you will have a good number of industry groups, who are paid to represent their members, argue, 'We'd rather do this more slowly.' I get it. This legislation does mean that wages budgets will be higher, it does mean that, but it's off the back of wages hardly moving for a decade—in fact, to the point where, right now, workers are worse off than they were 10 years ago in real terms. Now, those opposite—I've seen the MPI for later today; they're wanting to talk about the cost of living. How do you deal with the cost of living if wages are going backwards? How do you deal with the cost of living if wages are not moving for people—in fact, if real wages are going backwards? This is why those opposite have no credibility when it comes to arguing anything about cost of living when their determination is to prevent wages from moving. I'm also amused with their whole argument about somehow all this is rushed. I know what it looks like when legislation is rushed. I remember ministers from the previous government coming in here with legislation and it going through that day. They would even come in without a copy for every member of the parliament to be able to read the legislation, and it would go through the House that day. If anyone opposite wants to indicate that they were denied a chance to speak in the debate on the bill, I'd really like them to indicate. I was up here, right up until the final moment, and no-one else rose to speak. That's when I gave the right-of-reply. No-one was denied a chance to speak in the House, no-one. Not one person was denied a chance to speak in the House. Not one. Mr Fletcher: For five minutes. Mr BURKE: The Manager of Opposition Business says, 'Well it wasn't long enough.' When the bills used to be introduced here to go through that day, no-one other than the minister made a speech. It's not a situation where you're members of parliament in the seventies and eighties and standing up and speaking. And in terms of the Senate committee process that has been continuing today, there has not been an industrial relations or workplace relations law in the last 10 years which has had more days of Senate hearings than this one—not one. So they're wanting to claim that the process is outrageous, and they're wanting to claim that things are somehow rushed. But, in terms of the debate here, not one member has been denied the chance to speak. In terms of the processes that are going on in the Senate, there have been more committee hearing days than for any other bill in this portfolio for the last decade. In terms of consultation with stakeholders, there have been meetings with the BCA, with ACCI, with the Ai Group, with COSBOA, on multiple occasions—yes, as well as with the ACTU. The vast majority of meetings have been with business organisations, including single-interest business groups: Clubs Australia, Master Builders, National Farmers Federation, ARIA, the Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association, HVAC—the manufacturing installation association. They're the business group, by the way, that install, in large buildings, the air-conditioning and ventilation services. They're one of the businesses that have been crying out for multi-employer bargaining to occur. Why? Because they're against the race to the bottom in wages. They're against the race to the bottom, which is exactly what those opposite are so eager to defend. You don't get wages moving if, every time an employer comes forward doing the right thing and paying a higher rate, they get undercut and lose their business. I'll tell you: I am all for competition in the market, but I want that competition to be on better quality, I want that competition to be on better trained staff, and I want that competition to be on the different brands and different ways that people market themselves. I don't want the competition in Australia to be on the race to the bottom on wages. If you refuse to have systems that work for multi-employer bargaining—and at the moment multi-employer bargaining is already in the act, but it doesn't work. It's a complete failure, for the simple reason that it's been so complex, so difficult to get into, that businesses have not been able to effectively use it. Those opposite, if it's about environmental protection or about consumer protection, will talk about red tape. They'll talk about all the difficulties with complexity. But, when it comes to a system about getting wages moving, they love red tape. They want as much red tape as they can possibly have. They want to make sure that every barrier is put in the way of people getting their wages moving. When inflation is looking at reaching eight per cent and wages have moved a bit but are still at 3.1, people are going backwards every day. When the pressure starts to come off inflation, you want that crossover point for wages to start getting in front so that people can start getting in front again in a way that was denied to them for a decade. Be in no doubt about what this motion calls for. (1) What it calls for is a bit impossible, because the bill's not here, but let's just humour those opposite for a minute and just pretend that this is possible to do. It says that 10 years of keeping wages low wasn't long enough. That's their view. They had 10 years of holding back wages and it just wasn't long enough for them. And what they're saying now is, 'Can't we just have a few more months?' What do you reckon they'll say in February? It will be 'a few months more'; it will be 'a little bit longer'. They'll say, 'These business groups oppose it.' Well, I tell you what, I say to those opposite: can you name the worker who doesn't need for their pay to go up? Name the workers who are not affected by inflation. Name the workers who are not affected by what's happening to their mortgage or by what's happening to their rent. Name the workers who are not affected by these price increases. We need to get wages moving, and we're opposed to the motion. The SPEAKER: The time for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be disagreed to. In accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.