Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This is an embarrassment for the opposition. We are now debating this they gagged the debate on this bill, the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010, during general business—their business—on Thursday, which prevented senators from speaking. They have now used the opportunity of the third reading to bring their senators back to speak again. It is ridiculous. They are engaging in a shonky political stunt. That is why we are now debating. During the third reading, they are finding more speakers to speak on the bill. Because the opposition gagged the debate on the Thursday, this is now intruding in the time for government business.

The opposition claims that the Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 is of vital importance. Indeed. There are important issues at stake here. As the first speaker of the bill, Senator Williams, said, it goes to the heart of Australia’s clean, green image, which allows people not only in Australia but overseas to buy Australian food with total confidence. They were fine words, quite frankly. But that raises this question: if these issues are so important, why close down the debate during general business on Thursday? Why cut it short before it was adequately considered and then attempt to use the third reading to debate it?

It is ironic that the opposition has sought to gag the debate on a food standards bill. In so doing, they are treating the Senate like a sausage machine. They seem not to have been able to get out of the habit that they developed between 2004 and 2007. The opposition has in recent times liked to champion the role of the Senate as a house of review. Indeed it is. As such, it is one of the key checks and balances that is an essential part of any strong democratic system. But when the opposition does nothing but obstruct government bills; waste time; abuse the committee system by, for example, sending bills off for umpteenth dozen inquiries, then you have to ask yourself this question: are they taking the Senate seriously or are they simply reverting back to their old standards of treating the Senate like a sausage machine?

They used the gag motion. It has been used six times since 1998. Senator Parry can claim to have used it a number of times equal to a third of that. The closure of debate is used very infrequently. Fundamentally, it is anathema to the way that this Senate works. The Senate is one of the places where debate is not closed down; the debates are not gagged. However, we have now seen an unusual course taken by the opposition to close down debate in the Senate. Those on the other side in this chamber claim that they are not acting in an obstructionist manner. They clearly are. The Senate is supposed to be able to debate and review legislation. The opposition have used the gag motion to close down debate.

By moving to rush this bill through, the opposition is revealing that it is not only obstructionist but arrogantly obstructionist. On this bill, the first speaker, Senator Williams, gave us about five minutes of his time and addressed none of the specifics of the legislation. This is a hasty piece of legislation which the opposition is keen to simply rubberstamp through this chamber. But this legislation needs more consideration. The Senate Selection of Bills Committee has not decided that the bill should not be referred to a committee. In addition, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on beef imports, including BSE matters, has been deferred. We have yet to see the final report and the comments of the senators, including of course opposition senators who participated in that inquiry. It is foolhardy to not have the final report on the record before there is an attempt to pre-empt its findings by bringing this bill before the chamber. One of the matters that those opposite have always stood for in this chamber is ensuring that information is available from Senate committee reports on particular legislation. They already wrecked that rule. Now they have wrecked it again.

The government have had limited time to look at the bill and limited time to explore the consequences of the legislation. It is not good legislative practice to use general business and now a third reading debate to air this particular piece of legislation. It can be squarely framed as simply a political stunt by those opposite. In relation to the urgency of this matter, why is it as urgent as more important legislation that the government has before it, such as the private health insurance legislation or the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation? The Australian people deserve more scrutiny of legislation and more accountability than this rushed process on this hastily and poorly drafted legislation that this opposition are now trying to ram through the Senate.

Senator Williams made the statement that this bill was very important. Quite frankly, I absolutely agree. This issue is of great importance, particularly to people in the bush but also to all Australians. But we have not seen in this chamber in the last two years—but particularly since the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has taken over the reins—substantive and proper argument about what is good for Australia and Australians. All we have seen has been pure obstructionist political point scoring by the opposition. Heedless of the waste of time and money that they are causing, the opposition is holding up legislation.

I am not going to use up my time in this debate in full. But I needed to make the points that I have just made so that it is clear why we are having a third reading debate in relation to a private member’s bill. Whether they are stacking the list of speakers, whether they are using endless repetition on the same points or whether they are referring bills to committee for the umpteenth dozen time, it seems that the opposition have made plain that their only position is to be obstructionist for obstructionism’s sake; to say, ‘No.’

I have a little parable for them then. All mums and dads recognise that some oppositional behaviour from toddlers is a normal part of growing up and learning to think and do things in your own way. The federal opposition, however, seem stuck at a permanent stage of toddlerhood, lacking their own vision for the country’s future. They are trying to fill the void with noes and a raft of silly games worthy of a two-year-old. This is not what the Senate is for.