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

This is effectively a suspension order. This is the opportunity where they should argue the urgency in the program. What we have heard from Senator Abetz is perhaps the reasons he wants the particular information, but this is an opportunity for the opposition to lay out the reason that information is needed now and why the motion needs to be pursued now. Senator Abetz has not made that case. Senator Abetz has gone to the substantive matter. He is entitled to do that, but in doing that he has failed to present substantive reasons for this motion to be given urgent consideration.

This motion would upend the Senate procedures for today and take precedence over all other matters. We have a legislative program that the government wants to pursue today and in the next sitting week. It is completely outrageous for the opposition to use this device to upend the Senate and allow this motion to be proceeded with. There are a range of devices and opportunities, including general business this afternoon, that the opposition can use to have these debates and then to argue their case. It is completely inappropriate to use this mechanism in the way it is being used this morning. On that ground, it fails. On that ground, it should not be supported by the Senate. We are being captured by the opposition for their own political purpose—and without notice, may I say—on the basis that they are disappointed with a particular minister about some information.

What the opposition are then doing, as I think Senator Brown highlighted quite neatly, is taking the next outrageous step by utilising a device which is quite preposterous and which in my view will not serve their purposes in any event—that is, pursuing the production of a document by Senator Conroy. Although it is their right to pursue that document through an order for its production, what the opposition are doing next, and this is completely outrageous, is linking their motion to suspend standing orders to a bill designed to promote competition within an industry—the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010and thereby making that bill unavailable for debate. So the opposition are effectively denying the promotion of competition within the telecommunications industry by the use of a device for the suspension of standing orders.

In addition, the opposition has taken a step, which may have a precedent but looks unprecedented to me and certainly has not been used for a very long time, to co-opt additional time after question time for its own purpose—that is, to complain. It has also indicated that it will not consider any further documents on the NBN produced by the Minister for Broadband, Telecommunications and the Digital Economy other than the particular document in which it is interested. In total, the opposition has gone way too far in trying to dictate its views to the Senate. The motion does not simply relate to the production of certain documents; it will also mean that legislation will not be dealt with, that the minister will have to provide an explanation at the end of question time each day and that the minister shall not be heard in relation to any other documents. The opposition is trying to link all those things together in order to encourage the production of one particular document. I will go briefly to the substantive matter, which is the document itself. The government has said that it will make the business plan public and that that will happen shortly, in December. It will be made available when the legislation comes up for debate.