Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion to suspend standing orders. I have listened very carefully to the contributions before mine, particularly that of Senator Ludwig. He claimed that a case for the suspension of standing orders has not been made. I will try to make the case as clearly and simply as possible for Senator Ludwig, because there is a very clear case for the suspension of standing orders. If Senator Ludwig will turn his attention to today’s order of business, at item 8 under government business orders of the day No. 1 he will see the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010.

The government is expecting this chamber to debate that legislation, which is relevant to the National Broadband Network, today. Yesterday, this chamber passed a motion asking for provision of the National Broadband Network business plan and the government’s response to the KPMG-McKinsey implementation study. Senators set out their needs so that we can have the debate that the government wants us to have today, but the government has thumbed its nose at this chamber and at the Australian people by saying that it is not going to provide the documents that senators should be able to consider in order to make an informed contribution to this debate.

The only way that the opposition can ensure that somehow we do put pressure on the government to get access to these documents before we have a debate on this legislation is by going down the path of a suspension of standing orders so that we can debate the motion that the government refused us leave to vote on beforehand. So it is very clear for Senator Ludwig: it is the government’s legislative program that has forced the opposition to act in this way—to bring about the suspension of standing orders in order that we can have this debate—so that we can try as a Senate to force the government to give us the documentation necessary to have an informed debate on the $43 billion National Broadband Network.

I also listened to Senator Xenophon’s contribution. He linked the opposition’s stance earlier this morning on the voluntary euthanasia legislation to our stance now. I respond to Senator Xenophon by saying that there is a difference in the sense that we are being asked by the government to consider legislation today related to the NBN; whereas the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2010 was brought on without notice to other senators of this important topic. Frankly, as somebody who is quite likely to vote for that bill when it ultimately comes to a vote, I think that all senators deserve some decent notice to make a decent and considered contribution to that debate. It was quite reckless to attempt to bring it on in the manner that the government, the Greens and Senator Xenophon sought to do so this morning. It is responsible to delay consideration of that, to give senators notice, to make sure that we all make an informed and considered contribution to that issue.

It is also important for us to make an informed and considered contribution to the issue of the National Broadband Network and to government business of legislation No. 1 for today. That is why we need this business plan; that is why we need to see the government’s response to the KPMG implementation study. It is a very simple argument. Indeed, the government has already almost laid it out itself. It says it has the business plan and will release the business plan. But it will not release it until after the Senate has risen—until after we have been forced to debate and vote on critical legislation.

It is time for this Senate to make a stand. This motion for the suspension of standing orders gives us the chance to do that. The subsequent debate, if allowed, on the substantive motion gives us the chance to make a stand and to say that there are consequences when the government defies the order of the Senate. Those consequences must be enforced by this Senate, must be enforced on a minister like Senator Conroy, who is showing contempt for the Senate and is showing contempt for the 22 million Australian people whom he has enlisted as compulsory shareholders in his $43 billion experiment. It is time the government was open, transparent, did the types of things the OECD was calling for in its report released earlier this year, took a prudent, transparent and robust approach rather than asking this Senate to make decisions while being kept in the dark.