Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This proposed sitting schedule by the government could be described, to put it kindly, as feeble. This government is sitting less, on average, than any other government in an election year in the last 20 years. There are 366 days next year; it is a leap year, so there is a bit of a bonus there. There are 104 weekend days, 10 public holidays and 252 working days next year. The government is proposing that the House sit for only 63 of those days and the Senate for 55 days. If we are generous and add in estimates days as well—another 16 days—that takes the Senate to a total of 71 days.

There are a couple of pretty straightforward reasons that the parliament will sit relatively infrequently, as proposed by the government. The first is that this government does not have a concrete, serious agenda. If you do not have a serious agenda you do not need to have the parliament sit. I think that is part of the rationale. The other—perhaps even more significant—rationale is that every single day this parliament sits represents a potential opportunity for a challenge to Prime Minister Gillard. So I do not think she is particularly keen on maximising the number of sitting days lest that opportunity present to her colleagues. Each sitting week is indeed a great temptation.

The coalition, in office, will certainly sit more days than this government is proposing, because we have a full agenda. The first item on that agenda is to repeal the carbon tax legislation should it pass through this Senate. That will be item of business No. 1, followed hot on the heels by repealing any mining tax legislation. We will have a full agenda, in contrast to this government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.