Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

For Senator McLucas's information—you would think she would know better, having been here as long as she has—this is actually a motion to set aside standing orders to allow the government to move a motion. It is not the motion about the hours. She is criticising Senator Birmingham for debating the media laws and she herself then committed the error of debating the hours motion rather than the motion which is to set aside standing orders, which I actually want to talk about.

I do not think that any of the government speakers have actually demonstrated a need to set aside the standing orders or to allow for this motion to be dealt with now in preference to the agenda that was before us. I do want to point out that the government's proposed motion that Senator McLucas wants us to deal with now is as dysfunctional as is this government generally. I suspect that what the government is trying to do is to get a little bit of free time for tomorrow so that we can have the ultimate leadership challenge as it comes along, and I am surprised that the Greens are facilitating the leadership challenge tomorrow.

If the government's proposal is eventually adopted—if this motion is passed and we are allowed to continue with the hours motion—it does mean that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which has met today and carefully looked at both the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill and the broadcasting bills, if I can call them that, is not going to be able to table until after all of those bills are dealt with. Mr President, you would understand that one of the reasons the Senate sets up committees like the Scrutiny of Bills is so that we can in a bipartisan way have a look at bills that come through and alert senators—as you know, the committee itself does not give opinions or take partisan views, but it does alert senators—to things that the committee thinks the chamber should be aware of. As I said, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has done a fair bit of work on these two bills. There are some horrendous provisions in the broadcasting bills which do impact on freedoms, rights and liberties, and it is the duty of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to alert senators to those, because the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has more time and better advisers, I might say, to make senators aware of these.

These draconian measures really need to be brought to the attention of the senators when they are debating these two bills. And yet, the Labor Party in promoting the change to the order, simply overlooks the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It obviously does not want us—want the Scrutiny of Bills Committee—to alert the parliament to some of the tremendously restrictive provisions of the broadcasting bills. These provisions clearly take away people's rights—infringe upon their rights—and give some quite unfettered powers to the government. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, quite rightly, is not making a judgement on them, but rightly pointing that out to the parliament. This government is so dysfunctional—or, perhaps, so functional and so clever—that it wants to make sure that the particular Scrutiny of Bills Committee report does not come in until after those two bills are voted upon by the Senate.

How unfortunate is that? Had the government consulted a bit wider, had they taken senators into their confidence, perhaps that could have been pointed out to them. But they rushed forward with these bills—anything to get through these draconian measures, measures that really impact upon freedom of speech—without any concern for the forms and norms of this chamber.

As I say, I know that this is all about giving a bit of space tomorrow for the leadership challenge, which we all know is coming along, but you could do it in a different way to this and you could allow the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to at least precede these bills. (Time expired)