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

This motion strikes at two very significant principles: firstly, the principle of an effective and democratic and fair parliament and, secondly, the principle of a free and open media to scrutinise the operations of the parliament. This motion strikes very deeply at the heart of both of those things, because this motion undermines the capacity of this parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny to far-reaching legislation going through this place. In doing so, this motion will facilitate the passage of that far-reaching legislation that attacks the principle of a free media and a free press in Australia. For that reason this motion must be opposed, should be opposed and should be defeated so that this chamber can have a proper debate on issues of such significance.

This motion applies, of course, to two areas of very significant legislation—two far-reaching reforms: one of which the opposition, along with the cross-benchers and the government, is deeply and sincerely committed to; and the other of which we are deeply and sincerely opposed to. We are deeply and sincerely committed to seeing the passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation.

Senator Fifield has led, on behalf of the opposition, a passionate stance of supporting this, of trying to strengthen the reform and of calling for greater detail and greater commitments through the life of this parliament. He has sought every step of the way to try to make this a bipartisan measure on behalf of the coalition. We want this measure to succeed. This is a far-reaching measure of fundamental and profound importance to millions of Australians, the many Australians with a disability and the many more Australians who are related to those with disabilities, carers for those with disabilities and friends of those with disabilities.

Getting this legislation right is fundamental to its future success, and we want the NDIS to be a success. Therefore, we want to get this legislation right and we believe that it deserved complete and thorough scrutiny through this parliament. As Senator Fifield said, it got the scrutiny it deserved in the other place. In the House of Representatives, there was no guillotine to the NDIS legislation; there was open debate. The open debate ensured that there was the right level of scrutiny.

In this place, sadly, the government is now seeking to curtail that debate, and quite unnecessarily so. The government could have very easily proposed extended hours to solely deal with the NDIS. I am confident that in the spirit of bipartisanship and spirit of cooperation the opposition has to this policy issue those extended hours would have been granted. We would have been willing to sit for as long as it took this week to deal with the NDIS and to deal with the sensible amendments related to it. However, the government, because it also wants to get its media reforms through and wants to exact its revenge on those who have dared to criticise it, has had to apply a guillotine not just to those controversial media reforms but to the very sincere and important reforms related to the NDIS.

That is a shame because it undermines the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that should surround those reforms. It is to the credit of the opposition and Senator Fifield in particular that we have been so willing to work with the government on this important issue—difficult at times though it can be—and to the shame of the government that they are wrapping up the NDIS in a guillotine motion in this controversial procedure at this time.

As I said, their motives for doing so are clear. It is not to do with the NDIS, in fairness to the government; it is to do, of course, with the media law reforms. Reforms that are the most far-reaching in terms of their impact on the operation of media in this country. When it comes to the hours of sitting for this Senate and when it comes to ensuring we have proper scrutiny of legislation in this place, we should expect that to be adhered to.

I am not the first person to stand in this place and criticise a procedural motion like this that tries to vary the hours and vary the arrangements and in doing so tries to ram legislation through this place. I am far from the first person to do so. Senator Wong, now the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, back in 2005 said:

We are asking for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised by this chamber through a Senate committee process before it is voted on.

Let us look very closely at what Senator Wong was asking for there: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised. Both of the legislative packages that are before the chamber fit into that realm. The NDIS may have far-reaching support but it is complex—it is complex for sure. The media reform legislation, equally, has far-reaching effect across all Australians. It is complex and it is most certainly controversial as well.

Senator Wong was right in 2005. She was correct in saying that such legislation deserved proper scrutiny then, and it deserves proper scrutiny today as we debate this. When this chamber divides shortly, I hope that Senator Wong and her Labor colleagues will reflect on the words that she said in 2005 and remember that they were asking, as she said, for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised.

Equally, in 2006 the now Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy, who of course is the proponent of these media reforms—or at least was the proponent of these media reforms until the Prime Minister pulled the rug out from under his feet and subsumed all negotiations with the cross-benchers in the other place, said:

You do not just need to be here in this chamber to realise how arrogant and out of touch this government has become with the ramming through of legislation, ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, changing the sitting pattern all the time and using the guillotine. It is turning this chamber, which for 30 or 40 years has been a chamber of accountability and scrutiny, into a farce.

Senator Conroy is of course now the leader of the government in this place. Prior to that, he was the deputy leader of the government in this place.