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

Possibly not. That could be the case across the parliament. Senator Conroy prior to being a cabinet minister, prior to being one of the leaders of the government in this place, had a very sanctimonious stance it seems. He was more than happy to criticise the previous government. He was more than happy to criticise the changing of the sitting pattern, the ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, the ramming through of legislation and the use of the guillotine—all things that this government and Senator Conroy are guilty of time and time again. In fact, this government has used the guillotine on many more occasions than the previous government ever did. On some 158 occasions to date this government has applied the guillotine to separate pieces of legislation. If this motion is successful, another seven will be added to that list, bringing the total number of bills that have been guillotined through this place to 165. Senator Conroy should equally think long and hard when he comes to vote on this as to how hypocritical his stance is compared with what he previously uttered.

The crossbenchers are not innocent in this place either. Senator Milne previously said:

The Australian people deserve a house of review. A house of review means appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of governments.

It does indeed. Senator Milne was correct. The Greens, who have supported this process to date, should when the division comes think long and hard again about Senator Milne's words. Do the Greens genuinely support a house of review that provides appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of government? If they do, they would not support this motion. They would not support this motion because it most definitely does not provide for appropriate scrutiny of legislation in this place.

This motion will see, as I said, two very significant areas of reform undertaken. Debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013 will be concluded in the next couple of hours if this motion is successful. Despite the number of amendments that are outstanding and despite the cooperative nature of the debate to date, the NDIS reforms will be rammed through. They are far-reaching reforms that will have—hopefully—positive, profound impacts on the lives of so many Australians. The government is curtailing proper consideration. We need to make sure we maximise the long-term benefits of those reforms.

With the media reform package, the government proposes to deal with two of the bills tonight and four of the bills tomorrow. Again, there will be just a few hours of consideration for each of those packages. There will be a few hours for changes to our media landscape that are quite profound. Perhaps it would be acceptable to have curtailed debate on these matters had there been proper, thorough debate through the Senate committee process beforehand. But it has been far from it. The Senate committee sat for two days this week. The bills were released only last Thursday and witnesses had no time whatsoever to provide submissions to that process. Perhaps it would be appropriate for this place to curtail debate as proposed in this motion had there been proper consideration through the Senate committee, but that has not been possible under the terms stipulated by this government.

Perhaps it would be possible to curtail debate to some extent had there been proper consideration of these bills in the other place, but no, in the other place the bills have been brought on and taken off by the government—they have mostly been off; they have been sitting off the table without any debate while negotiations were happening behind closed doors. Mr Wilkie has confirmed that Senator Conroy has been shut out of those negotiations. Amazingly, the lead minister has also been absent during this debate about whether his laws get debated in this chamber. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is missing in action once again. Perhaps it would be acceptable to see some element of curtailed debate in this place if there were thorough scrutiny in the other place, but that most certainly will not be the case. If the Senate is to debate these bills as proposed in the motion before us, then the other place will have a maximum of only a few hours to finalise consideration of the legislation as no doubt it will be pushed through under guillotine in that chamber as well.

Perhaps it would even be acceptable to see some degree of curtailed debate on these bills on these far-reaching media reforms had there been proper public debate surrounding them, but they were released for the public to see only last Thursday. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013—that is a rather ironically titled bill. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013. So, if this motion is successful, in the space of a week the government will have expected the public to have had proper debate around these proposed far-reaching media reforms and their restrictions on the operation of free media in Australia, in the space of a week the government will have expected the parliamentary committee processes of the House of Representatives and the joint committees, like the human rights standing committee that handed down a most interesting and damning report on these reforms, to have considered the legislation. The government believes that a week is sufficient time for the House of Representatives to consider these bills and that a week is sufficient time for the Senate to consider these bills.

I know that Senator Ludlam, who is sitting over there, has a different view from mine on media regulation. However, I also know that Senator Ludlam believes in proper public policy processes, and I would urge Senator Ludlam to exercise whatever influence he can on his colleagues in the Australian Greens to make sure that they stand up for proper public policy-making processes, oppose this motion before the Senate and support the proper scrutiny of these far-reaching media reforms.

Not only has there been no case made in any adequate terms as to why these reforms are necessary or how these reforms would work but there most certainly has been no case made as to why there is such urgency surrounding these reforms—why it is that this parliament must finalise them by 9 pm tomorrow night. Why must this parliament finalise these reforms by 9 pm tomorrow night? No member of the government stood up and said why it is so necessary or why it is so urgent. Senator Conroy, the responsible minister and the leader of the government in this place, has not been seen for hours. He has not been seen in this chamber. He has not been seen, according to Mr Wilkie, in the negotiations around his legislation. It seems as if the government has gone and hidden Senator Conroy in a corner somewhere.