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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will just put it in the category of farce, if I may. Senator Collins was right when she said that there has been a large degree of cooperation from this side of the chamber with the legislative program of the government. The coalition has, during the last almost three years of this parliament, been extremely cooperative in relation to bills that all parties in this chamber identify as non-controversial. Again later this week there are a large number of bills which all parties have agreed should be given swift passage too.

Contrary to the constant assertions of Mr Albanese in the other place, the opposition have taken a very practical and a very cooperative approach to the management of business in both chambers. Obviously, where legislation deserves thorough and complete scrutiny, we have sought to do that, but we have never sought to be bloody-minded, we have never sought to be obstructive, we have never sought to delay or impede for the sake of doing so; we have only ever sought to ensure that legislation receives the scrutiny that it deserves. I do appreciate Senator Collins acknowledging that this side of the chamber has been cooperative with the business of the Senate.

That leads me, therefore, to the issue of why this particular motion is necessary. Again, the opposition displayed a cooperative spirit when, yesterday, we signalled to the government that we would accept their second iteration of this motion—this being the third iteration. The first iteration was not acceptable to us, but we said to the government, quite reasonably, that if the motion that they put forward only sought to remove the MPI and also sought to make provision for valedictory statements in relation to Senator Crossin, we would support that. So the government circulated an amended motion to that effect, which we would have supported. As a sign of good faith this morning, the opposition did not submit an MPI. Yet, overnight, Senator Collins has sought to amend the motion. As I indicated, it is not really an amendment; it is a completely new motion.

I want to go through each part of the motion in turn, Mr Deputy President, because I know that, in debates on procedural motions, you like the focus to be on the procedural motion itself. The first item is to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). Well, there were only paragraphs (a) and (b) in the motion. We will just put that down to farce. Part (b) of the third iteration of the motion says that the MPI should not be in place. We agree with that. We think that is reasonable. The next part says 'that consideration of government documents under standing order 57(b)(x) be not proceeded with'. The government have provided absolutely no rationale for why government documents should not be proceeded with. They are an important part of the business of this place. They are an important way for the parliament to impose scrutiny on the activities of government and for other issues to be raised. Senator Macdonald is someone who takes full advantage of that, and it is important that we defend the rights of individual senators to avail themselves of the opportunities of this chamber. Section (d) says that business should be interrupted at 5 pm so as to enable valedictory statements relating to Senator Crossin. Of course we agree with that. We demonstrated yesterday that we were happy to facilitate that. It is practical and sensible.

Section (e) relates to legislation that the government propose to be dealt with no later than 7 pm. The government have not given any rationale as to what the urgency is for these bills to be dealt with. I want to take one in particular, and that is the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. This bill, in the form that it was originally introduced into the House of Representatives, had the support of all parties, opposition included. It is quite an appropriate bill that seeks to ensure that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. However, Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, has signalled that he wishes to have an amendment moved that would see the religious exemption, which we thought that all parties supported, altered. He wishes it to be altered so that the religious exemption no longer applies to faith based aged-care facilities. It is not inconsistent to be opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time to respect religious freedom.

We had thought that the sex discrimination bill was a settled matter. We can only surmise as to what the motives of the government are in seeking to introduce this amendment. We can only surmise that they may be endeavouring to again practise the politics of division, pitting one part of the community against another part of the community when there is absolutely no need for it, when we should be in a position where we can respect the views of all Australians and have them appropriately accommodated. Antidiscrimination legislation is not the complete and absolute embodiment of all rights in this nation and of all freedoms that we respect. I just thought it was important to use one of the pieces of legislation that the government wish to debate from 7 pm tonight as an example as to what I think some of the motives of the government might be.

The final part of the motion, section (f), calls for the adjournment of the Senate to be proposed at 10 o'clock tonight. Obviously we are always happy to work, but the issue is that the responsibility is on the government of the day to manage their program within the legislative timetable and sitting schedule that they themselves have determined. If the government of the day cannot manage their legislative program within those bounds, that is a reflection on the government of the day. Here is another thought: perhaps the government of the day is seeking to legislate too much. There is no innate virtue in legislative activity. Not all legislation is good. Some legislation is bad. Some legislation does more harm than good.

We do not want to be in a situation where the measure of a government is their legislative throughput, where the measure of a government is how many bills have passed into law. Government does not always do good. Government can do harm. We have many examples—whether it be the carbon tax, the mining tax or any number of pieces of legislation that I could point to—that show legislating is not always a good thing. Sometimes it is better for a government to stop and think: 'No, actually. Why shouldn't the first principle of government be "Do no harm"?' If the government cannot manage within the sitting days that they have allocated and within the format of the sitting week that has been determined then that reflects on the government in two ways: firstly, they cannot manage their own agenda and, secondly, perhaps they are seeking to legislate too much.

I know those opposite will say, 'We're endeavouring to facilitate greater debate, greater scrutiny, by extending the hours tonight.' I have seen this so many times before, where the government give with one hand by extending the hours a little bit but they take even more with the other hand by, in the subsequent days, gagging and guillotining debate. When we have a motion such as this to slightly extend hours, we know, as sure as night follows day, that in a day or two or three there will be gag motions to put questions, to terminate debate where it is at that point in time, and we know that there will be motions to set up guillotines following hot on the heels of that. Whenever this government are faced with trying to manage the legislative agenda, they always, since they have the numbers, ultimately take the easy course, the easy path—that is, to guillotine debate. For those reasons, we cannot possibly support this motion.

If there were a sensible proposition and cooperation were required—if it were to remove, say, an MPI in order to facilitate valedictories—of course we would do that. If there were a requirement for a non-controversial legislation period and for the bills which were part of that to be agreed to, of course we would support that—and we would be positive about ensuring that it happened. But where we have these ad hoc, piecemeal motions which change three times over the course of the day and are then presented as alterations to existing motions—when in fact they are brand-new motions—we cannot be a part of that approach to the management of business in this place.

There are perhaps over 100 bills currently in the pipeline to come through this parliament. We know that the government do not anticipate being able to legislate all of those in the remaining two weeks. We know that, as the days tick by, they will focus, as governments do, on those pieces of legislation which are really important to them. I do not see any legislation listed in this motion before me which shouts out that it is of critical importance or that it needs the business of this place altered in order to facilitate its passage. I do not see that in the Australia Council Bill and I do not see that in the sex discrimination amendment bill—and the other bill is essentially a housekeeping matter.

This government never take the time, whether it be with the Australian people or with the Australian Senate, to make the case for what they want to do. Even if it is significant and adverse change, such as the carbon tax or the mining tax, the government never seek to take the Australian people along with them. They never seek to explain the rationale behind what they want to do. Firstly they will deceive and then they will do the opposite of what they originally indicated.

It is the same with this chamber. The government never seek to explain what their rationale is for the management of this place. We get motions presented here—overnight and without notice—that seek to completely up-end the business of this place, yet no rationale is given. There is cooperation extended from this side of the chamber, but it would be helpful for the management of business in this place if that cooperation were reciprocated in these sorts of motions. As I say, we on this side of the chamber are extremely reasonable and we are open to reasonable approaches. But when we have a proposition before us to remove the consideration of government documents, with no rationale explaining why that is necessary; when we have a proposition put that certain bills should be given precedence over other bills, but absolutely no rationale is given to support that; and when we have a proposition before us to alter the entire day, again with no rationale at all, we cannot possibly support that.

There are many more important matters we should be dealing with in this place and we could be dealing with those right now. Instead, the government have chosen to take the approach of altering this motion overnight—without justification, without rationale and without explanation. Our natural response to such an approach is to feel the need to debate and highlight it. It should not be this way.

I know what is coming in the days ahead. We will have similar motions again and the government will, as I have foreshadowed—and it is not prescience; it is just that we know that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour—seek to use the gag again and seek to use the guillotine again. I urge Senator Collins not to gag debate in the days and week ahead and not to use the guillotine in the days and week ahead.

I know the request comes from the other place, from Mr Albanese—that legislation has to be rammed through the place. I know it is not always the desire of Senator Collins to see the prerogatives, rights and responsibilities of this chamber abrogated. But I urge Senator Collins, when she gets that call from the other place, to resist it—because we do have a responsibility in this place to make sure that the Senate does its job, that the Senate scrutinises, that the Senate examines. As I think all senators here know, it is often senators in this place who are the first people in this building to actually read legislation. It does not always happen that it is read by anyone in the other place.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins is concurring, I am sure! This chamber needs to be afforded that opportunity. So, Senator Collins, I urge you to resist the call from Mr Albanese. I know he does not appreciate the way this place works—and that you do, Senator Collins. We are looking for you to be a defender of the Senate and to say: 'I am sorry, Mr Albanese, but I cannot comply with your request. The Senate has a role to play, Mr Albanese, and the Senate is going to play that role.' I look forward, Senator Collins, to seeing evidence of that in the days ahead. Before I conclude, I move an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1:

Omit paragraphs (a) to (f) and add:

(a) Any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with; and

(b) That business be interrupted at 5pm but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Crossin

I think it would help the good governance and management of this chamber if the opposition's amendment were accepted. It would put us back on the path that had been agreed to yesterday and then we could get back quickly to the business of this chamber. In closing, I would urge Senator Collins to support the opposition's amendment and, when Mr Albanese calls over the days and weeks, to just say, 'Mr Albanese, no.'