Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that the Australian Greens have agreed to add extra sitting hours, including sitting on Friday, to try to get on with the job of delivering outcomes for all Australians. I have also to indicate that on several occasions we have indicated that we would prefer to have extra sitting weeks. We indicated last year and we indicated earlier this year that we would be prepared to have extra sitting weeks in order to deal with the legislation. However, that has not occurred. There is limited time left before the election, and I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, right around Australia there are stakeholder groups who are holding their breath to make sure that legislation they have been promised for a very long time comes to pass. They are not going to tolerate a situation where the coalition is blocking important reforms that people have been waiting a very long time to achieve.

Can I indicate also that a lot of the faux outrage I have just heard from Senator Fifield needs to be sheeted straight home to the coalition because the coalition has refused to allow the noncontroversial bills to be dealt with in the way that they normally would be. They have deliberately organised a scenario in which we could not deal with the noncontroversial bills.

I am interested that Senator Macdonald should feel such outrage, because he has been on the phone three times asking that his bill—the bill that he wants through—goes in the guillotine. He has been saying, 'Please get it in the guillotine! Please get it in the guillotine!' and now he is all outraged because it is in the guillotine. I thought we had delivered for you, Senator Macdonald. I can tell you that the sugar research and development services bill is in the guillotine at your request. It is in the guillotine. Senator Fifield, your colleague desperately wanted it in the guillotine. What about your words about special scrutiny being denied to Senator Macdonald's bill? That is what he asked for. That is the truth of what goes on in here, Mr Deputy President. You know it as well as I do, and Senator Fifield knows it as well. His colleagues have been on the phone all week wanting their bills to be dealt with before the election, because there are a whole range of them. And that is the point that I am making: stakeholders around the country are desperate for this to occur.

Let me talk about Gonski for a moment. We have Senator Fifield here outraged that Gonski is going to be in this guillotine. Let me tell you that the Liberal shadow minister for education in Tasmania, Mr Ferguson—the colleague of Senator Abetz and Mr Tony Abbott—has been attacking the Tasmanian government for the delays in signing up to Gonski. 'It is an opportunity,' he said. He went on:

The Premier and the Minister for Education ought to sign up and give the benefits to Tasmanian schools.

Mr Ferguson is Mr Abbott's colleague. He is begging the Tasmanian government to sign up to Gonski at the same time as Mr Abbott is saying that if he is elected he will repeal this extra money. He will take it away from schools around Australia. So let's not hear this hypocrisy that is pouring out of the mouths of some people on the coalition side.

They know exactly what happens at the end of parliamentary periods. They know full well that they have filibustered for the last week. Let's go back and count the hours spent debating the EPBC water trigger bill. We have had filibustering for hours and hours. So I do not want to hear any more about cooperation and responsible behaviour. There has been no cooperation and no responsible behaviour in here.

Let me go through what is at risk if we do not get this package of 33 bills through. Firstly, as I said, there is Gonski. More money is going to go to our schools and there will be better education for our kids around the country. The coalition want to stand in the way of that.

Secondly, all around Australia people have been waiting for this package of aged-care reform bills. I can tell you that in the community there is a great deal of hope about aged-care reform, and the coalition is again standing in the way of getting that through before the election.

Thirdly—and this does not go nearly far enough; the Greens have been campaigning for a much better deal for Newstart recipients—in this package of bills there is support for single parents and welfare recipients by allowing single parents and Newstart recipients to earn more before their allowance is cut.

We also have legislation in here stopping children from being locked up in adult prisons—and that, in particular, is with regard to the removing of X-rays as a legal way of determining age, which had meant that Indonesian children were locked up in adult prisons in Australia. There are plenty of people around this country—and, no doubt, in Indonesia—watching what this parliament does about that piece of legislation before the election.

We also have the Australia Council bills. I can tell you from speaking to people in this constituency across Australia that they are desperate to get the Australia Council restructure through.

And I have not yet mentioned comprehensive protection for whistleblowers. This is something the government said it would do years ago. It did not do it. It is the last gasp of the government in terms getting these bills through before the election, and I am determined that we are going to get them through, because out there in the Australian community people desperately want whistleblower legislation and aged-care reform. They want to see the Gonski reforms go through and they want to see the Australia Council reforms.

The government can answer for itself in terms of why it refused to have extra sitting weeks. Nevertheless, I am not prepared to go to an election not having dealt with these critical reform issues, which people around the country are desperate for.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, I remind you again: you are the one who did not want to go to the election without the sugar bill being dealt with. It is in the guillotine, as you requested because you know that people out in your constituency are interested in having that bill go through, as well.

Let me go to the non-controversial issue. The claim that some bills will get as little as 15 minutes is deceptive, because these bills are normally dealt with as non-controversial on Thursdays, with debate sometimes only being five to 10 minutes. The Senate last week, for example, passed 23 bills in less than two hours as non-controversial. That was last Thursday.

As I said, half of the 33 bills related to this particular motion—half!—would have been considered as non-controversial in a normal week. But Senator Fifield and his colleagues refused to allow that to happen. They should not stand in here and go on about time management when they refused to allow these bills, which would normally be referred to as non-controversial, to be dealt with as non-controversial. No, indeed—you did not want them to be dealt with as non-controversial because you wanted to make a fuss about dealing with them before the election in a time managed way. Let it be on the record: you stood in the way of half of this package of bills being dealt with as non-controversial, and you had some of your own members ringing up asking that bills of interest to them be dealt with in this time managed way.

That is exactly what has gone on here. So, yes, it would have been a good idea if the government had sat extra weeks last year. Yes, it would have been a good idea if we had sat extra weeks earlier this year; the Greens requested that to happen. Nevertheless, we are where we are. This is the last sitting week before the election, and I am determined that we will get Gonski through this parliament, we will get aged-care reforms through the parliament, we will end up with a reformed arts sector, and we will have legislation through the parliament to facilitate a referendum.

As for crocodile tears over the referendum, let's go back and see the number of people for the coalition who have already spoken on the local government referendum legislation, and see what else there is to add. What we need here is some truth. We need some honesty towards the Australian people about whether the coalition is going to campaign against the referendum. That is what people want to know. They want to know where they stand. We heard the dishonesty last week: 'The coalition will not stand in the way of the question being put.' That is not the same as saying to people whether or not you are going to support a yes vote in the referendum. If you want honesty, if you want decency, that is what the Australian people want to know—they want some straight answers, some straight talking, in this Senate about what the coalition is going to do. It is very clear—