Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I can indicate, further to that, that I will be voting differently on paragraphs (9) and (10) than on paragraphs (1) to (8) of the government's motion. In other words, I indicate that I support the government's motion for extended sitting hours but I do not support the use of the guillotine. On that basis, I understand that that will require a different vote.

I think we do need additional hours but we do not need the guillotine. I share the views of my colleague Senator Madigan, who has expressed his concern about the use of the guillotine. I think it is worth mentioning what a former senator in this place said a number of years ago about the use of the guillotine:

… the government can manipulate the Senate and is doing so. The government can dishonour the processes of the Senate and is doing so. The government may try to treat the Senate as it does the House of Representatives—that is, as a rubber stamp—and convert this country to executive government, but the government will reap the whirlwind of that. Fortunately, it cannot do away with elections. It can do away with the proper role of the Senate by using the guillotine—that is, putting such a range of important legislation before the Senate and demanding that debate be ended and that votes be taken knowing that it is going to win those votes.

The same senator further commented:

We have a constitutional imperative for this house to be able to look at all legislation coming from the other place. I delight in that.

That was former Senator Bob Brown, on 28 November 2005.

I think it is worth mentioning that the Howard government—and I have looked at some statistics in relation to this and I hope that they are reasonably accurate in terms of my arithmetic—from 1996 to 2007 used the guillotine on 125 occasions. From 2008 to the end of 2012, the guillotine was used—and this is on bills declared urgent or considered under an allocation of time—on 133 occasions. That is about double the rate. I think it begs some important questions about a better way of managing business to ensure that we have adequate and fulsome debate on legislation and appropriate scrutiny. That is our job here in this place. My concern is that we will not do that.

There are important pieces of legislation that will be coming up. There is the Australian Education Bill, as Senator Milne has pointed out, and the local government referendum proposal. I can indicate that I support the amendment to the Constitution, but I am dismayed that the funding arrangement is going to skew the debate in a way that I think will give strength to those who oppose the constitutional referendum, because of the way that the funding has been structured. That is very unfortunate, but I still support the recognition of local government in our Constitution. There is aged-care legislation, legislation on the childcare sector and antidumping measures. We have already lost something like 140,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in this country since 2008, since the GFC. That deserves more time. There is the charities bill, which has huge implications for the charity sector. It is legislation that I support, but these are important matters. There is crimes legislation on witness protection, the private health insurance bill and a whole range of other bills that I do not think we will deal with adequately. That is why I support additional hours but I do not support what is being proposed here to guillotine this debate.

This is not the way that the Senate should operate. I encourage the parties to sit together to say: 'Do we sit an extra day, two days or three days to try and get legislation through in such a way that we can adequately debate it?' I remember not so long ago, a year or two ago, we dealt with very important and contentious family legislation that dealt with issues of custody and issues of domestic violence. That was very significant legislation, but the committee stage was truncated to, I think, just a few minutes. There was no adequate way to deal with a whole range of amendments, and I do not think that is adequate. I think the Australian people deserve better.

I seek that the question be divided on paragraphs (9) and (10). Perhaps, once the heat of an impending election campaign is over, once there is a new parliament, whatever the result may be, we can actually sit down, all parties and crossbenchers as well, to ensure that this does not happen again, because this is not the way that the Senate should operate.