Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Fifield, in relation to this motion to vary the hours of meeting and the routine of business. I listened to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate when she was giving her speech in relation to the motion and, in particular, when the Manager of Government Business said, 'We are here to get the job done,' because those words reminded me so much of Graham Richardson when he said, in relation to the Labor Party, 'whatever it takes'. He said, 'Whatever it takes to get elected to government, we'll do it.' Senator Collins showed the true reason that she is here today moving this motion to vary the hours and the routine of business in the Senate when she said, 'We are here to get the job done.'

The opposition, as we always do when it comes to motions of this nature, come to this matter bearing our usual reasonableness. It was only last week that the government came to the opposition and asked us to support a motion to vary the hours and the routine of business, and the opposition willingly did so. That was to enable certain senators to give their valedictories. As is the custom in this place, we will agree to such motions.

But for the government to come in here today with a motion that not only varies the hours of meeting and the routine of business but completely truncates debate in relation to not one, not two, not 10, not 20, not 30, not 40, but in excess of 50 pieces of legislation without a doubt not only confirms the contempt in which this government holds the people of Australia but certainly confirms the contempt which those on the other side have for the Senate as a house of review. In relation to Senator Milne's comment when she said, 'Stakeholders around the country are waiting with bated breath for certain pieces of legislation to be passed,' the only stakeholders around the country that are waiting with bated breath for legislation to be passed in this place are the union movement. This motion confirms to all Australians that not only have the Labor Party lost complete control of the legislative agenda in this place but they take their instructions from the union movement. Let me tell you why, in relation to two bills that are going to be debated on Thursday, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 and the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013.

Despite the Office of Best Practice Regulation advising the government, in relation to schedule 2 of the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013, that it should undertake a regulatory impact statement, the government failed to do this. In fact, not only did the government fail to do this but Minister O'Connor has made many promises to his mates in the union, and one mate in particular, that he will ram this legislation through not only the other place but this place as well. He completely disregarded the advice from his own Office of Best Practice Regulation to develop a regulatory impact statement for schedule 2 of that particular bill, and he wrote off to the Prime Minister and said: 'There are exceptional circumstances surrounding why my office should not have to develop a regulatory impact statement for the labour market testing provisions of this bill.' And guess what the Prime Minister did? I bet no-one in this place can guess what the Prime Minister did. Well, it is pretty obvious, isn't it? The Prime Minister granted an exemption based on exceptional circumstances. When the opposition and industry asked what those exceptional circumstances were, do you know what they were told? They were told that the government did not need to tell the people of Australia what those are exceptional circumstances are.

If this motion goes through, we will have but 15 whole minutes, and that includes divisions, to debate a piece of legislation for which the government has failed to follow its Office of Best Practice Regulation advice, has failed to develop a regulatory impact statement around the impact of labour market testing and has failed to consult with industry. Now the legislation is brought to this place on a promise to Minister O'Connor's union mates that he will deliver to them and completely change the nature of the 457 visa regime in this country. So, when Senator Collins stands up and says that she is bringing this motion today because the government needs to facilitate the passage of legislation through this place, quite frankly that will be a blatant misrepresentation of the government's real reasons for this motion today.

On Monday, we will be ramming through this place, after the dinner break, seven pieces of legislation, five of them in relation to superannuation. On Tuesday, if this motion passes, the Senate will be ramming through this place 11 pieces of legislation, with little or no debate on any of them. On Wednesday, the Senate will be ramming through nine pieces of legislation, including the bills I have just referred to in relation to the changes to the 457 visa regime. On Thursday, the Senate will be ramming through 10 pieces of legislation, again with little to no debate on any piece of legislation. On Friday, the additional day of sitting—lo and behold!—the Senate is ramming through 16 pieces of legislation, again with little or no debate.

Regarding Senator Milne's comments that a number of these pieces of legislation should have been in the non-controversial part of the legislative program, guess what, Senator Milne? The opposition was never approached about whether any of these 23 pieces of legislation should be placed in the non-controversial part of the legislative program. Perhaps if the government had come to us, we may have been able to consider that, but the government did not come to us, because, at the behest of their union mates, they have, quite literally, put together a list of legislation which they need to ram through in the dying days of the 43rd Parliament.

What this motion, and in particular a number of pieces of legislation within the motion, shows is that this is a government that is controlled by the excessive power and influence that the union movement has over Ms Gillard. Clearly, the unions have been promised by Ms Gillard that the legislative agenda that the unions set will be completed within this parliamentary sitting. She clearly hopes that, if she can ram this legislation through this week, on Friday she may still be the Prime Minister of this country. That is no way to govern Australia, but I think Australians know, as we do on this side, that the Labor government gave up governing Australia a very long time ago. They have been at war with the Greens and they have been at war with themselves. That is not governing in the interests of the nation.

When considering this motion, one thing that senators should never forget is that the government of the day sets the legislative agenda. It is the government of the day that sets the number of sitting days for a particular sitting period. If you compare the number of days and weeks that this place sat under the former Howard government with the number of days and weeks that this place has sat under the former Rudd and current Gillard governments, you can see that there is a fundamental difference between the two sitting calendars. Maybe that is an indication that the former Howard government was not afraid of scrutiny. The former Howard government was not afraid of bringing bills to the parliament and setting aside an appropriate number of sitting days and weeks for those bills to be properly scrutinised.

But we all know that those on the other side cannot wait to get out of this place. They cannot wait until 2.20 on Friday, when, once and for all, this place will rise until the federal election. Despite the Prime Minister's weasel words in relation to the new paradigm—in relation to opening the windows and letting the light in; in relation to transparency—we know that the only reason this motion has been brought before the Senate is to ensure there is little to no scrutiny of the legislation set out in the motion.

If the guillotine motion, as this motion ultimately is, is used in a legitimate manner as a business management tool, as is contemplated—because there is a standing order that contemplates the guillotining of debate, standing order 142—and if it is used properly, as it was last week when we decided to vary the hours of business, it will not be met with rancour; it will not be met with acrimony. But when those on the other side use the guillotine, as they do by this motion, as nothing more and nothing less than a political tool to deliberately prevent senators expressing their views on pieces of legislation or defeat the proper purposes of this house of review to sit down and, in an open manner, critically review the legislation before it, then you know that this is nothing more and nothing less than a political tool and that this is a government that does not want proper scrutiny of its legislation.

As Senator Fifield reminded senators, this bill will only go through if it gets the support of either the opposition or the Greens. The opposition made it very clear that, in the interests of good government, we will not be supporting a guillotine motion. Let us now consider, as Senator Fifield did, what we think the Greens, under their current leader, Senator Milne, may do on this motion—bearing in mind what Senator Brown, the former leader of the Australian Greens, used to say when the Howard government sought to introduce a guillotine motion. We know—because Hansard records it—that, during the time of the Howard government, the Greens constantly rallied against the use of the guillotine to prevent debate in this chamber. The Hansard is quite literally littered with the feigned fury and the verbal indignation of the Australian Greens in objecting to the use of the guillotine or to changes in the committee system. I think we can all recall that Senator Bob Brown, when he was in this place, was a regular speaker, regularly jumping up to put the Australian Greens' point of view on how disgraceful it was that the former Howard government would even think to use a guillotine in this place.

And then of course we have Senator Milne, the current Leader of the Australian Greens, who, lo and behold, seems to have had a transformation in her views on the need to review and scrutinise legislation. In the Senate on 14 August 2006 Senator Milne, as per usual, was haranguing the Senate on the importance of, lo and behold, scrutinising legislation. And this is what the current Leader of the Australian Greens said:

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

Well, the only thing that you can say to Senator Milne's speech earlier on in the Senate today, which is in complete contradiction to the weasel words that the senator used in 2006 when the Howard government was in power, is that we appear to have had a transformation. Since the Greens sealed their grubby, duplicitous little deal with the Labor Party, they have sold out every principle—if you can actually say that the Australian Greens ever had principles—that they ever had, because they consistently supported motions to support the guillotine in this place.

It is quite obvious that what the Greens do on the floor of the Senate when those division bells ring is perhaps not quite consistent with the words that come out of their mouths when they want people to think that they are going to do a certain thing in this place. When it comes to hypocrisy and duplicity, the Australian Greens really do win first prize. We all know what we are talking about here. We are talking about Mr Graeme Wood and the hypocrisy and the duplicity of the Australian Greens when it comes to the taking of political donations. This is the party that will do anything for money. This is the party that will stand up in this place, as they did under the former Howard government when they were talking about guillotines—