Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I must disagree with Senator Moore at the outset. Senator Moore said that the next half-hour of this debate will be an opportunity to debate the motions that Senator Wong is seeking to move. This debate will do nothing of the sort; this is a procedural motion that the opposition has moved: to seek to suspend standing orders. Mr Deputy President, I will keep my remarks to the procedural matter before us.

The government has denied formality. It is not something that the government does often, or as a matter of course. The reason the government has denied formality to the motions moved by Senator Wong is because, in the ordinary course of events in this place, procedural motions—whether they relate to estimates committees, which some of these motions do; or other procedural matters, which other of Senator Wong's motions do—would be taken to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure.

I know that the procedure committee of the Senate is not something that is necessarily on the tip of the tongue of members of the press gallery, or of members of the public, but it is an important committee of this place. To demonstrate the importance of this committee, you only need to look at the membership of the procedure committee, Mr Deputy President, which of course is chaired by your good self. It also is constituted by the President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, the Chief Opposition Whip, the Chief Government Whip, the Australian Greens Whip, and by senior senators such as Senator John Faulkner. The reason why the procedure committee has senior representation from across the chamber is because it recognises that there is a role for the Senate as a collective. Through a consensual approach, it seeks to reach agreement on the best procedures for this place. Senator Wong has chosen to not go through that process, which is the usual process when there are procedural matters which colleagues think should be reviewed. Now there may well be some elements in Senator Wong's motions that the government could support but—as we all know Mr Deputy President—there can be other consequences of motions which colleagues do not, necessarily, really appreciate when having a particular change to procedure in contemplation. That is one of the benefits of the procedure committee—that colleagues can talk about these matters; that one colleague from one side of the chamber can modify the view of another colleague from other side of the chamber, and vice versa. That is one of the strengths of the Senate. It is one of the strengths of the procedure committee—that it is a forum where colleagues can put together propositions which can be examined in a comprehensive way, taking into account other implications.

Mr Deputy President, it is disappointing that these motions have been put in this way. As you know, formal motions are basically a thumbs-up or thumbs-down approach to matters. Procedural motions which seek to change the way that estimates committees operate—or that this chamber operates—deserve more than a simple thumbs-up and thumbs-down approach. They deserve the collective wisdom of the leadership of this chamber, as manifest in the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure. I suspect the reason why these motions are being moved in this way, and now, is the simple fact that at this point in time, the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party together have the numbers. That is what this exercise boils down to: have numbers, will use them—which is a well-known approach in the Australian Labor Party.

I think it also seeks to deny an element of respect to the incoming crossbench senators, from midnight on 30 June, who may well have views that they wish to express in relation to these procedural motions. And I think their views should be sought. To support a suspension of standing orders, and to facilitate the passage of Senator Wong's motions would be, I think, a mark of disrespect to those incoming crossbench senators. We are interested in their views.

For these reasons, Mr Deputy President, we will not be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders. (Time expired)