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

As sure as night follows day, we will hear from the opposition in about 2½ weeks' time, as we get towards the end of the final sitting week of the year, and we will hear the opposition saying the government should have managed their time better. But we know, and we see time and again—and this is yet another exhibit of the fact that the opposition continually thwarts every opportunity the government has to transact business in government business time in an orderly fashion, which is what we seek to do. We have seen filibuster after filibuster on bill after bill, including on legislation that those opposite support. I think it is important that the chamber record and recognise at this point in time that this is yet another example of those opposite seeking to deny the government the right to transact government business in an orderly way in government business time.

I think it has also become clear over recent weeks and months that this particular disallowance motion has become something of a vanity project for Senator Dastyari. It is something that he is really seeking to make his mark with, to make his name with, to demonstrate to his colleagues, 'I'm not just a backroom boy from New South Wales.' It has become something of a vanity project and an obsession of Senator Dastyari's, and it is actually an obsession to seek to deny this government the opportunity to implement one of its election commitments. As Senator Cormann has said repeatedly in relation to FoFA, this is a policy that was announced by the coalition more than two years ago and that it took to the election. What it is seeking to do is to give effect to an election commitment, and yet again those opposite pick and choose those sorts of election commitments that they think we should support. What we are simply seeking to do is give effect to that which we said we would do. This motion to suspend standing orders is also based on a false premise. And the false premise is that the government is in some way, shape or form seeking to reduce consumer protections in relation to financial advice. We are not. That is why there is no need for Senator Dastyari's disallowance motion, and if there is no need for Senator Dastyari's disallowance motion then there is no need to suspend standing orders.

The case has not been made for the suspension of standing orders in this place. To suspend standing orders would seek to delay, and have the effect of delaying, further consideration of government business. I will be interested to hear if those opposite can mount a better argument for the suspension of standing orders, as so far they have not done so. This suspension of standing orders should not be granted, and I would urge crossbench senators not to support a suspension of standing orders, because this place cannot work, this place cannot function properly, unless the government of the day has the opportunity to transact government business in government business time and unless the government of the day has the opportunity to see legislation debated and put to a vote.