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

This attempt to amend the government's motion to rearrange business demonstrates one of the most blatant and significant breaches of faith that I have seen in this place in my 10 years. Let me give the chamber some background to this. Senator Peris, you might not know this, so I think it is important that I share this. Earlier today the Leader of the Government in the Senate convened a meeting of leaders, whips and managers to discuss the program and sitting hours for the remainder of this week. At that meeting it was determined that a list of legislation would be circulated to all parties—Labor, the Greens, the crossbenchers—and that there would be a resumption of that meeting at 7.30 tonight.

Parallel to that, I had discussions with the manager of opposition business in this place asking if the opposition would be happy for business to be rearranged at 7.30 and to commence with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2014, which I know Senator Carr is keen to progress, Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 6) Bill 2014 and the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. Senator Moore consulted with her colleagues, as is often the case with these sorts of matters, and came back and said, yes, that was supported. I also contacted the Australian Greens' Senator Siewert and put the same proposition to her, and she said, yes, that was accepted. The proposition was then circulated; the motion that Senator Nash moved was circulated to crossbench senators. There was agreement across the chamber as to what the rearrangement would be at 7.30.

There was also agreement that there would be a leaders, whips and managers meeting at 7.30. I took the opposition at their word in good faith because we need to be able to trust each other on these sorts of discussions. I took them in good faith. And so I attended, at 7.30, the leaders, whips and managers meeting only to be told by Senator Wong: 'By the way, we're going to seek to rearrange the business ourselves. We're going to seek to bring on another bill.' I get down to the chamber because obviously I cannot continue in the leaders, whips and managers meeting at the time agreed by all parties because of what is happening in this place. I come down here and I see the text of Senator Conroy's amendment to the motion to rearrange business, and I see that Senator Conroy has circulated amendments to the omnibus repeal bill, which he seeks to bring on. So you can forgive me for being a little disappointed, a little confused and a little perplexed. I would have thought that the decent and honourable thing would have been, when I put the rearrangement proposition to the opposition, if they had other plans, then maybe not to share their plans with me but to say, 'No, we don't support that rearrangement'. That is one thing.

Another thing, in parallel: they undertook this stunt at 7.30, when the leaders, the managers, the whips and all the crossbenchers were gathered together at 7.30—meeting at a prearranged time; meeting in a spirit of goodwill and cooperation; meeting on a basis of good faith to work out how the business of this place, by agreement, would proceed. What do the opposition do? They take advantage of that good faith; they take advantage of the very protocols that this place operates on—that is, that you can at least have a leaders, whips and managers meeting from time to time to talk about what is possible, what can be agreed upon.

I have never in my 10 years in this place, Senator Macdonald, seen a situation where the opposition not only breach an undertaking they gave to support a rearrangement of business—to bring on Nos 3, 2 and 5 that I have referred to already—but also, and even worse than that, seek to use the cover of a leaders, whips and managers meeting at 7.30. They were seeking to use that as a cover; they were seeking to use the fact that all of the principals of this place were otherwise occupied as a cover for this stunt. This is poor. This is more than ordinary, this is appalling, and it goes to undermine the basis of trust. Yes, we disagree on many things and, yes, we have robust debates, but your word has got to be your word. When you say to someone from the Labor Party or to someone from the Greens or to someone from the crossbenches, 'Will you support this particular motion?' and they say, 'Yes', then I think we should be able to take that to the bank. And the reverse should be true. If you undertake to support a particular proposition and we say, 'Yes', you should be able to take it to the bank. There has to be basic trust between the party leaders, between the managers and between the whips. This place cannot function if you pull these sorts of stunts, if you ignore the undertaking that was given to me to support our rearrangements, if you use the cover of a leaders, whips and managers meeting to pull this stunt. I am sorry, it is not good enough while that is happening for Senator Wong to say, 'By the way, this is happening now,' and feign ignorance about the agreements that had been reached between parties. This is one of the most appalling things I have seen in my time.

You might not necessarily share your tactics and your strategy, but you do not use the cover of leaders, managers and whips meetings and you certainly do not give an undertaking that you have no intention of fulfilling. What you should do when a proposition is put by me to rearrange business is simply say, 'We do not agree with your proposition to rearrange business.' You do not have to share your tactics. You can just say, 'No, we do not support your proposition,' and then you can do what you do. That is what you should have done.

You should not have used the leaders, whips and managers meeting at 7.30, which was gathering in the spirit of good faith to see legislatively what is possible in the remainder of this sitting week—to see in terms of hours what is possible and what can be agreed. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of those opposite that they did not know that the leaders and whips meeting was happening at 7.30, but Senator Wong certainly did. I give the benefit of the doubt to some of those opposite that they did not know the discussions that took place between me and Senator Moore, but Senator Moore did and Senator Wong would have.