David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This motion has been moved as part of a suite of motions by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate with the intention of ensuring that there is adequate government time to deal with a number of time critical bills and other major pieces of legislation that it has been agreed by various members of this place should pass in a timely manner.

The opposition tell us they have denied leave to move this motion on the basis that they have not been properly consulted or that consultation has been insufficient. The fact is that, Senator Fifield tells me, immediately following the meeting where the possibility of the Senate sitting on the Monday of budget week was raised, Senator Fifield, as I understand it, telephoned Senator Moore to advise her that this was something we would like to do. I think it is probably slightly misleading to say that a letter was the first notification that the opposition received that this was happening, because at the first opportunity that was available to us that advice was made.

There is more than one view about how this chamber can be managed from time to time. I acknowledge that this government does not have a majority in this place. We do not have the ability to set the agenda. We do not have the ability to set the hours that this place sits, but neither does the opposition. I might just note for the record that last week we invited all members of this place to be represented at a leaders and whips meeting that was held earlier this week to discuss how we could manage the issue of hours. So we started the process last week, and I believe that even before then there had been some discussions between the opposition and the government as to how we might manage that. In order to do it in a consultative manner that involved everybody we invited everybody to a meeting that occurred at the beginning of this week. At that meeting, the opposition presented us with a take it or leave it option on extended hours. That was not acceptable to us and we thought that, given that there are a number of other senators in this place, it would be advisable that the government speak to them and discuss other options. That is how this place should work. There are major parties, minor parties and Independents in this place. Everybody has the ability to have input into how this place is run. That occurred.

The idea of sitting on Monday was a proposal put forward by one of the crossbenchers, which was then discussed by the rest of them. Discussion occurred between the government and the crossbenchers as to how sitting on Monday could work. In the end, the motion that was put forward reflects the discussion, the toing and froing, that occurred with the crossbenchers. The crossbenchers certainly were not putting forward things to the government as a take it or leave it option. They were prepared to discuss, be consultative and negotiate. It was a very fruitful discussion. As I say, the idea of sitting on Monday came from one of the crossbenchers, and this motion reflects the discussion that we had.

The end result is that the Senate should be entitled to make a decision on that motion. Formality should not be denied. There are 76 people who make up this place and those 76 people should be entitled to make a decision on this motion. It is up to them whether they actually accept or reject it, but denying formality on the motion is not the appropriate way to deal with this. Doing that would deny the Senate the opportunity to make a decision that it should be entitled to make, not to mention the fact that it also denies the opportunity for the opposition to move the amendment that it has circulated and clearly intends to move. It is a nonsensical thing to deny formality on a motion about which you have circulated notice of your intention to amend. On that basis, I believe that we should suspend standing orders to allow this motion to be voted on.