George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The government opposes this amendment. This is a transparent attempt to delay the consideration by this chamber of these bills. And although Senator Moore has said they are important bills, as indeed they are, they are the identical bills that have already been the subject of detailed consideration by the very same committee the first time they came before the Senate. Let me take you through the chronology. These bills first came before the Senate on 11 February 2014, and they were the subject of four days of debate. They were referred to the same committee to which Senator Moore wants to refer them again for public hearing and report—they were referred on 14 November 2013 and the committee reported on 2 December of that year. At the same time, and unusually, they were also referred to the references committee, which held hearings on three days in the early months of 2014 and reported on 27 March. Meanwhile, they were also referred to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which considered them, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered them.

Senator Moore, the government entirely accepts that the Senate should have a reasonable opportunity to consider and make a decision upon these bills. The bills, of course, were thoroughly debated in the chamber the last time round. But, Senator, these are the very same bills which were referred to the very same committee to which you now seek to refer them again. This is beyond the customary processes of debate, consideration and inquiry by parliamentary committee with which this chamber is familiar. It is, rather, an excessive indulgence in those processes, which demonstrates that the law-making function has been abandoned in favour of a mere dilatory evasion of that function.

Senator Moore, the significance of 15 February is this. It is the Tuesday of the last week of the parliamentary sittings, which means that it is very unlikely that those bills could be fully debated in the chamber in these sittings. So this is not merely to delay the consideration of the bills until 15 March; it is an attempt, in fact, to delay the consideration of the bills until beyond the budget, because the Senate will then adjourn for seven weeks, and then we will come back for budget week, in which the entire business of this building will be the budget, and then we will have a fortnight of budget estimates. So these bills are unlikely to be able to be reached until June at the earliest.

The government, out of abundant concern to accommodate the opposition, has suggested an earlier reporting date—that is, 19 February. That would give the legislation committee a full non-sitting week, the week after next, a week in which the Senate does not sit, to undertake the exact same exercise in relation to the very same bills that has already been undertaken by it, as well as by the references committee. And yet Senator Moore proposes an amendment that would push the date for scrutiny out beyond the time by which this chamber could then have a full debate on these bills before the end of the autumn sittings.

Mr Deputy President, I think we know that an opposition are at liberty to use every parliamentary device open to them to thwart the passage of legislation that they oppose. We accept that, but at least be honest about the fact that that, Senator Moore, is what you are doing. You are engaged in excessive use of what would otherwise be appropriate and usual parliamentary procedures, using every device at your disposal to thwart the passage of this legislation. We know you are opposed to this legislation, Senator, but the legislation has already been debated in this chamber once. It has already been the subject of extensive public hearings by the very committee to which you seek to send it back. The same bills have already been considered by the same senators sitting on the same committee. The issues have not changed. Please stop standing in the way of deliberation on these bills. (Time expired)