Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari says 'they are'. Those who know Senator Dastyari will know that that was a tongue-in-cheek intervention on his part. I do grant Senator Wong the fact that this has, indeed, been an interesting week. It is also a sitting week that should not have been necessary. The Australian Labor Party in the preceding sitting weeks filibustered and filibustered and filibustered. Exhibit A for that is the Senate electoral reform legislation. The Australian Labor Party did everything they could to try and stop that legislation coming to a vote. They had a twofold purpose: the first was to try and avoid a vote being taken on that particular legislation; the other was to delay the possibility of getting to the ABCC legislation. We know their plan was to delay that, because even though that legislation had previously been through the House, previously been debated in the Senate, previously been referred to a committee, and after it had gone through the House for a second time and come back to the Senate, they again referred it to a committee. So we do have some difficulty on this side accepting the declarations of commitment to orderly process in this place. This sitting week should not have been necessary, if those opposite had not used every procedural manoeuvre and every filibustering opportunity to prevent the orderly consideration of government business in previous sitting weeks. That is why the parliament was recalled, in order to address the ABCC legislation.

That legislation was addressed yesterday. We also had the opportunity yesterday to repeal the legislation that put in place a so-called road safety tribunal for heavy vehicles that was nothing of the sort. Its intention was, basically, to put owner drivers out of business. In some quarters, there is surprise that we were able to transact those two pieces of legislation. I can tell you why it was possible to transact those two pieces of legislation, and why yesterday was in stark contrast to so many sitting weeks before. The reason is that the eyes of the nation were upon the Australian Senate. Usually, compared with the House, the Senate is a bit of an off-Broadway operation, but because the Senate was recalled for the specific purpose of addressing this legislation the eyes of the nation were on this place and on the Australian Labor Party. When faced with that scrutiny and attention it was beyond even them to continue to filibuster that legislation. So we find ourselves in the situation where this will be the last sitting day before the Senate resumes for the budget, because we indicated that we would sit for only those days that were required to transact those bills. So I advise the Senate that that is the case. We will not be sitting on Wednesday and Thursday or next week.

We have perhaps learnt a thing or two from looking at those opposite over the years. We are not convinced by Senator Wong's contribution that there is a justification to suspend standing orders. In defence of Senator Brandis and in defence of Senator Cormann, the only explanation I have is that they were quite taken by Senator Carr's questions in relation to the CSIRO. It happens on occasion that senators, such as senators Brandis and Cormann, are seized of the need and desire to make a contribution, and that is what they did. I am certain that my other colleagues on this side have not been moved and persuaded by Senator Wong's contribution and suggestion that standing orders should be suspended.