Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

What was it? Five months ago or so that we went to a double dissolution election on these two bills: the registered organisations bill and the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill. It was so critical that these two bills passed that the Prime Minister decided that he would call a double dissolution on the back of them. These are the pieces of legislation that dare not speak their name. We cannot talk about these pieces of legislation, because we did not talk about them right throughout the election campaign. People had no idea on what basis this government took us to a double dissolution. And then in the subsequent months after the election there has been not a peep, not a word. We could not bring on these bills because the government clearly did not have the support.

Now here we are at the start of a two-week sitting period. It is the first Monday of a two-week sitting period and suddenly we have the government trying to railroad this piece of legislation through the parliament. We had the preceding period during the election campaign when no-one dared mention the words 'building commission' or 'registered organisations'. For the subsequent period after the election, for months afterwards, there was not a peep. And now it is so critical that at the start of a two-week period we have to pass these bills gone midnight! I just do not get it.

This is not the calm, methodical, grown-up government that we were promised, firstly, by Tony Abbott, who apparently lost his way because he had poor polling numbers. We were promised more mature, grown-up government by Malcolm Turnbull. But this is what we get? We have two weeks. We could be back here tomorrow to have a sensible, mature debate with the scrutiny of the Senate, as is warranted. Instead, we are going to be here gone midnight debating what are such critical pieces of legislation that no-one has mentioned them for over five months!

Let's also remember that the only reason that we are here—and we accept that it appears that the government has the numbers—is that the government has managed to secure the support of the crossbench. I have a special word of thanks for some of my colleagues on the crossbench. Senator Xenophon stood here during the last period of government when the Labor Party were in office and was so critical of how often these sorts of tactics were pulled. Yet here he is supporting precisely the sort of tactic that he was critical of during the last Labor parliament.

I do not get what is so critical that we have to be here until—who knows?—11 pm, 12 am, 1 am or 2 am when we could be here tomorrow and giving this the scrutiny that it deserves. Senator Xenophon, the government clearly think they have you where they want you. They have their foot on your throat, and you are giving it to them without us doing our job. You have been in this chamber telling us how critical it is that the Senate scrutinises important pieces of legislation. Senator Xenophon, you—through you, Mr President—have consistently said that it is our job to scrutinise all legislation for us to do our job and you are now giving the government what they want. Why is it that you are denying this Senate the opportunity to ensure that we do what we are supposed to do, and that is ensure that every amendment receives scrutiny. I am just looking at the amendments that are proposed here. There is a wad of amendments here, and you are asking us at one in the morning to give them the scrutiny that they deserve. Sorry, but I just think that is unconscionable.

What we have now is a piece of legislation that will probably get through. There might be some amendments passed. We could all have an opportunity to understand what they mean and do our job. But, instead, here we are with this government's dirty deal with some crossbenchers. I do not expect anything more of some of our colleagues on the crossbench but, Senator Xenophon, I expected more of you.