Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Well, that was a fulminating and passionate—somewhat pompous, as always—speech, but let us just get onto some facts. It is a pity that Senator Brandis seems unable to make many contributions without going for the personal attack. I am happy to respond, because—what was I? I was some puppet and owed my position only to a job I once had years ago, because I had nothing else to offer, I am sure. But Senator Brandis might want to know that the division of the CFMEU of which I was an official was the timber workers—forestry workers—and I remember actually being at demonstrations with a whole bunch of coalition members and senators. I know that some of my own colleagues might not like that story, but we were actually arguing against some of the decisions that the then Labor government made. I remember standing up with a whole bunch of coalition senators and members as an official of that union, as I was required to do and as I was proud to do, because I was representing their interests as an official, many years ago, when I was much younger and much less grey—interesting times.

But let us focus on the issue at hand, which is this government walking in and seeking to suspend standing orders because they did not give notice of a requirement to again sit extended sitting hours. I would say to the crossbenchers: just because you agree with a bill does not mean you have to do what Senator Cormann or Senator Brandis asks you to in terms of additional sitting hours. We have been very reasonable with the government in terms of hours. Last week the Labor Party gave up general business. We were willing to give up the MPI yesterday. I understand that did not accord with the wishes of the Greens party. We have indicated again that we would be prepared to give up the MPI. We are prepared to have a discussion about giving up some of our time tomorrow. So, there are cooperative ways to deal with this rather than walking into the chamber again and seeking to crunch, with the support of the crossbench, additional hours at short notice to senators.

It is unusual to sit on Wednesday nights. People often recognise that it is a night on which they can arrange other matters, because generally we have not sat on Wednesday nights. Well, I had a work function on, but that is fine. I am not known for my partying, either, I regret to say! I was once described by one of my colleagues as one of the most boring people in the parliament. That was harsh, I thought.

I make this point too: the government has moved extended hours because this is so important. We have made it clear we believe it has the numbers on this bill. It will pass before 12.45. There is no intention from the Labor side to extend debate on it. I have made that clear but, nevertheless, Senator Brandis wants to suspend standing orders and extend the hours.

I would make this point also: this is not the only legislation the Senate has to deal with. There is national security legislation, which has bipartisan support but which is not on this hours motion, which the government is happy to push off because its political priority is the ABCC. So the war crimes bill and the high-risk terrorist offenders bill, which we worked very hard on in a bipartisan way and which I would have thought would be a priority, which in fact, as I recall some of Senator Brandis's previous fulminating, was a priority: 'it was the most important thing to get through'—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Well, you have not put it in your motion, George. If you want to interject and stand up and change your motion, you go right ahead. Do you want to do that?

Senator Brandis interjecting—