Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I've got an interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson. He's suggesting it might be because there's a by-election in Wentworth on Saturday. We must absolutely recognise that that is what this is about. This is not measured policy.

I have great respect for Senator Cormann. He always works through legislation carefully. He negotiates well with the crossbench. He is very honourable in his representations to us. He does what he says he will do. So I'm very surprised that, in this instance, you are now seeking to guillotine the committee stage and almost completely gag the second reading stage of a bill. You know that that is not the way democracies are supposed to work. It surprises me that you would support this motion to guillotine and gag, particularly in the circumstances where there is no hurry. The TPP negotiations have been going on for over a decade. We don't have to rush this today. The tax cuts aren't going to come in the moment we pass the legislation. What is the urgency? I get it that sometimes there are urgent bills that pass through the parliament—the legislation on strawberries, for example—when we are dealing with an urgent issue, and the parliament works extremely well. I don't understand why it is that they are seeking to do this.

When the personal tax cuts were being dealt with, Senator Wong said:

I would say this to the crossbench: regardless of your position on tax, what a discourtesy to the chamber. We gave this government 3½ hours of debate last night, because we do understand that it is important to get on with this debate. We have amendments from Senator Storer …

She went on and on, saying how bad this was. That was an instance where we had allowed debate. I hope I get to ask some questions; I do have some genuine questions to ask on the judicial review bill. We're actually going into a situation where, presumably, no-one gets to speak during the second reading of the tax bill. Through you, Madam Deputy President, do people really find that acceptable? Does Senator Cormann find that acceptable? Does Senator Fifield find that acceptable? Does Senator Wong find that acceptable that there will possibly be no debate?

I just want to point out something: I think there are about three sitting weeks left where there will be legislation that passes through this chamber and, when it passes through this chamber, there are going to be moments where the Labor Party are very opposed to it. The message you're going to send us today is, 'When that occurs, Centre Alliance, what you should do is support the government and either gag or guillotine the debate.' Is that really what you want us to do? Senator Cormann said: 'We respect that the government controls the Senate. We do that all the time. We work with you to make sure that you are managing carefully the legislation that passes through this place and we support you.' But in doing this sort of stuff, where you know it's not the right thing to do, you put that great relationship that we have in jeopardy, and that may affect you moving forward. I urge you to really think carefully about what it is that you're doing today.

One of the funny things is, whenever you try and time manage debate—I know that's what you call it, but it's actually a guillotine and a gag—inevitably what happens is someone stands up and moves a motion or seeks to suspend standing orders. What that ends up doing—and I understand this—is shortening the debate time even more. That's a pattern; we know how that pattern works. People move these sorts of motions and say, 'Look, we're going to give you 2½ hours or two hours,' or whatever time frame, but you know that gets shortened by all the procedural stuff that goes on because people rightly get up and say: 'I don't like this. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to work. We're supposed to allow people to stand up and have a say.'

What is the plan for second readings for the tax bill? Is it a case that we're simply going to allocate one speaker from each party? Is that how it's going to work? Senator Patrick doesn't get to have a say. Senator Storer doesn't get to have his say. Senator Ruston doesn't get to have her say. Senator Hanson doesn't get to have her say. Is this how this works? How are you going to do that? How are you going to manage simply not allowing anyone to speak on an important bill? I know Labor have had a bit of trouble with this bill. They might not want to talk about it because they've flipped and they've flopped and they've flipped. They may need some time to actually clarify what their position is, because some of us struggle to work out what it is. Some of us simply don't know.

We would like to hear from everyone, particularly as a crossbencher who doesn't have the great resources that the government or the Labor Party have. Sometimes we sit in this chamber and listen to what people are saying, and it actually changes our minds. It actually brings in the thought, 'Maybe we haven't considered this properly,' or, 'Maybe we have to use our influence positively to get an amendment across the line to fix something that gets raised in the speeches in the second reading debate that might be wrong.' This is very, very unfortunate territory that we are marching through. I'm extremely disappointed with the government. I will give you credit because you did give advance warning of the motion, but that doesn't change the outcome. You haven't ambushed anyone here, which is good, but it still doesn't change what the outcome is, and that is that this is a guillotine.

I want to ask some questions on the judicial review bill, which may have some significance. They're genuine questions. I'll stand to be criticised if I ask these questions and you find that they're filibustering. They're genuine questions about the operation of the bill that might assist a court in interpreting what the parliamentary will was when a litigation is commenced. There are some details in the bill—and I know quite a lot about procurement; I've been involved in it for a long time. I know some of the loopholes that are employed by departments to get around some of the rules. That might be a little bit disingenuous, but the reality is I've been on the other side of the fence, dealing in environments trying to win contracts. I know that a lot of companies get to the end of a procurement and are rather upset by the outcome. Some of that could be emotional. Some of it is simply because the company has invested a lot of time and money. But there are some uncertainties in the bill that is being put to the parliament. I'd like to have those clarified in the committee stage, and that's going to take me a little bit of time. Unfortunately, Senator Cormann, you're not allowing me any time. That's extremely disappointing.

We would like to have a say to support the bill that you are bringing into the parliament on the small to medium business tax cuts. We have some good things to say about that. We want to let our constituents know why we are supporting that, but you are, unfortunately, going to deny us that opportunity. I think that's sad.