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

As I said, the courtesy and respect that some at the end of the chamber referred to has not been our experience of this part of the program. We are happy to have a discussion about how this is to be reformed. In fact, this has been going on since 2003. So you want to talk about a lack of consultation? This has been before the Procedure Committee since 2003, and there has not been agreement across the chamber. If the Greens and the rest of the crossbench want to have a genuine consultation about how to make sure this part of the program returns to the purposes for which it was intended—which is routine and uncontroversial—we are up for it. But I suspect that that is not the purpose they want this part of the program to be used for.

I want to make this point. In 2020 the Senate has considered 322 motions at an average of 15 per day. We are currently on track to consider 650 motions for the year at this rate. In 2019 there were 486 motions considered in 40 sitting days. In 2008 there were 294 motions considered. Time spent on consideration of formal business has also substantially increased. It has risen from 22 minutes per day in 2012 to 34 minutes per day in 2018. On 11 June it went for 1½ hours and on 12 May it went for an hour and 17 minutes. And, of course, the length of the motions has increased.

Also increasing is the way in which the Senate handles formal motions. In 2008 there was on average one division per day on formal motions. In 2019 there were 7.7 divisions on average. Statements have increased from 1½ per day on average in 2008 to 20.3 in 2019. So for part of the program that is supposed to be about routine business we have 20 statements by leave—that's a debate. If you want a discussion about how we have more substantive debates about policy, which can be contested, then I and the Labor Party are happy to have a discussion about how we facilitate that. But this part of the program is being used for purposes for which it was not intended.

I would draw the attention of the Senate to two points. There are a number of aspects of business which are exempted from the temporary order—business of the Senate, disallowances, references to committees, consideration of legislation and so forth. We have also indicated that this should be a temporary order and we can have a discussion in the Procedure Committee. If the crossbench are up for sensible changes, we are absolutely willing to have that discussion. But we do need to resolve the fact that this part of the program is not working for the purposes for which it was intended.

Senator Roberts interjecting—

No—that the Senate intended, Senator Roberts.