James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Hansard source

There are two propositions before the Senate today about how we manage the business the Senate needs to do this week. On the one hand we have a proposition from the government that two very important legislative packages, one on family law and one on migration law, should be rammed through today with almost no scrutiny and almost no debate. The alternative proposition put by Senator Cash recognises the importance of those legislative packages. It doesn't seek to hold them up or obstruct them from passing; it just says we should still do that business this week but we should do it in a less rushed fashion to make sure this chamber can equip its responsibilities to properly scrutinise that legislation.

We can have a proper committee process for both those bills. We can ask the questions we need to ask. We can move the amendments we need to move. The crossbench can do the same, and we will still leave this week having provided the government with an adequate opportunity to pass both those packages. No-one in this chamber is seeking to prevent the government from achieving the support of this chamber for either of these packages. We're just saying, 'Do it on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, so we can spend the time we have here as a chamber properly scrutinising these propositions.'

These are not minor bills. These are not inconsequential bills. These are significant and important pieces of legislation. Senator Cash has already spoken at length about the family law bills and the possible unintended consequences of some of the provisions of those bills, on which the parliament must fulfil its responsibilities to appropriately scrutinise and consider.

Also on the guillotine today from the government is a very important and significant change to our engagement with the Pacific. We in the opposition support the government's objectives of closer engagement with the Pacific. We're very proud of our legacy of the steps we took to ensure that that was the case, and we agree with the government that that should be taken further and extended. But we have an in-principle concern about one of the critical elements of this bill, which is that, for the first time, the government proposes to introduce handing out a visa, and the pathway to permanent residency and ultimately citizenship in Australia, by lottery. We have never done that before in this country. We have never allocated access to our country by lottery before, and that needs to be appropriately considered and scrutinised by this chamber. We think we should have a proper committee stage on that bill. We think that many amendments which have already been circulated by the opposition, the crossbench and the Greens should have the opportunity to be debated, appropriately considered and decided on by this chamber. That will not be the case if we are forced, by guillotine, to consider these this evening. We have two days left of sitting this week. We are prepared to sit late tonight to facilitate the consideration of these bills. We are prepared to facilitate the passage of these bills by Thursday afternoon before we leave. No-one is trying to stop the government from legislating either of these bills. We are just trying to seek proper scrutiny of them.

It's not surprising the government is being hypocritical. It's not surprising that, on their journey from this side of the chamber to that side of the chamber, they've suddenly changed their perspective on legislative scrutiny. All of a sudden it's completely and fine and appropriate to ram things through this chamber without proper consideration. But it would be very disappointing if those on the crossbench and the Greens have changed their perspective. They're not in government. They don't have trappings of power of the ministerial offices and they're not walking around on the blue carpet. They are still on the crossbench, and they should uphold the principles they have often come into this place to talk about—including Senator David Pocock, a new member of this chamber, who has spoken very sincerely, very eloquently and very powerfully about the important principles of transparency and scrutiny. I hope Senator David Pocock and the other crossbenchers, including the Greens, live up to the values they have espoused in this chamber. I hope they are consistent with the things they have argued for in this chamber, which is the appropriate exercise of this chamber's function in scrutinising legislation. I hope they have not done a dirty deal with the government to ram through legislation without appropriate legislative scrutiny. That is our function as senators, that is our function as a Senate chamber, and we should be allowed to perform that function.

Voting for Senator Cash's motion will facilitate the passage of this legislation with proper scrutiny. If the Greens and the crossbenchers are true to what they say, they will vote for Senator Cash's motion to allow this chamber to appropriately consider its responsibilities. They only need to turn to the Attorney-General. When he was the shadow Attorney-General he spoke eloquently and powerfully about the cornerstone of a healthy parliamentary democracy being the usual process of scrutiny and debate. They only need to live by the words that the Labor Party espoused when they were in opposition, hold them to their own words now that they are in government and not let them get away with ramming these bills through today.