Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We're now at the 'reading a book into the Hansard' stage of this debate. Hour follows hour, question follows question—how many hours can we sit here as the same question gets paraphrased into another question? I've got to buy a T-shirt for Senator McAllister at this point which says: 'I've covered this already. We've already canvassed this in the debate.' Sorry, Senator McAllister, you've probably said it more nicely than that. Honestly, this is paraphrase hour now. I'm sure there are plenty of other chapters in Senator Rice's book that we can sit here and listen to as they, too, are recorded in the Hansard for their second go at publication outside of the bound volume they already exist in.

I understand what the Greens are doing. They're not keen on this bill, and they're trying to obstruct its passage. But what are the Liberals and the Nationals doing? They said they supported this bill. Publicly, they've come out and said they support this bill. Specifically, they've said that they think it's important for not undermining investment certainty and they think it's important for jobs and for regulatory certainty. If they support this bill, what are they trying to learn in paraphrase hour? Are there other chapters in Senator Rice's book that they're hoping she might get to this afternoon?

I actually think there might be some senators on the other side of the chamber who might like to debate, I don't know, the counterterrorism legislation which is coming up on the Notice Paper, or maybe judicial immunity? That might be something that senators on the other side of the chamber are interested in debating. Or would they like hour No. 10 of Senator Rice's book—hour No. 10 of the same questions paraphrased and the same answers from the minister. Honestly, what are they trying to learn? This has gone through a House committee and it's gone through a Senate committee. They said they support it. Is it chapter 8 in Senator Rice's book? Or are they just trying to see how the same question can be paraphrased for perhaps the 10th or the 11th time—trying to learn some new tricks and titbits on how to phrase their language and how to do this themselves one day? Honestly, this is ridiculous.

We have important business in this chamber to deal with—important pieces of legislation, which have been sitting on that Notice Paper. I would understand that if Senator Duniam were genuinely really interested in the debate here—if he were genuinely hoping to learn something—as question after question gets paraphrased and put to a minister who has answered them over and over for hours and hours in that chair. That's absolutely appropriate when debating legislation and there are genuine things to learn. But can he really sit there with a straight face when he knows he wants to support this bill? They think this bill is important for regulatory certainty and they think this bill is important for jobs. What are we trying to learn here? This chamber has got really important pieces of legislation to deal with and we have spent an entire week on this piece of legislation. I accept that the Greens have a position here and I understand that they want to obstruct the passage of this bill. That's quite clear. There might be some more books under the desk about to come out—some more chapters of verse or prose, or maybe some poems, about why this bill is not lining up with the Greens.