Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That consideration of this bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What later hour are we considering here? The government brought this legislation on. It controls the business of the house. This is very serious legislation. Senators who are focused on this legislation either want the debate to go ahead or want to know when the government is going to get its business in order so that we can proceed with the debate. The government is having trouble getting a quorum in here—it is back to three members in the chamber again. It might treat this lightly but I do not, and I would like to know when the government perceives that this debate is going to resume. We are not here just to have the government turn the tap on or off. It is a serious matter.

If the government wants to now haul off from a debate it set going this afternoon—peremptorily, because it wanted to put off another piece of legislation which was scheduled, because Senator Fielding is not here—that is one matter. But, having brought this legislation on, we should deal with it. I have heard no good argument from the minister at the table as to why we should now abandon it and go on to a third piece of legislation. That is chaotic. Government should get itself into gear. I want to hear some explanation.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The situation, I understand, is that Senator Brown’s office was advised of this procedure. It has the support, as I understand it, of the opposition and the Democrats at least. The government proposed that it would give some time for people to look at the running sheet, which is being produced as we speak, and that the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 could be debated in the meantime. I would envisage that that would take no more than an hour or so. We would back to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 at a later hour tonight.

Senator Brown’s office was certainly contacted about this proposal. The Democrats indicated their support for it, and were in fact very keen on having a break. It is fair to say that the opposition was agreeable to this procedure, and the government was as well. There is nothing untoward about this. It is just a matter of commonsense—giving people some time to look at the running sheet and prepare for the debate.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand I do not need leave, because the minister has already spoken. I have some sympathy for Senator Bob Brown’s concern. The government is in charge of the program. However, we are in a situation and circumstance where we need to be understanding. This is effectively the ricochet impact of deferring the family law legislation. In the circumstances of Senator Fielding being ill, we have to be reasonable. As a consequence, the running sheet for the legislation is not ready. It would be simply impractical to continue in those circumstances. Consequently, I can confirm that the Labor opposition has agreed to deal with Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006.

It is not an ideal situation, Senator Brown. However, we think that in the circumstances it is reasonable. It would be unreasonable for us to pull up stumps now. We have given a commitment to sit through to 11 tonight—or whatever the time is—so we are working overtime for a couple of hours. That is all part of our responsibilities when the circumstances that I have outlined arise. We are prepared to go on with Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 in the circumstances.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Of course the government will have its way and we will wait another hour and then come back to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006. Just let me make a couple of points here, though. I am not as compliant with the government in these circumstances as the opposition is. We are sitting on a Tuesday night, the hours of which were arranged yesterday, to complete the third or fourth sitting day of this month in a Senate that now is sitting very little—fewer days than I can recollect during my time in the place. The reason for that is that the government does not want to be under scrutiny here but wants to ram through every piece of legislation it can. The opposition might be compliant about this, but the Greens are not.

The government is reducing the number of days on which the Senate sits yet does not want to reduce its ability to get through all the pieces of legislation. There are two mechanisms by which the government will achieve that. One is to have us sit longer hours on the days we are here than the time-honoured hours which are the maximum for the proper functioning of a Senate. We are not functioning at the moment, because the government has brought this legislation on on a Tuesday night when we should not be sitting. I extend my commiserations to those good people behind the scenes who are trying to get together a running sheet under extreme duress and pressure. This is March; it is not December. They never should be put under that pressure. But everybody bows to the Prime Minister’s wish that this Senate simply rubber-stamp everything that comes out of his office with a minimum of fuss.

The second mechanism that we have seen, and will see more and more use of, is the gag or the guillotine to cut off debate on important matters like this so that the government will not sit more days but will get that legislation through. The opposition might shrug its shoulders and say: ‘Oh, well. We can’t do much about that.’ The Greens do not accept that at all. What is happening here is a debasement of the parliament now that Prime Minister Howard and his coalition have control of both houses. This is a manifestation of the abuse of the Senate by the government, and I do not take that lightly and nor do my colleagues.

Yes, we will have a one-hour break and then come back and deal with some other legislation, because it is convenient for the government and Mr Howard. The honourable Prime Minister wants it all put through the Senate with no fuss, because the Senate does not matter. I take a different attitude. It is a hugely important institution. Whether the government has control of it or not, I differ from the opposition. It is our job to halt the government in its tracks and take the time that the public interest demands we take on extraordinary legislation like this and deal with it adequately. This should be done properly and in a coordinated fashion, not in a stop-start fashion such as is being exemplified by the mismanagement of the Senate here tonight.

Question agreed to.