Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—at the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:

That, on Thursday, 5 February 2009:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;

(b)

consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(c)

the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm, and from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only;

(d)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

(e)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the Senate has finally considered the bills listed below, including any messages from the House of Representatives:

Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009

Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009

Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009; and

(f)

if the Senate is sitting at midnight, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9 am on Friday, 6 February 2009.

I thank the Senate for its cooperation in bringing this debate on and not unduly delaying the Senate on procedural matters. In the government’s view there is an urgent need for action to stimulate the Australian economy. We have seen three times in recent months the International Monetary Fund revise down their projections for world growth and economic activity. Around the world, world leaders have agreed that governments need to take strong and decisive action to stimulate their economies and prevent the world falling into a deep recession. Projections are that this might be the most serious financial crisis confronting the world since the recession of the 1930s.

This is a very serious problem. I think some in Australia do not understand that because, quite frankly, the worst aspects of this have not yet hit us. They are only just starting to bite. Up until a few weeks ago I was much more optimistic, but then I saw redundancies starting to occur and the impact already being felt by Australian families. In my own state of Western Australia BHP closed the Ravensthorpe development, which threw hundreds of people out of work and basically destroyed the town, as they decided they could not continue with that mining activity.

These are serious issues for Australians but they are immediate issues. This is not some sort of academic debate about debt and macrofinancial issues, although those issues are also part of the debate. This is a debate about how many Australians will lose their jobs. That is what we are debating today. The revised economic forecast provided through Treasury indicates that unemployment will rise to seven per cent. I am sure that is of deep concern to all Australians and all members of the Senate. Based on Treasury advice, the government is saying that unless we act now those projections may be considered modest and we may actually see an even greater impact on the Australian economy.

It is clear that we need strong and decisive action now. The government would be remiss and failing in our duties if we did not act. So we have sought to act. We tried to get ahead of the curve with the economic package we brought in last December. Despite the commentary from those opposite, it did work. It had an affect that stimulated the economy, encouraged people to spend and encouraged people to support economic activity. That saw jobs saved and businesses maintained.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many jobs?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator interjects: how many jobs? This is serious, Senator; this is dead serious. I expect you to take your responsibilities seriously. If you think that people in Australia are going to be sitting down today—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Comments should be addressed to the chair and there should be no interjections.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition wants to have some sort of arcane argument about whether the package created 45,000 jobs or 50,000 jobs. Australians know that there are deeply frightening economic times confronting them and that their jobs are at risk, their financial security is at risk and their small businesses are at risk. They want the government they elected to act. That is what we want to do. We are asking the Senate to respect the votes of the Australian people and allow the government to act.

What we have seen in recent days is a debate in this parliament as to process, as if we have got time to spend a lot of time arguing about how we might handle it. I am sure Australians who got up this morning and looked at what occurred in the House of Representatives last night would have been absolutely distressed to see what were hairy-chested arguments—arguments while Rome burns, if you like—about minutia when what we need is leadership. The government are trying to provide leadership. We are trying to get support across the board to provide an economic stimulus to protect jobs—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are so arrogant. It’s unbelievable.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To protect jobs, Senator Macdonald. We actually think that is important. In order to give effect to the package, I met with Senate leaders and whips yesterday to try and get their support for a process that would allow the Senate to deal quickly with these bills, for two reasons. The first is to provide economic confidence in Australia, to provide certainty to Australians that we are going to implement the package and to provide confidence that there will be money flowing into the economy, that there will be money flowing to small business and that infrastructure projects will go ahead. Then businesses can plan on the basis of that stimulus package. I deliberately encouraged those Senate leaders to find the right balance between the absolute need for Senate scrutiny, which I support, and the need for the government to get its legislation passed—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a joke!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you were not at the meeting, but ask Senator Minchin what I proposed. The government said we would meet Thursday and Friday to deal with those bills that contained immediate payments to families—to fast-track those bills—and we would take up the opposition’s very constructive suggestion to move estimates and meet next week to debate those bills that go to infrastructure and the more complex matters of policy. We took up that offer. We said we would sit Thursday night, Friday, Saturday—whatever it took. Why? We said that because we want to make sure that we do not miss the proposed dates to get those payments to families—to get that money into their hands—to support them and to support the economy. That is the only reason we sought to ask you to sit—to give up another day or so to stay here, debate and scrutinise those bills and to give us the chance to make sure we met the timetable to put that money into families’ hands, to provide the stimulus in March for the economy and to allow you the whole of next week to examine the legislation.

I also indicated that we would support a Senate inquiry, that we would make that happen as well, because that is not an unreasonable request. But we have to balance the need for scrutiny, the need for parliamentarians to examine the detail and be informed, with the urgency of the government to act. We have to find the balance. We offered that balance and the Liberal Party scoffed. Senator Coonan scoffed. They were not interested. They said: ‘We’ve got plenty of time. Don’t worry about families getting the money. It’ll all be okay.’ We do not accept that. We actually say it is urgent.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Constant interjection is disorderly. You will have a chance to participate in the debate as long as the debate continues.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So tell us what—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government says this is urgent. The reason we asked for those bills to be passed is concern—that is, serious concern and advice to us—that we might not be able to make the payment dates we have set. That is the advice I have received and that is the proposition I put to the Liberal Party and the minor parties. I said we would deal with the matters that are absolutely urgent. We will sit Thursday night, we will sit Friday and we will sit Saturday if you want to give certainty.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a joke! So what difference is two days going to make?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two days, Senator. I am prepared to stay for the two days. You want to go home for the weekend. You want to go to the beach.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, your comments should be directed to the chair.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want to do the work; you want to go home and have your weekend off. We actually say this is urgent. We actually say it is important. We say, ‘Let’s deal with what is important, let’s deal with what is urgent now and for the bills that are less urgent—while they have high priority and we absolutely need to get them through next week—let’s take up the offer and deal with those next week.’ We want to make sure the Senate gets the chance to scrutinise those bills—we are happy to cooperate—but, regarding the bills that relate to payments for families, we need them ASAP. We want you to deal with those bills. We have to get right the balance between scrutiny and the urgency of the situation.

I sought the cooperation of the coalition and I did not get it. I got scoffed at. They said: ‘It doesn’t matter. We’ve got plenty of time. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about trying to get payments to families to support the economy. Don’t worry about trying to allow small business the opportunity to survive. We don’t care about jobs. There’s not really a problem.’ We say there is a problem, we say there is urgency and we would like you to reconsider. In this debate we want you to come to a position which says: ‘We will allow the parliament to sit as long as it takes to pass the bills that are urgent. We will come back next week, we will have the Senate inquiry and we will deal with those more complex bills then.’ That is what we would like. We are happy to have the scrutiny, we are happy to give you the time, but we would also like you to work Friday and maybe Saturday.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, let’s do it. Let’s have a full debate. You don’t want scrutiny.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And if that is too much—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s do it. All right, that’s good.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you’re opposing it, Senator.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s do it and sit all next week.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is there—vote for it. Vote for it! But, no, you want a long weekend. You want the long weekend!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite frankly, we think it is more important. We think you ought to be more constructive, Senator.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Withdraw that!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What? That he’s dishonest? He is saying that I want a long weekend. That is dishonest.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just asked you to withdraw that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I am not going to argue. I have asked you to withdraw.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I withdraw. Can I seek leave to answer a representation made that I want a long weekend? That is clearly dishonest. I seek leave to respond to that dishonest accusation by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I have had to call you to order on a number of occasions. You are entitled to speak in the debate, as I have pointed out. I have asked you to withdraw a comment that is unparliamentary—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which I have done.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which you have done. You still have the right to participate in the debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I have sought leave, Mr President.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A speaker is in the process of speaking. You then have the right, as a member of the Senate, to participate in the debate and answer any claims or any matters that are raised in the debate. I would think that is the proper course of action for you to proceed down.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the meantime, Mr President, I have to put up with this joker saying something dishonest, that I want a long weekend.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not saying that to you at all. I am saying that there is a proper course of action, in the process of this debate, to pursue through the chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, can I ask him to withdraw the accusation that I do not want to sit and I want a long weekend? Can I ask him to withdraw that imputation against me as a member of this Senate?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you will have your chance to participate in the debate, and I can now see that this is going to be a fairly lengthy debate. You will have your chance to participate in the debate as every other senator in this place will.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I ask that you ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to withdraw the imputation made not only against me personally but, by implication, against everyone on this side of the chamber. I ask that you ask him to withdraw.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not take the comment that was made as being unparliamentary. I do not think that has been ruled so in the past. I think that is something that you can quite rightly correct in the debate itself.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: it is traditional in this chamber that, if a member feels aggrieved about a comment made by another member, that member will withdraw it if the request has been made by a particular senator. There has not been any debate at all about whether it is fair, unfair, reasonable or unreasonable. Senator Macdonald has made a quite reasonable request to another senator in this chamber to withdraw a comment that he found to be a personal attack on him. If we are going to have a proper debate this morning, then surely appropriate rules should apply. Senator Macdonald feels aggrieved by the comment from Senator Evans and traditionally in this chamber that would be withdrawn.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I would not ordinarily engage on a point of order while a speaker is currently before you, but in this instance the contribution by the senator is wrong. The chair—not the opposition and not during the point of order—determines the point of order. The submission simply made just then is completely wrong. I would ask him to reflect upon what he said because it is wrong in terms of the procedures of this place.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made it clear—and I do hear what you have said, Senator Ronaldson, and I have on other occasions intervened—that I do not believe that this is unparliamentary. I believe it is a debating point. I believe that if Senator Macdonald and others wish to correct the record, as they are entitled to, or change the record or give their view of the record then that can be done as part of the debating process. If I felt that it was in any way reflecting badly on an individual person’s propriety or integrity, then I would ask for that to be withdrawn. I do not believe that this has happened in this case.

I understand that the debate is going to be a fairly lively debate. I have worked that out already from the interjections from both sides and I understand that there will be robust debate in this place from time to time. But I will always apply fairness to both sides. I will not be partial in the way in which I treat either side. I will pull up the debate where there has been a transgression in the standards that have previously applied in this place. If I think that there is a direct reflection or imputation on the character of an individual in this place then, regardless of what side of politics they are on, I will defend them. I believe that if this debate is to proceed—and whilst there will be some fire in the belly, as I would call it, in the debate—I will expect people to not reflect badly on anyone in this chamber no matter what side they are on. I will ask Senator Evans to continue and those who want to participate in the debate can do so at the appropriate time.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think those listening to the debate will be appalled that that is the level of response we are getting from the opposition. We put a reasonable and balanced proposition, and it was scoffed at. We said we would sit as long as it took and allow as much scrutiny in the parliament—not in a committee but in the parliament—as was required to deal with those bills. We said we would sit Friday and Saturday to get those bills through so that we could meet the deadline to ensure those payments went out in March, as required. On the basis of our advice, the longer we wait the more risk there is to that. Senator Ludwig, the Minister for Human Services, will take you through what that means.

We put that in all fairness, we have been very open about it, and what we got was an opposition which said: ‘No, don’t worry about it. It can all wait. There’s no sense of urgency here. We can sit down; we can chat about it for weeks. There is no urgency.’ Well, those people getting redundancy notices have a different view. Those small businesses hanging on by the skin of their teeth have a different view. Those self-funded retirees who are waiting to see some certainty return to markets to protect their investments think it is urgent, think it is important and want the government to provide leadership. We would like the parliament to provide scrutiny but also allow the government to act—that is, allow the elected government to respond to a crisis. All we say is this. By all means have scrutiny, but do not delay to the point that you undermine the government’s capacity to act, undermine the government’s capacity to protect jobs—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So two days is going to make a difference?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two days makes a lot of difference, Senator, if your job is at risk. If your job is at risk, it does make a lot of difference. If you look at the emails I am getting from small business, that is what they are saying. The opposition have taken a very political position on this. They have invested in the idea that the long-term argument about debt will work for them. What we say is this. Act responsibly and act as an alternative government. Do not get yourself into the sort of mess you got yourself into last year. Do not pretend you are a government waiting to return; act as an alternative government. Allow the government to get on and do its job.

I think when the Liberal Party take their weekend and go home and talk to some real people they will actually get a very different view of this. Go out—go down to the beach, go down to the cricket, go down to the parks—and talk to real people. Talk to real people who work in retail and who know the bonus that was paid last year saved their jobs. Talk to real people who think that the payment of the back-to-school bonus will actually help them make ends meet and help them continue to contribute to the economy. Talk to the small business people who know that the investment assistance will allow them to grow their business, maintain their business and provide jobs. Talk to real people. We often get isolated here, senators—we all do. We all go along to party meetings and convince ourselves how right we are. But go out and talk to real people. That is not their perspective. They want to know why the government is not acting.

I urge Senator Fielding—and I see he is in the chamber—to walk away from the deal he has done with Senator Minchin, to not be a patsy for the Liberal Party, to actually think about what he is doing. Senator Fielding claims to represent families and small business in this chamber. I ask him—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Is it appropriate for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to call the leader of Family First a ‘patsy’?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said, ‘Don’t be a patsy.’ I did not mean to call him a patsy.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, rather than delay the Senate, I am happy to withdraw. My understanding of what I said was that I said ‘Don’t be a patsy.’ Anyway, the record will correct that. The point I want to make is this. What we saw last year is that the Liberal Party on the infrastructure—

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate could repeat what he said and then withdraw, so I can hear it to my face.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, whatever was said was withdrawn. It is expunged, Senator Fielding, as I understand it.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, as I indicated, I said, ‘Don’t be a patsy for the Liberal Party.’ There was an objection raised and I withdrew it. You were closer to me then than you are now, but I understand you were distracted. The point I make to the Senate chamber is that I urge Senator Fielding not to support the motion he has put and to actually allow the government to pay families the payments we want to pay them. You claim to represent families, but what you are doing is stopping us making those payments. You are putting at risk those payments. All I ask is that the Parliament of Australia deal with those bills over the next few days. You can have the examination, you can have the debate, but allow us to get those bills.

The irony of this whole debate is that the Liberal Party and the National Party say, ‘We want scrutiny, we want to examine these bills, but we are going to vote against them anyway.’ An uninformed observer might say: ‘What’s the point if they are going to vote against them anyway? What’s their position?’ Their position is firmly decided—that is, ‘Whatever the arguments, whatever the evidence, we are going to vote no, but it is really important that we delay for nine days.’ They want to delay the investment in the economy.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s nine days now.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, all you are offering to do is pass them by next Thursday. Sorry; you are offering to defeat them by next Thursday! Your position is, ‘We need to delay till next Thursday to give us a chance to examine the reasons why we are going to try and defeat it.’

I say to the Senate and particularly to Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding: look in their eyes. When they urge you in this debate to vote down the bills, remember last December when they ran out for a cup of tea and hid. When the pressure comes on you, will see fear in the eyes. They do not want you to vote down the package. Trust me. They do not want you to vote down the package. Their strategy is to vote no, to be all care and responsibility. But when it comes to the vote, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon, if you walk across to join them, they will wet themselves. They will have fear in their eyes. They do not want you to vote the package down. They want to delay; they want to make a political point that they think will serve them in long-term. But if you, Senator Xenophon, or you, Senator Fielding, say you are going to vote for them you will be fascinated by the response. They have taken the position that they are all care and no responsibility—that they can safely say they are going to vote against it in the knowledge that Senator Fielding, Senator Xenophon and the Greens will not do that at the end. It will be interesting to see whether or not, just before the vote, when we eventually get to it, the Liberal and National parties really want you to vote for them. I suggest to you that they are dead scared you might. If you do, you might find Senator Minchin out for a cup of tea and a few of his friends stuck in the toilet, because the last thing they want to do is defeat this package.

This is about vandalism. This is about delaying our responsible plan to assist the economy. But they do not really want it beaten. This is a political point-scoring exercise. I urge the Senate to support the government’s proposition for a change to sitting hours. It will allow the right balance between scrutiny and passage of bills that provide the economic stimulus the country needs. It will ensure we are able to make the payments we want to make to families and that we are able to put in their hands the money that will allow spending and consumption to support jobs. We do not want that put at risk. We are happy for a Senate inquiry, we are happy to take up the option of sitting next week to deal with the other bills. However, I urge you in this debate to think about the bigger picture, to think about what nine days of continued uncertainty will mean for business confidence and about the threat to jobs and the economy if the government’s package is held up and maybe not passed. I urge you to follow a more sensible, balanced view, to support our procedural motion and to give some certainty— (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an extraordinary diatribe from Senator Evans. He put before the Senate a very unconvincing case in relation to changing sitting hours. It is important that we make very clear here that the coalition does not support the government’s arrogant supposition that the Senate will simply roll over and rubber-stamp a $42 billion spend of taxpayers’ funds virtually sight unseen. That is effectively what we are being asked to do in Senator Evans’s motion. Because of all of the fuss about this, people forget that it has been less than 48 hours since we first heard of this massive cash splash. It is quite extraordinary. The government must have had some notion that they were going to be bringing forward this package. Why was it only announced 48 hours ago? And, at the time it was announced, we were being urged to pass it without even looking critically at what it provided.

One reason why the government fear scrutiny of this package is they do not really know that it will do the job that they contend it will. They do not really know that this will work. In fact, the Prime Minister has said that he cannot guarantee that it will work. I think they fear the quality of what is in this package and they do not want it scrutinised.

We are effectively expected to approve $1 billion in spending for each hour since the bills were introduced. That is what it would amount to. And for those listening to the debate in the Senate, as Senator Evans seems to think people are, just contemplate the fact that we are expected to approve $1 billion in spending for each hour since the bills were introduced to meet this artificial deadline the government set for themselves without any consideration or hesitation. If this was so urgent, one would have thought that before agreeing to a particular date they would have at least considered how they would to deal with the proper procedures of the Senate. They might have actually deigned to consult us. But that certainly is not part of Labor’s behaviour pattern. This is a deadline that, quite frankly, screams panic. The government are in panic mode and they have rushed these bills into the parliament with unrealistic time frames for their consideration. I think it really underscores Labor’s contempt for the Senate. It is stark in this respect. They do not want these measures scrutinised; they simply want them passed.

Something was not immediately clear until we eventually got the bills. Included in the bills is a very slim document. It is a bill of two pages, I think, for the borrowing of up to $200 billion. We are expected to blindly approve it. This exhumes the ghost of Rex Connor. This exhumes the ghost of the Khemlani incident of so many years ago. They want us to pass, without any scrutiny whatsoever, a package that will saddle current and future generations of Australians with a crippling debt equivalent to 9,500 for every Australian. The government have simply failed to explain how a couple of extra days, literally, would in fact defeat the objectives of this package. If the Senate does what we have suggested, all it would amount to would be a couple of days delay, and that is not going to be critical. The government have not made the case for why that will be critical, except that they have to crank up the computers at Centrelink and at the tax office. Who is Senator Evans seriously kidding? We have been on the other side of the chamber—we have been in government—and we know the kinds of programs and the kinds of constraints on introducing this kind of package. It is highly unlikely—unless we can be convinced to the contrary, and we cannot—that two days is going to make any critical difference.

In a responsible way, because that is the way we are approaching scrutiny of this package, we have suggested that it is important that we scrutinise these bills and that we scrutinise them as a package. The government have simply failed to explain how a few extra days would in fact impact on it. For example, they have failed to provide the sorts of things that we will want to look at. They have failed to provide any information to back up their claims that this massive level of expenditure will support 90,000 jobs. The splash of cash before Christmas was supposed to create 75,000 jobs—we know that that has not happened; we know that that did not do the job—and now we have heard a few weasel words about how this package will support up to 90,000 jobs. What on earth does that mean? Does it mean 90,000 jobs? Does it mean 50,000 jobs? Or is it simply a stab in the dark, which we know that the earlier figure of 75,000 jobs was. We know that there is a massive looming problem with unemployment in this country and we know that before June there will be another 100,000 jobs lost.

The people of Australia deserve a parliament that will hold the government to account for this package. They have simply so far not established the case for it supporting jobs in the order to which they contend. We deserve to see the information to support the claims about this package and any modelling—if they have any—that underpins it. It really comes down to this: you really cannot trust the Labor Party. They have consistently shown us in this term of government that they are very light on detail. They do not have any long-term structural plan for the country. There is certainly no legitimate economic analysis underpinning their budget or other proposals. Just look, for example, at the continuing mess that has resulted from the unlimited guarantee on deposit-taking institutions in this country. There may be more than 250,000 Australians whose funds are frozen because they have their deposits in institutions not covered by the unlimited guarantee. This is an example of a panicked response which was not really thought through. The government has since been fixing it up all the way.

We certainly do not want to see this sort of problem with a package of this magnitude. It has a lot of components in it that need to be properly looked at. Senator Evans suggested that we had scoffed at this. That is certainly not the case. We have cooperated and we intend to cooperate further to scrutinise this package. We have indicated that we will cooperate with the government to get this package of bills through the parliament next week. That is a very clear statement that we are cooperating in the scrutiny of this package, and it should be brought to a vote by the end of next week. In fact, we came forward and suggested deferring estimates next week to allow the Senate to sit to pass this economic package. That was a responsible course. It is one that seems to have found favour with colleagues in the Senate and with the Labor Party. We think that is a very sensible way to ensure that the urgency contended for this package is addressed and that we can get on with examining it.

We simply cannot accept the demands of the government that we consider just part of the package so soon after its introduction. If this were so important, it could have been looked at perhaps even before parliament came back. But there were a couple of days of extraordinary drama and media performances from the Prime Minister and his economic team. Suddenly, the package was presented and then we were told part of it had to be passed practically yesterday morning. That is not really the way we act, unless a convincing case can be made for the need to separate the package. We believe that there should be at least a minimum level of scrutiny applied to the package and that it must be taken as a whole. It simply makes no sense. If the government has introduced it as a package, it has to be looked at as a package. Their economic story, which we think is incoherent anyway, stands only if it is part of a package. That is why we are proposing that, starting this evening, a Senate committee begin questioning officials about the detail of this package. There needs to be some forensic examination of what has gone into this package, how it is composed and what is contended for it. What are the projections and what is the modelling? If the Senate did not do that, it would simply be derelict in its duty.

Of course, we will cooperate today, as we have done so often this year, to meet the government in the full flight of panic mode by giving up opposition business time this afternoon. We will also cooperate next week to ensure that the package of bills is considered in the time frame that we have proposed. We believe that the bills must be considered as a package and that there should be an opportunity for examination through what will be a brief committee inquiry. When you look at the magnitude of this package, in normal circumstances you would have a much more detailed committee process. Various committees would be involved. We think that we have come forward with a proposal for the consideration of the package in a committee process that will enable the various strands of the package to be looked at.

Labor really must respect the role of the Senate as a house of scrutiny. It is all too easy as a government to simply try to roll right over the top of the Senate, but there is not much point in us being here if we do not do our job and hold the government to account. We will not be so irresponsible as to approve $42 billion worth of spending without a basic level of scrutiny. The government should not be so arrogant as to ask. We will not be supporting the motion put forward by Senator Evans.

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

There are, even now, ongoing negotiations among the non-government benches to come to some form of agreement on how we progress with this monumentally important package of legislation from the government. We the Greens take it extremely seriously. We do not like the fact that such a massive amount of money has to be dealt with in such a short period of time. We do not agree with the government that these five bills, which involve $42 billion—ultimately of taxpayers’ money—should be dealt with in this place today or even tomorrow. Therefore, we are in agreement with the opposition that the Senate should fulfil its role as watchdog of the people and extend the period of review of this legislation to next Thursday—a week from today. That will involve some very serious scrutiny by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. We are also looking to have at least the housing component looked at by a committee to see what the public input on that huge outlay can be and to see if there are improvements or alterations that can be made.

We recognise the urgency. The government has a real point there. We want to see a finite end to this process and have flagged midnight next Thursday for an assured passage of the legislation through the Senate so that we can all have a target to work to—and hopefully raise the quality of the debate—because, through a gentleperson’s agreement, we know that that is the target. Under the prescription that is now reaching some finality on the non-government benches there would be speeches in the second reading debate today and Monday, but the Senate scrutiny—the inquiry by the committees—would take place tonight and tomorrow and extend into Monday. That would mean that by the time we get to the committee stage of looking at these packages, from Tuesday through to Thursday evening, we will be informed by that committee scrutiny of this legislation.

I just want to point out that at the doors this morning I held up the bill and pointed to what appeared, and what we were told by government yesterday, was a typo involving $2 billion. After further pressure to find out exactly what was going on there it appeared that it was not a typo at all; it is just an apparent discrepancy between what is in the bill and what is in the information being provided to senators. It is a clear example of the sorts of things that we need to clear up. We are dealing with big money here, and that money does not come out of thin air; it eventually comes out of the pockets of Australians.

I think the government may be concerned that it will face the blowtorch, as well as scrutiny, on occasion in the coming days but that is how it is meant to be. The Senate has a role, which comes to the fore at moments like this, for the nation. We are in extreme financial circumstances where we are skidding towards a recession. There is a global recession afoot and therefore it is incumbent on government to deal with that and on the Senate to make sure that in these circumstances the government gets the scrutiny the public requires of us.

I will be adding the Greens’ support to this amended motion coming from the government and Senator Fielding. It is a good outcome. It has required negotiations around the chamber, and it is an example of the Senate coming to the best possible configuration for scrutinising these bills, given the circumstances.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are serious and urgent times. The global financial crisis is very serious, and most Australians are fearful about its effect on their households and their families. Job security is at the forefront of nearly everybody’s mind. The government has the right to put forward a stimulus package. It is responsible and right for the government of the day to assess the economic climate and respond, but equally I think most Australians would find it prudent that before we go and spend $42 billion we have a look at it. The government should not wait months and years to respond but to wake up one morning and say, ‘We’re going to spend $42 billion and we want it passed the very next day,’ is negligent. It is absolutely negligent, and most Australians see through it.

We should take the politics out of this and put it in terms that we can all think about. If you are going to buy a $42 billion house do you stand outside and say: ‘That’s it. It looks good; I’m going to buy it’? I don’t think so. If you were going to throw the nation into debt—throw our future kids into debt—would you stand outside and say: ‘Listen, we’ve got it right. No-one else can comment on it. No other experts can have their say publicly,’ and just buy the house? No. When you buy a substantial house you get experts to come and have a look at it. You ask: ‘Is it sound? Is it fit and proper for my family—for Australian families?’ It really is an insult to all Australians for us to treat them in that way.

By all means the government of the day should put forward a stimulus package. We need one. Family First will vote for one. But the government is spending $42 billion and it would have you believe that no-one should have a say on it. That is an absolute joke. So Family First has put forward a proposal and I am glad that common sense will prevail. We have been able to get all the non-government parties to agree to an inquiry into that whole package. That allows the Senate to have a decent, informed debate about it and to have experts other than the government’s experts look at it.

This is absolutely serious. These are times that are very tough. There is no silver bullet. I have heard that before. I think we all agree with that, but if the government are going to fire their final bullet, surely we should make sure that it is not a rubber bullet that may bounce back and hit us all so that we lose more jobs. Family First is not saying we should not go into deficit. I think it is repulsive to think that we would say that we should not go into deficit when we have hundreds of thousands of fellow Australians who could fall off the cliff. We should be investing money to try and avert that situation. We should be aspiring to have a recession-breaking stimulus package, but there is no silver bullet. Nor do we want a rubber bullet that comes back and hits all of us.

I also do not think that we should be saying that Canberra or parliament should have their pockets full of money or not go into debt while we see fellow Australians fall off the cliff. I am not one to do that. I think that we should put our hand out. It is pity that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition cannot come together in a way that unites the nation on this issue. This is not about politics; this is about real Australians who are doing it really tough and who are fearful. I have been unemployed. It is a terrible place to be. We need to do all that we can for others.

We should put aside the politics, look at this package with other experts and make sure that the components of this package are the best ways for the money to be spent. Will we be ever sure? Maybe not. But what is wrong with including other experts to have a look at it? What is wrong with having others say, ‘We think the money should be spent here’? What about others in the community who think that they are missing out with this package? Why shouldn’t they have their say? But no, the Rudd government says: ‘Listen, this is it. Take it or leave it.’ The Senate is doing what it was elected to do, which was to prudently look at things. It is urgent. We have put off Senate estimates next week and we will have an inquiry to allow other experts to have their say. That is the proper and prudent thing to do.

Senator Evans said that we need strong and decisive action. I agree. He left one word out: we need strong, decisive and prudent action. He left that out. Why did he leave that out? I am not sure why. If Australians took his speech and replayed it, they would see that he used words like ‘patsy’. What a joke. What an insult to Australian families. We should take his speech and publish it in the papers—the whole lot. Let them judge whether the Labor Party’s view on this is right.

Surely they should be supporting a short inquiry—a couple of days—into spending $42 billion. And they are laughing at us. They are laughing at Australia. It is an insult. I cannot believe that they are even credible coming forward with this and manoeuvring last night to try and pin it back and pull it back. They have presented the whole thing as a package. Let us look at it in an inquiry as a package. So as to satisfy the crossbenches, we will have an additional committee look at the housing package. But that is in addition. We need to look at this package in its entirety. We owe it to Australians and to our kids’ kids. If we are going into debt, let us get it right.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been a lot more heat than light shed in parts of this debate. I have never heard in any parliament that I have been in in the last 11 years anyone talking about a mass outbreak of incontinence. I do not know if that is a useful addition to the debate in terms of what Senator Evans put to us. Senator Fielding is right. Suggesting that someone may be a patsy simply because they have agreed to a process for the scrutiny of these bills is not helpful either. With respect to Senator Coonan—and I do have great regard for her—I do not know if the ghosts of Rex Connor and Tirath Khemlani are too relevant to this debate either. That was a significantly different set of circumstances.

The Senate should do its job. That is why I have been pleased to co-sign a motion with Family First, the Australian Greens and the opposition—the coalition—to ensure that these bills undergo appropriate due process. It is extraordinary for the government to expect that these bills be passed in a period of a matter of hours after a marathon session of the House of Representatives. That is not what Australians expect the Senate to do. Given that something like half a million Australians voted differently between the lower house and the upper house because they wanted that level of scrutiny and that level of accountability, we need to do what Australians want us to do. This is about scrutiny and about being a watchdog and about not being a rubber stamp.

I will not speculate on the merits or otherwise of this package. We ought to have due process to look at it. We will have a short but comprehensive inquiry into what this package will mean for Australians. We will hear from Treasury about what modelling has been done in relation to this package. We will consider the implications of this package and the implications of the debt that will follow, along with the implications of taking any action now, given the worsening global financial crisis.

I also think it sensible that we have a process that looks at the issue of housing separately. I agree with Senator Bob Brown that that is a sensible approach. It is also appropriate that there be a deadline of midnight next Thursday so that these matters are dealt with by that time. This is a very significant piece of legislation. We are in dire times. It is important that we in the Senate do our job.

I will say one more thing in relation to the government saying that it is so urgent that we should deal with the bills relating to household assistance because otherwise Centrelink will not be able to cope with making the payments in time. I have not seen the evidence from the government that chaos would ensue. We are talking about considering this legislation appropriately and properly over the next few days, not about two, three or four weeks. We just need some time to do our job. I have yet to see any firm evidence from the departments that not passing this legislation this week, but rather dealing with this legislation next week, will have dire consequences.

That is why I am very pleased to be a co-signer to a motion by all non-government senators to show that there is unanimity at least on the issue of due process and giving this issue the appropriate scrutiny which it deserves.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning, we moved a motion that set out a timely plan for the Senate to handle the legislation that will deliver the Rudd Labor government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This plan contains three packages, together worth $42 billion. It is the government taking decisive pre-emptive action to support the Australian economy. The need for this action cannot be underestimated. The global financial crisis is an unprecedented threat to the world economy, something not seen since the Great Depression. I do not think that the opposition quite understand the seriousness of the position that we are now in.

Australia is a trading nation. It lives and dies by exporting goods and services. Have a look at our top two-way trading partners: China, rate of growth almost halved; Japan, in recession; the United States, in recession; Singapore, in recession; the United Kingdom, in recession; South Korea, in recession; New Zealand, in recession; Thailand, probably technically in recession, as stated by its Prime Minister last week; Germany, in recession; and the rest of the Eurozone, in recession.

The time to act is now. We must do whatever we can to save this country from going down the same path as our trading nations. To do any less than that would sell us out, quite frankly. The Australian people expect the government to respond to this crisis and protect the Australian economy for the benefit of all Australians. The government have taken advice on what must be done and we have set out what must be done clearly and succinctly. If you understand the seriousness of the economic circumstances we find ourselves in, I ask you to support the package. It is a sensible position to adopt.

Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party are using their numbers in this Senate to hold this country hostage. Mr Turnbull says he is prepared, effectively, to destroy and wreck the plan. As yet, he has no plan of his own. Mr Turnbull and the Liberal Party have chosen to risk the jobs, homes and businesses of thousands of Australians.

Let us be clear about this. I do not impugn the motives of Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and the Greens in seeking to scrutinise this package. But it is plainly ludicrous for the Liberals to claim that they are seeking to scrutinise what they have already rejected. This is a complete furphy. If you have already made up your mind to reject the package, if you have already determined you are going to reject it even before you have had a look at it, why waste time pretending to want to scrutinise it? The Liberal Party do not really want scrutiny; all they want to do is to attack, harp, whinge and whine.

But just what is the Liberal Party rejecting? The household stimulus package, which enables one-off cash payments of $950 to eligible people. These people are drought-affected farmers, families and those in education and training. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill provides for a tax bonus payment of up to $950 to eligible Australian taxpayers. These payments are for self-funded retirees, part-pensioners and the vast majority of working people. That is what they are putting at risk. The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill provides for an increase in the cap where special circumstances exist.

The two appropriation, nation-building and jobs bills provide for about two-thirds of the funding for the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. These appropriation bills provide funding to support jobs and set Australia up for a low-carbon future. The Rudd government is also installing free ceiling insulation in around 2.7 million Australian homes. The investment will support the jobs of tradespersons and workers employed in the manufacturing, distribution and installation of ceiling insulation during a severe global recession. This historic nation-building investment by the Rudd government not only will support jobs but is a down payment on the long-term strength of the Australian economy. Do not underestimate what the ESS payment and this payment will provide to support the economy.

By improving the quality of education received by every Australian child, this program will help deliver the stimulus today and underwrite higher productivity tomorrow. Despite the extraordinary adverse conditions in the global economy, despite the impact of this on the Australian economy, we know the opposition are opposing these bills. They have announced that they are opposing them, yet in the Senate they plan to refer the bills to a committee. Quite frankly, what is this about? Why don’t you cut to the chase if that is your position? You already know that you are opposing the bills. You have announced it. Clearly the committee hearings can only be a delaying action. You cannot be serious about looking at the content of the legislation at all. We have already said that that relating to payments can be dealt with, if you want to have scrutiny in relation to the remaining package, next week. That was a sensible position that was put forward. It should have been adopted.

I must emphasise that without urgent passage of these bills the Senate is putting the timely delivery of these payments in jeopardy. If the payments to be made through the tax system are to begin to be delivered in April, work in the ATO must start as soon as possible and the bills must be passed this week. If the payments are also to be made through Centrelink and delivered in March, work in Centrelink must start as soon as possible and the bills must be passed this week. Treasury advise that the prompt passage of the legislation is needed so the approval and ministerial processes which involve other levels of government can be established and the measures begin as soon as possible.

Families are doing it tough. Australia is on the precipice of rising unemployment and kids are sweltering in classrooms because they have no air-conditioning. These are the types of things that this package can provide support and assistance for. Instead, the coalition want to delay. The coalition are putting the payments schedule at great risk. Centrelink do a superb job, let me say, and I congratulate them for the work that they did in delivering the ESS payment. We have now asked them to continue that superb work and look at how they can then work through the next package, the $42 billion package, part of which they are responsible for delivering on behalf of the government. I thank the Centrelink staff for their efforts and a job well done, but I now have to ask them to rise up and start the work for the next strategy.

The strategy payments will support demand in the economy. The new package will do even more to meet the global recession as it continues. It will devastate retailers and jobs around the world. It will do wholesale damage to economies around the world, as we have seen. This government is trying to, as quickly as possible, insulate us from that.

When you look at Centrelink and the work that it has to do, its computer infrastructure is not like some electric motor you can stop and start at will. It is a massive payment engine that takes 16 hours to wind up and another 16 hours to load up. These are some of the payments that it has to crunch through: the $950 single income family bonus to about 1.5 million families and the $950 back-to-school bonus to support 2.8 million children. There are a range of payments that it has to make. They will start going into Australian bank accounts in the fortnight beginning 11 March, provided we can pass this legislation this week. That is if there are no hiccups. That is if there are no delays. That is if there is no spanner in the works from the coalition. If they choose to delay, choose to create problems with that system, then what we will be faced with is uncertainty. There will be no certainty that we will be able to make those payments at that time.

I note that the opposition members in the chamber have carped about wanting scrutiny. There is the ability to use this week in the chamber to undertake that process. From the opposition, in fact, all we get is scepticism—first on climate change and now on the global financial crisis. It really is a matter that they are not taking seriously, quite frankly.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope you are not going to do a second reading speech as well.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said I would provide the sum-up from the government’s perspective. I will not take the full time. What the opposition have failed to appreciate is the urgent need to pass these bills this week to ensure that both Centrelink and the ATO can start those payment engines and to ensure that we get the payments delivered on time into people’s accounts so that they can be provided with those bonuses. Any hiccup or delay to that will necessarily put more stress and strain on the system. If these things occur, be it on the Liberals’ heads. The sooner we make the payments, the better. We need to provide the stimulus as soon as possible. We need to pass this motion so that we can consider this package of bills today. With that, I thank the Senate.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no more speakers, I will outline, just briefly, the process which will be followed. I will be dealing with, firstly, government business notice of motion No. 2, which is standing in the name of Senator Ludwig. I will be putting that motion. Having dealt with that motion, if it happens to be defeated—and that may well be the case—I will deal with business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3. I understand that Senator Fielding will seek leave to move it in an amended form. If that motion happens to be successful then my advice is that government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 3 will lapse. They will not proceed. Is there anyone who is not clear as to what will happen? The question is that government business notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

Question put.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 in a revised form, as circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I want to advise the Senate the revised motion is being moved in the names of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Minchin; the Leader of Family First, me; the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown; and Senator Xenophon. I move:

That—

(1)

The additional estimates hearings of standing committees scheduled for the week beginning 9 February 2009 not take place.

(2)

The Senate meet from Monday, 9 February to Thursday, 12 February 2009.

(3)

The Senate not meet from Monday, 23 February to Thursday, 26 February 2009.

(4)

That the 2008-09 additional estimates hearings by standing committees be scheduled as follows:

Monday, 23 February and Tuesday, 24 February 2009, and, if required, Friday, 27 February 2009 (Group A)

Wednesday, 25 February and Thursday, 26 February 2009, and, if required, Friday, 27 February 2009 (Group B).

(5)

The provisions of the following bills (the bills) be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2009:

Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009

Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2009

Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009

Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009

Tax Bonus for Working Australians (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009.

(5A)

The provisions of the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 also be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2009.

(5B)

The Community Affairs Committee may not meet to consider the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009 at the same time as the Finance and Public Administration Committee is meeting to consider the bills.

(6)

Notwithstanding the reference of the provisions of the bills, the Senate may consider the bills to the conclusion of the second reading stage, but shall not further consider the bills until the report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the bills has been tabled.

(7)

On Thursday, 5 February 2009:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 7 pm;

(b)

consideration of general business, and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(c)

the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm till 7 pm shall be consideration of the bills (second reading speeches);

(d)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

(e)

at 7 pm the Senate shall adjourn without any question being put.

(8)

The Finance and Public Administration Committee shall meet from 7 pm to 9 pm on Thursday, 5 February 2009, and from 9 am on Friday, 6 February 2009 to take evidence from government departments and agencies, including (but not limited to):

(a)

Treasury;

(b)

Centrelink;

(c)

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations;

(d)

Environment, Heritage and the Arts; and

(e)

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

(9)

The Finance and Public Administration Committee shall meet on Monday, 9 February 2009 to take further evidence in relation to the bills from non-government organisations, community groups and other interested parties as determined by the committee, and may meet during the sitting of the Senate for that purpose.

(10)

The presentation of the reports of the committees on the bills be orders of the day for 12.31 pm on Tuesday, 10 February 2009.

(11)

On Thursday, 12 February 2009, the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment, and the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until the Senate has finally considered the bills listed in paragraph (5).

(12)

If the Senate has not finally determined the bills by midnight on Thursday, 12 February 2009, the President or the chairman shall immediately put the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the chair, and shall then propose any other question requisite to dispose of the bills.

Question agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In which case, as I have already advised the chamber, government business notice of motion No. 1 will not be proceeded with, nor will No. 3.