Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That, commencing from 9.30 am on Wednesday, 24 June 2009, the orders of the day for the following bills, deemed urgent by the Government:Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 2009Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2009National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009,as well as the order of the day relating to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 and two related bills, be called on and determined before the order of the day relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and 10 related bills is called on.

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

I am surprised that Senator Parry is not speaking to the motion. Can I just make the point that we gave leave for this motion so as not to waste the time of the Senate with a suspension. I presume that Senator Parry is not speaking to it because he has the numbers. That is usually the reason when people keep it short.

I make the point that this effectively involves two issues. The first is the capacity of the government to order the business and determine the business that the Senate deals with. I am afraid that the opposition have given up on all prospect of ever being a government again, because they have adopted the attitude that seems to forget that there are requirements in this place for governments to be able to operate effectively. By supporting this sort of stunt, they give up, I think, the commitment to a perspective as an alternate government.

But the real issue is the question of whether or not we deal with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills this week. The Senate has known for months that those bills were to be called on. We have had a green paper, a white paper, no end of public discussion and inquiries both by Senate committees and by others that led us to the point of planning for a debate on the climate change and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills in this sitting week.

It has been clear for some weeks now that the opposition are terrified about debating these bills because they are unable, as on so many other things, to reach a consensus inside their party room. They are deeply divided. The Senate committee reports again highlighted that division. That, quite frankly, is a problem for them. But they have a responsibility to the Australian people to come into the parliament and vote on these issues, particularly given that they went to the last election under a commitment to introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme. They actually went to the last election, even under John Howard, committed to that stance, and they have since walked away from it because they are unable to deal with the divisions inside their party.

This comes down to a question about whether or not the Senate is going to debate the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill this week. We have a position in this parliament where the government does not have the majority, and we have a position where the opposition and some minor senators have determined to frustrate the government’s capacity to debate these bills. I have to say, at least to Senator Xenophon, that he was honest about it. He has said quite clearly that he does not want to debate them. I do not support his rationale. He wants more surveys, more inquiries, more reporting, but that is perfectly—

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

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

Senator, we will hear you on the alcopops legislation later in the week. We look forward to you eating humble pie.

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

Order! Ignore interjections.

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

Please let me know when you are doing it, because I am going to come and enjoy the show! I did warn you, but I am looking forward to it.

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

Senator Evans, ignore interjections and address your comments to the chair.

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

Mr President, Senator Xenophon has been open and upfront. I disagree with him; I think he is wrong. But he has at least said: ‘If you force me to do it’—as with this motion today—‘I’m not up for it. I’m not going to vote on these bills or the second reading this week. I am a vote for a deferral. I’m a vote for not dealing with it.’ At least he has been honest. I think it is wrong. I think he ought to take his responsibility to debate the bills this week, but he has been frank about that.

After Senator Fielding’s contribution to the last debate, yesterday, on these matters, I am a little confused about what his position is. I think he is currently a climate change sceptic, which is a perfectly reasonable position for him to adopt if that is his position. But, at the last debate on this matter, Senator Fielding argued that he did not want to be dealing with these bills late at night. The reality is that, if this resolution is carried, we will be dealing with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills late at night at the end of the week because it pushes them all back to that period, rather than dealing with them early in the week when he is fresh and when we are able to deal with them in a non-rushed manner. We could bring them on. But, Senator Fielding, if your position is that you do not want to deal with them this week, say so. Do, for the chamber, the honest thing and say so, because then we will all know where we stand.

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

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

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

No, let us just know where we stand. If Senator Fielding’s position is that he does not want to deal with them this week, that is fine. Make that position clear, and then the government will not persist because we know that we cannot get you—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I did not speak on this so that we would facilitate time for the government to go back to the CPRS today. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is now verballing other senators. He is getting very close to casting aspersions on the honesty of Senator Fielding. Can you please ask him to address the matter so we can actually get on with the business of the Senate?

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

There is no point of order. Senator Evans, have you finished?

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

No, I haven’t; I thought there was a point of order being taken—isn’t there?

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

I thought you might have finished.

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

Senator Parry, you may think I am wasting time but that is your business. If you want to speak, speak to the motion; you did not have the courage to do it.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be setting an example for everybody else, and he should direct his remarks through the chair and not directly across the chamber. Will you bring him to order, please.

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

Order! Senator Evans, you have got 14 minutes and 43 seconds in which to continue, and your remarks should be addressed to the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr President. It seems the opposition are a little—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sensitive.

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

sensitive today. I do not know why; I cannot understand why. I was addressing my remarks to Senator Fielding, for the reason that he will get the vote on this. I have addressed my remarks to Senator Xenophon; he has made his position clear. I expect him to support the opposition on this resolution—as he indicated yesterday he would if the government did not agree to delay the bill till August. We are not agreeing to delay the bill till August. We made it clear that our position is that the bill ought to be debated this week. That has been known for months. We would ask him to consider that. But he has made his position clear. Senator Fielding did not make his position clear in the longer term. Yesterday he supported the resolution. His argument was that he did not want to be dealing with it late at night. Well, what I would say to him—if his position is that he is not going to support dealing with the bills this week—is: say so. Be honest, be upfront and say so. Then we would all know where we all stand.

The same argument goes for the opposition. If what they are saying, as we all know it is, is that they are too scared to deal with the CPRS this week, then they should have the honesty to say so. Do not push the bill back to be the last bill debated this week, knowing that it is your intention, as Senator Barnaby Joyce has made clear, to talk it out—to filibuster. Surely, now, after all the argy-bargy; surely, on the Tuesday of the last week, you could at least work up the courage to be honest, to speak to your bill and say, ‘We are doing this because we do not want to deal with the CPRS.’ That is why you are doing it. Be honest, say so, and we can all get on with it. But what we have now is this facade that if this passes then the implication is that we will deal with the CPRS later this week. If that is the case, that is great. I will move a motion on sitting hours that allows us to complete that bill this week, and we will sit any hours that the Senate requires to do that. We will sit Thursday night, Friday and Saturday. If you are honestly saying to us, ‘We are just moving it to the end because we think the other bills are more urgent,’ and if the sorts of statements made by Senator Parry yesterday are to be believed, then the opposition will support a motion on sitting hours that allows us to deal with it. But if, as we all know, this is merely a rather unsubtle tactic to ensure that we do not get to the bill, then let us be honest; let us not rely on fake emails or subterfuge; let us just say that the position of the Liberal Party is: ‘We are too scared to deal with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme this week. We are too racked by division. We want to put it off until some time after the end of the year—next year sounds good—because it is all too hard.’

As I understand it, Senator Xenophon’s position is ‘August’, Senator Fielding’s position is unknown, and the opposition’s position is ‘on the never-never’. This government is ready to debate the legislation on its CPRS scheme. There has been extensive consultation. There has been a green paper. There has been a white paper. Everyone has known that the debate is coming on. So if people are not prepared to debate it now you have got to wonder why. And the only explanation for the opposition is that they cannot reach any consensus. The leader does not feel secure enough to take on people like Senator Cash whose views are from the flat-earth side of the opposition and who do not believe—as Senator Minchin does not—that there is any contribution to global warming from human activity. But because they cannot resolve those difficulties they come in here and hide behind a procedural resolution, which they did not even speak to. I have got to give it to Senator Parry—he gave it his best shot yesterday. It was not very convincing, but he moulded some sort of argument. I am not surprised, though, that he did not have the courage to run it twice, because it did not warrant a second airing. It was pretty thin. I have had to run some thin ones myself, Senator Parry, but running them twice is hard, I know.

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

Senator Evans, address your comments to the chair.

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

We know that this is about a desperate attempt to delay debate on the CPRS. Well, all I am arguing is that we have some honesty about that. If there is a majority in the Senate for that, say so. Otherwise, bring the bills on. Let us debate them. Let us have a vote on them. Let us determine how this country should respond to the challenge of CO2 emissions. Let us deal with the policy debate. But if you are not prepared to deal with it then at least be honest and say so.

Under this resolution proposed by Senator Parry we have the subterfuge that somehow we will get the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills again, sometime, maybe, on Thursday, and then they will go, ‘Oh golly gosh, we’ve run out of time! Isn’t that terrible! Oh, is that the time? We’ve got to go home. Oh, isn’t that horrible! Surprise, surprise!’ I mean, really—have some political guts. Have some courage. If you are saying to us that you are not going to vote for it, say so. If you are saying to us you are not going to deal with the bill properly this week, say so. Let us have that debate. But do not come in here with this mealy-mouthed effort to pretend that you are ‘helping the government with the urgency of its legislation’. What nonsense!

And to people like Senator Fielding, I say: please be honest with us. If you are really saying that you are not going to deal with it, say so. Be honest. Otherwise, if you are not saying that, I will expect you to vote for a resolution to extend hours to complete the bill, because that will force you to make your position clear. If you are saying to us that you are prepared to deal with the bill, we will move the resolution on sitting hours to ensure that we deal with it. But if you are honestly saying to us that you do not want to deal with it this week then that is fine; we will have the political argument about that. But do us the courtesy of saying that, not hiding behind some other, quite pitiful, excuse.

I accept Senator Xenophon made his position clear yesterday. I do not agree with him, but his position is on the record and that is for him. He wants to deal with it.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Ignore the interjections, Senator Evans. Interjections are disorderly.

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

I am sure the Deputy President should know better, but sometimes it even gets the better of him. It is important that we be honest about this. If, in fact, people are prepared to debate the bill and they are not really seeking to delay it then we will move a resolution that has the Senate sit until we complete the bill. If people are not prepared to do that then they are exposed for actually having taken a decision that they are not going to deal with the legislation this week. Let’s be frank about it. I understand the Greens are prepared to deal with it this week and we call on other senators to do the same. But if, in fact, as I suspect and I think everyone knows, this is merely an attempt by the Liberal Party to put off judgment day on their position on the CPRS, do the Senate the courtesy of being upfront about that.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry was appropriately very brief in his remarks because he was seeking to ensure that we did facilitate dealing with this motion. We are conscious of the government wanting to get on with urgent business, but what we have just had is a remarkable histrionic performance from Senator Evans which has in fact wasted 15 minutes of the Senate’s time. What a remarkable contribution from Senator Evans to so singularly and obviously delay the Senate’s dealing with the government’s legislation by that repetitive performance.

I was not going to speak, but Senator Evans has made two allegations which I will respond to as briefly as I possibly can because the Senate should get on with its business. Senator Evans made the claim that the opposition has abandoned the longstanding practice of the government being responsible for the order of business. I have been here 16 years, most of which have been in a situation where the government of the day has not had a majority. I fully and well understand that this place does only work with cooperation between all the parties because it is the norm that nobody has a majority and the government should be able to order the business. But that is not unconditional.

In this case we have the remarkable set of circumstances where there are some agreed bills which are urgent in the last week of June, bills that are budget bills or have 1 July start dates, which the government itself has pushed below the proposition that we deal with a bill which does not have a start date until not 2010 but 2011. It is two years away. The government knows full well our position that this legislation is irresponsibly being proposed in advance of the world’s consideration of the post-Kyoto framework for dealing with climate change which will occur in December. The government full well knows that this should not be dealt with before the United States, so there are exceptions to the rule that the government has control of the order of business. This is one of those cases where the government flagrantly seeks to have dealt with a bill prior to its own urgent legislation, a bill which it knows full well does not have majority support in this chamber. The government itself knows; the government is flagrantly setting this up for defeat. The government is so cynical that it is setting up its own bill for defeat because it knows it does not have the numbers. We absolutely defend what we are doing in relation to this. This is a rare exception to the rule that the government should order the business, but it is an exception where there is this flagrant behaviour on the part of government and where the opposition feels it must act.

The second allegation is that the opposition are too scared to debate this bill. Our position is very upfront. We announced some time ago our quite open position—that is, that this bill should be deferred. This bill should not be being dealt with. We have a motion still to be dealt with that the Senate defer consideration of this bill.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Interjections across the chamber from both sides are disorderly. Senator Minchin is entitled to be heard.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is our very upfront position that the government should defer consideration of this bill on the triple grounds that it does not have a start date for two years, that for Australia to legislate in advance of Copenhagen is utterly irresponsible and reckless, and that to advance this legislation prior to the United States legislating, the world’s biggest emitter of anthropogenic CO2, is ridiculous and reckless. So we have very good grounds and very public grounds. There is nothing we are hiding at all about this. It has been a position that we have held several weeks that this bill should be deferred. There is nothing secret about that.

We are very happy to debate this bill at the appropriate time. It is our upfront position that this bill should not be debated this week and we have motions on the Notice Paper to that effect, so we reject outright the proposition from the Senate leader. I would urge the Senate to support the motion now before the chair that the Senate deal with those bills which are in fact urgent and which the Australian people expect us to deal with which are budget bills or have 1 July start dates. Those are the bills which the Senate should be dealing with. As soon as we deal with those, we can resume debate on the government’s CPRS albeit that we believe that it is a bill which should be deferred.

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

Yesterday when I spoke in relation to an identical motion moved by Senator Parry—not identical but with the same substance of the motion—I indicated that I could not support it unless there was an undertaking by the government that it would agree to not having a vote on the second reading stages of the CPRS bills. I think it is fair to say that I have had some useful discussions with the government, the opposition and my crossbench colleagues in relation to this in the last 24 hours. I understand the government’s position is that they believe there ought to be a vote on the second reading stages of these bills. They do not resile from their position and I understand that.

My position is that I do not believe it is appropriate to have a vote on the second reading stage of the CPRS bills—not, as Senator Evans indicated, because I want to have some surveys and inquiries but rather to undertake some specific economic modelling on alternative scheme designs, because there is no bigger issue in terms of the economic and environmental welfare of this nation than the design and implementation of the CPRS bills, and my view is that we ought to get it right. I indicate that I will be giving notice of a motion, to be dealt with tomorrow, that there be further modelling undertaken and that the results of that modelling be provided to the Senate prior to the next sitting week of 11 August so that we have time to do that.

I understand the government’s position—their current position, and it may well be their future position—that they do not want that to take place but I think it is important in the context of this bill that we actually have an opportunity to model not only alternative scheme designs but also what the impact of even higher targets would be. That would give the Senate an opportunity to consider amendments to these very critical bills so that they can be fulsomely debated. That is my position in relation to that, and Senator Evans is right: I make no apology for the fact that I do not believe it is prudent to deal with the second reading stage of these bills this week. That is my agenda. I have been upfront about that.

Having said that, I will also be giving notice of a motion to be dealt with tomorrow that the question on the second reading of these bills not be put this week and that upon the next sitting week these bills be dealt with to their conclusion—so that there is no question but that when the Senate resumes in the week of 11 August; we will sit until we deal with them. I think that deals with the concern that Senator Evans had about these bills being put on the never-never. I indicate—and I have had a discussion with Senator Minchin about this—a commitment that these bills be dealt with in that week one way or the other. I want to say publicly that I take Senator Minchin absolutely on his word in relation to that and I am grateful for that commitment. So I think that resolves some of the issues. It is not what the government wants, but I think it deals with the dilemma of having these bills on the never-never, which Senator Evans referred to.

I think it would be extremely unwise for us to have a second reading vote on these bills this week in the absence of further economic modelling and without having amendments available as a result of that modelling for the Senate to consider. I think it is fair to say that the coalition ought to have the opportunity to see the results of that modelling and any amendments that are put up in relation to this package of legislation. I think that is a prudent course and I am prepared to support Senator Parry’s motion today as a result of failing to reach an understanding with the government that they would be prepared to put off the vote on the second reading of the CPRS bills this week. I understand the government’s position but I hope they can understand mine, which is that this seems the best way forward for what I consider to be the most important piece of legislation, in environmental and economic terms, that this parliament has ever dealt with.

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

What a mess, through a lack of application, the most important and potentially most catastrophic environmental and economic issue confronting this nation has got into because of the opposition and, on this occasion, Senator Xenophon and the silent Senator Fielding. The government announced the Garnaut report in December last year at the Press Club, and there was a responsibility upon all of us to come to this debate in mid-year fully equipped with the information that we needed.

There have been a number of Senate inquiries and, of course, consequent upon the inquiry that Senator Xenophon proposes we could propose another series of inquiries, because this is a field that is always moving; there is no limit to it. But we are charged with making decisions in the interests of this nation and getting on with the job. I submit that, after 11 years of inaction by the Howard government and now a two-year wait in this period of the Rudd government, it is time for the Senate to deliberate on this matter and carry it through to a vote. If the vote gets up, the legislation will be implemented; if it does not then we absolutely need to look at other models, other alternatives and, we Greens submit, a realistic application of the government’s responsibility for better targets and better facilitation of the nation’s move towards the green economy, which it should be moving towards.

I flag an amendment to Senator Xenophon’s motion tomorrow, which is that we get on with the determination on this matter this week. That is our responsibility and it is what we will be advocating tomorrow. But here we have the opposition saying none of that. They are saying: ‘We’re now confronted with the government’s climate change legislation. Let’s put it off so we can deal with the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill. That’s more important.’ They are so stuck on used cars that they cannot bring themselves to look at, as a priority, the greatest threat confronting the planet.

What a derelict attitude towards responsibility we are seeing unfold in the Senate, after all the debate—public, global, economic, environmental and in relation to employment—that we have seen on this issue. One way or another, the government is on a mission to get to Copenhagen with a determination from Australia, which it should expect out of the Senate. There should be a result. Senator Xenophon’s proposal does bear on the subtext in this place, which is a potential double dissolution election. That is also being put in front of the interests of the planet, in front of the interests of future generations and in front of us getting on with the business of greening the economy and creating the 800,000 to one million jobs that would come out of that restructure, as the Greens propose it. Double dissolution potential if, come August, this gets voted down would move to March—that is what is concentrating the minds of the opposition.

It is just not acceptable for the opposition to say, ‘We want to go out of this place not having voted on this legislation.’ At least Senator Xenophon is saying, ‘I have some specific alternative inquiries I want to make.’ The opposition are not saying that. They are saying, after 13 years of pig ignorance on climate change, of having our heads stuck in the sand: ‘We want more of that.’ That is a failure for this nation. That is a failure of responsibility. It is a failure of intellect and integrity.

What we are seeing unfold here is a filibuster not just in terms of speechifying and presenting vacuous, repetitive ideas to the Senate, which we are going to see in the coming week, but through procedural moves that amount to nothing more than dishonesty because the opposition are not stating what they are about—that is, they are about not having a determination on climate change legislation. I can tell you that the people of Australia will not be impressed by that. It is no way to treat this Senate. But, even more importantly, it is also no way to treat the interests of Australians, who are galvanised by this issue, who want action on this issue and who want people to be able to state what their situation is—and the Greens have been the first to do that because this is an area of priority for us. We have made it clear, first of all the parties in this place, that the targets should be commensurate with the Bali road map and that we should be going to Copenhagen with an intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 40 per cent if the rest of the world will entertain similar action; and by 25 per cent if they will not. We have added to that. If you go for the 25 per cent, you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country by the comparatively cheap alternative—instead of putting $16.5 billion into the big polluters, as the government legislation does—of ending the logging of forests and woodlands in this country and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent; in an industry that is not required, if you look at the wood needs of this nation. But we are not getting to that level of debate. What we are getting to here is boring procedural cat-and-mouse play for a political interest which is all to do with the next election and not with the future of this nation, and that is not good enough.

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

by leave—I seek leave to make a short explanation. In my contribution I should have indicated that Senator Minchin’s commitment was of course conditional upon the coalition’s motion with respect to these bills being delayed until after Copenhagen not succeeding. I apologise to Senator Minchin for not making that clear. I think that clarifies his position and clarifies my position.

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

I thought we had this debate yesterday. In fact, if people had seriously considered it yesterday, the vote would have been had yesterday. As I said yesterday, I am not interested in playing politics on this issue; I am interested in being very prudent. The government have made it absolutely clear that for good governance they need certain bills passed by 30 June, and what they are trying to do is play games rather than show good governance. They are trying to say, ‘Let’s get to the end of the week’ and then they will say, ‘Oh, quick, we’ve got these other bills to get through.’ They know what they are doing here. They know that they are supposed to manage business in a way that is conducive to good decision-making processes, and they have stuffed up. To be frank, it is left for the chamber to wait on them with nappies and tissues and to mop up after them. They have made a mistake; they have underestimated how much work has to be done here. Now they are trying to do things in reverse by covering the CPRS issue first. That will chew up a lot of time, and then there will be very little time left to deal with issues that we need to get through by 30 June.

I will make it quite clear that I do not take this issue of rearranging business lightly. Frankly, the government have failed. They are playing games, and I will not be part of the games that they are playing. It is prudent to cover first the issues that they have said need to be addressed and then, after those have been dealt with, get on with the CPRS.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not going to speak but I have been summonsed to speak because of Senator Evans’ commencement. Let us just go back to this: we could be dealing right now, right at this very minute, with the CPRS bills. That is what is scheduled for debate at this point in time. I did not speak when I got up because I thought it was a straightforward motion. Yesterday I did not waste half an hour and take up time with a suspension motion, nor did I today—and Senator Evans got up and spoke for 15 minutes. He wasted 15 minutes of the time for CPRS debate, and now it has gone around the chamber. Senator Minchin spoke only for five minutes; Senator Xenophon spoke for just under five minutes; Senator Fielding has done the same thing; Senator Brown spoke for slightly longer. But Senator Evans has taken up the most time in this debate.

We are keen to get back onto the CPRS now. Also, we have made it very clear that the opposition will not sit for extended hours this week, that we did not want to do it in any other week and that we would only do it if it was urgent legislation that had a start date of 1 July. We have facilitated this. I know the government are secretly happy that this motion has come forward, because they would have had to move a motion or come cap in hand and ask us to get back onto urgent legislation because they had run out of time. This is the crux of the matter: they have run out of time. So now we are going to get back onto the urgent legislation. We are going to transact the business of the Senate that is going to facilitate the 1 July start-up issues.

Also, Senator Brown indicated that this is a procedural debate and a time-wasting exercise. Through you, Mr President, I say to Senator Brown that this is not the case, because we have limited our time just to prosecuting our issue so that we can get back to legislation. With those words, let us bring back on the CPRS after this vote has been taken.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Parry’s) be agreed to.

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

I move government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Question agreed to.