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

I move:

That the days of meeting of the Senate for 2010 be as follows:

Autumn sittings:

Tuesday, 2 February to Thursday, 4 February

Monday, 22 February to Thursday, 25 February

Tuesday, 9 March to Thursday, 11 March

Monday, 15 March to Thursday, 18 March

Budget sittings:

Tuesday, 11 May to Thursday, 13 May

Winter sittings:

Tuesday, 15 June to Thursday, 17 June

Monday, 21 June to Thursday, 24 June

Spring sittings:

Tuesday, 24 August to Thursday, 26 August

Monday, 30 August to Thursday, 2 September

Monday, 20 September to Thursday, 23 September

Tuesday, 28 September to Thursday, 30 September

Spring sittings (2):

Monday, 25 October to Thursday, 28 October

Monday, 15 November to Thursday, 18 November

Monday, 22 November to Thursday, 25 November.

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

by leave—I move:

After “Monday, 15 March to Thursday, 18 March”, insert:

Monday, 12 April to Thursday, 15 April

Monday, 19 April to Thursday, 22 April.

After “Monday, 21 June to Thursday, 24 June”, insert:

Monday, 2 August to Thursday, 5 August

Monday, 9 August to Thursday, 12 August.

We now have from the government a proposal for one of the shortest sitting years in history for next year after an extremely short sitting period for the Senate this year. There is a longstanding average of about 70 sitting days for the Senate, and a quick look at the recent performance since the Howard government got a majority in the Senate and tended to treat it like a rubber stamp shows less and less sitting time. So we are now sitting more like 50 days rather than 70 days. There is no good argument for that. The country has not been faced with less legislation, fewer problems or less for its MPs to do; in fact, quite the reverse is the case. As we all know in this chamber, we are now confronted with some tension over sittings between now and Christmas because while the opposition, for example, is arguing that there needs to be further debate on the emissions trading scheme and is proposing that that be debated into the new year, the government is saying it wants it through and would potentially propose that we sit longer. But the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Minchin, has written to the government saying that we will not sit longer.

The Greens have repeatedly raised the issue of the Senate being treated a bit like the House of Representatives, and that is as a captive of the executive. And it is not. This is the chamber for reviewing legislation and for making sure that the government gets it right in the interests of the people as a whole. We are looking at pretty monumental legislation like the emissions trading scheme legislation, like the new legislation to do with telecommunications in this country and legislation which has to help manage the economy at the time of the global financial crisis and the much longer crisis for the environment which faces not only this country but the planet. To be able to argue in the midst of that that we should be sitting less and less—I have not heard that argument; I simply see here a prescription for the government for that outcome. It is not acceptable, nor is it acceptable for the government serially to keep thinking that at the end of the year you can have late-hour Senate sittings, extra morning sittings, the potential for Friday sittings, the threat of weekend sittings and chaos by pressure at the end of each year. It is not sensible. We should be planning much better than that. If you cannot budget the Senate sitting hours, how can you be expected to come up with better budgeting for arguably more important things for the nation?

This amendment from the Greens says: ‘Let us sit an extra 16 days next year. That would bring the total to 66, still below the average.’ We know it is an election year. We know that in election years both houses of parliament tend to sit less, not more, because governments want to get out as early as they can once they have got an election date fixed in their mind. But that is not in the interests of the nation. What is in the interests of the nation is us sitting reasonably long times—not to pad out anything but to deal properly with legislation.

The government should look seriously at this, and I hope the opposition will as well. It is a very reasonable amendment that I am putting forward on behalf of the Greens, and I hope that the Senate will adopt it, remembering of course that it is up to us, if we find that we have more sitting time than required, to very simply go home. What is not so easy to arrange is if there are not sufficient sitting hours and we have to sit more, when senators have made arrangements for all manner of other communications, events and functions in their electorates and on the national scene. This is pure and simple good management that the Greens are proposing here. I hope that the government and the opposition will agree with it.

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

I indicate my support for the Greens motion. In my time as a member of the Legislative Council in the South Australian parliament, I was long an advocate for longer sitting days. The Senate has a key role in ensuring that the executive arm of government is accountable. I am concerned that there has been a reduction in sitting days in the last few years in the order of 30 per cent or so. I think it is important to support the amendment by Senator Bob Brown, because it is a sensible addition to the number of sitting days.

It is misleading, though, to say that this is all we do. As some have referred to in the media, this is not just the be-all and end-all. It is important that it is acknowledged that senators—invariably those who are not ministers—are involved in Senate committees. There is an enormous amount of work done with respect to that. There is our work with constituents—and, despite what members in the other place say, we do have constituents—and we deal with issues with individuals, community groups and key stakeholders in relation to a number of pieces of legislation. That is a key part of what we do. That is part of our job.

But I am concerned that the reduction in sitting days does not reflect our workload and does not allow adequate time for debate. Therefore I support Senator Bob Brown’s amendment to this motion, because I think it strikes a sensible balance in terms of additional sitting days for the Senate to do its job, to scrutinise legislation and the executive arm of government.

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

I was going to allow the opposition to speak first, because I might otherwise be perceived as closing the debate.

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

No. We would like to hear your argument. We would like to hear your view.

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

Thank you. I just did not want the perception that I might be closing the debate in relation to this matter.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. You are speaking to the amendment. You are in order.

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

I understand that, but there might be some on the other side who do not follow those niceties.

The program that is now being put forward is very similar to the program that was put forward last year. I will take the Senate through the program briefly. We usually come back around the first week in February, and in this case we are doing so again. We usually sit for two weeks then. In addition, we have to fit in the supplementary estimates, which are again there for a week for the Senate. If you look between February and April, you see that Easter comes early next year, which effectively limits the amount of time we can sit up to Easter. We are sitting quite a number of days during that period.

The Senate, like the House, has a non-sitting period between the end of Easter and May, for the budget to be able to be delivered on 11 May. The government would argue strenuously against the addition of two weeks of sitting in the middle of that period. That period is taken up by the Senate in two ways. It deals with committee inquiries that are put forward in February or which have been carried over from the previous year. The work of the Senate of course is not only within the chamber when the chamber is sitting but also dealing with committees. We also have a number of select committees currently operating—more than at any time in the past, I would imagine. In addition to that—and this is a matter that I might raise in another motion—there is substantial committee work now being referred by the opposition and the Greens to committees of the Senate to be dealt with. The Senate needs time to be able to deal with those references in a sensible way.

The period between the budget and July follows the usual sitting pattern. The budget week is, as usual, three days, when the budget work is dealt with. Then we have budget estimates, which follow that for two weeks, which is also the usual sitting pattern. Then we come back to deal with the budget bills for two weeks before what is commonly referred to as the winter recess. The second half of the year provides ‘two on, two off’—two weeks on followed by two weeks off—right through to the end of November.

I think you have to put this into two other frames. The first frame is that next year is a year in which an election could fall. Two things come from that. The first is that you would expect less legislation to occur during that period. The second is that you would expect, depending on how things occur, that part of the sitting pattern would then not be completed, although I cannot second-guess what the Prime Minister may determine.

The second frame—and this is always an issue that is raised—is that, if there are requirements for additional sitting days, the government can request those. In the past, that has generally met with agreement from the Senate, where it can be demonstrated that the government does have legislation to be dealt with and passed and there is work of the Senate to be done.

There is little practical benefit in scheduling sitting days where it could be perceived that there is no practical work—and that is a matter that has been complained of in the past with respect to bills and sitting days. As always, if there is a requirement for additional work the government has a prerogative to add sitting days to the program. In the past we have expanded the program or set aside particular times to accommodate bills.

I do not agree with Senator Brown’s proposition that we could schedule additional sitting days and then simply go home early. I think the reverse of that is a much better position to adopt. If there are bills to be dealt with, the government can indicate that additional time is required and then we can negotiate, depending on what particular type of bill it is. We can request those additional hours or days for the legislation to be dealt with. That is the process that has been adopted in the past and it is a more sensible program to adopt.

With Easter, the winter recess and what could happen in the course of the year, the 2010 sitting pattern allows the legislation of the Senate to be dealt with in a sensible way. In addition to that, in an election year the legislative requirements are sometimes slightly less. Senator Xenophon indicated that he prefers longer sitting days for the Senate. I agree with that, and that does occasionally occur. We usually deal with bills in the usual way. We ensure that we can have the second reading debate on Monday or Tuesday nights. The Senate has had long experience and practice in managing its program based on the government’s prerogative to put forward a program that is sensible and pragmatic—and the 2010 program recognises the realities of 2010.

Senator Brown has brought forward a range of arguments in this debate. I do not necessarily agree with Senator Brown’s arguments, but I do understand that the Senate always manages to deal with the legislative program and, up to this point, has been dealing with it in the way you would expect. The Senate does get through its legislative requirements in a workmanlike way.

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

In a decade’s time, if we go the way we have gone in the last decade, we will be sitting for something like 30 days a year. Ten years ago it was 79 days, and it is proposed that we sit for 50 days next year. What a joke! The government should be able to organise the sitting weeks such that we are not left rushing things through in an ad hoc way because of deadlines and trying to get extra sitting days at the last minute. It is a shambles! Clearly the government does not have a good handle on managing business in this chamber. There has been a 37 per cent drop in the number of sitting days since 10 years ago. At the same time, there has been a 40 per cent increase in the pay of MPs. Of course, we cannot spend all our time here—we have work to do in our electorates—but, when you get down to 50 days, the balance is out of kilter.

The government say they are quite happy about openness, transparency and scrutiny—but they want to have a lack of scrutiny of their legislation in the parliament. They cannot justify a proposal to sit for 50 days next year. No way! But they think they can just come in here and slip it through. I am hoping the opposition will show a bit of backbone and, rather than just talking about the government not being able to manage their business, say that we need to have extra sitting days scheduled for next year. The opposition cannot justify 50 days and then stand up here tomorrow and say: ‘The government cannot run their business; they cannot manage the process. They cannot come in here and try to squeeze it through in the few days we have got left.’ You cannot say that today, tomorrow, next week or in the next sitting period. You have to stand up here today and say, ‘The government have lost the plot in trying to manage their business in this chamber,’ and you have to vote for extra sitting days next year. Extra sitting days next year is not too much to ask for. This is a new government and the legislation they are putting forward needs proper scrutiny in this chamber. The opposition cannot come in here and argue that we should not sit more hours because the government cannot order their business. They have to be very careful about the decision they make on this.

Extra sitting weeks for next year need to be agreed to. It is extremely important. Scrutiny of legislation is important. Debate is important. Unfortunately this government want to rush things through and not have proper debate in this chamber. In 1999 there were 79 sitting days. In 2000 there were 71 sitting days. Under the Rudd government we have 52 days, 52 days and 50 days. In 2008 we had 52 days. In 2009 we had 52 sitting days. In 2010 we will have 50 sitting days. It is going in the wrong direction; it needs to go up. So Family First will be supporting the extra sitting weeks for next year.

It needs to be planned; it needs to be orderly. Coming in here at the last minute to try to get extra days and hours here is not right. Again, the pressure is going to be on the opposition here to argue the case for not having extra sitting weeks next year. We needed more sitting weeks this year, but it needed to be planned; there should not have been an attempt to do it at the last minute, as if a gun were being held against our head. This needs to be put through and the government needs to come in here and explain why there are only 50 days. Why is it not back up around 70 days? It needs to be back up around that level. You cannot justify it not being at that level.

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

There is a simple solution to this: re-elect a coalition government and we will increase the sitting hours and sitting weeks. If that message got out loud and clear, that would solve all these problems. We agree with the Greens, Family First and Senator Xenophon that the government has not planned sitting hours well for this year or, indeed, next year.

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

Nor did the coalition.

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

The coalition planned for a lot more sitting weeks, if I could take the interjection from Senator Brown. We need to have more sitting weeks in a year; there is no argument about that. There is an overriding premise, though, that the government of the day sets the agenda. The government of the day will set the sitting agenda for each year. It is something that we have always agreed with and supported. However, I give notice to the government for the future. Hopefully we will be back on the treasury bench for the next sitting calendar scheduling but, if we are not and if the government does not set it correctly, we will then support the minor parties—if they are still here as well—in setting a better sitting time frame for each year.

I have been on the record on three separate occasions this year indicating that the sitting schedule has not been long enough. You cannot just come to the last two or three weeks of a sitting schedule and say we need to increase the hours now. This should have been done when we needed to set the calendar at the beginning of the year. We are going to ensure that the government has the running of the program, but again the warning to the government is there: if it does not set adequate hours, we will move away from that long-held tradition of letting government set the sitting pattern and start to run interference in that program to make sure that we have adequate sitting times.

I indicate that the opposition has been reluctantly supportive of occasional extended hours when the government have come to us to ask for them. But, going back to the middle of the year, I indicated that this would not go on forever. We are not going to constantly prop up a government that does not set enough hours in its program. We even had the ludicrous situation earlier in the year where the government deliberately filibustered debate in a very light sitting year in order to negotiate with minor parties. We wasted days upon days with negotiation when that could have been usefully utilised for legislation. We will not be supporting the Greens with their amendment, purely on the basis that the government of the day should be enabled and should be given the right to set a sitting schedule, but again the warning is there: set it better or we will start to interfere.

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

Poor decision making is becoming a hallmark of this government, putting Australia’s future at risk. One of the reasons why it is important to have the maximum number of sitting days is to ensure that the government is totally accountable for the poor decisions that it has made. The Greens come in without any warning and move this motion for additional sitting days and then rail against how unaccountable the government is, but you can rest assured that at the next election, whenever it is, the Greens will again preference the Labor Party, as they have done throughout their history.

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

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

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

Senator Brown, it is a bit like the Queensland election, when you railed against the Traveston Crossing dam and told everyone how terrible it was and how it was an environmental nightmare. Then you gave preferences to the Labor Party in Queensland to ensure their re-election.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: if the honourable senator wants to go to the coalition’s plan for 11 extra dams in Queensland, he should address the chair, not me.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is no point of order and you know that.

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

He should address the chair, not me. That is a point of order and you should adopt it.

The Acting Deputy President:

He is getting around to it; there is plenty of latitude. There is no point of order.

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

If there is not a point of order that the speaker should address the chair, I would ask you to refer that to the President for a further ruling.

The Acting Deputy President:

You should address the chair on the issue, Senator Macdonald.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will continue to address you, as I was doing until interrupted by an interjection from Senator Brown, who seems to be very keen on applying the standing orders when they relate to others but not when they relate to him. Of course, he should know that interjecting is disorderly and is not allowed. But that is typical of the Greens: one rule for them and different rules for everybody else.

I can understand why Senator Brown is very sensitive about the issue of supporting the Labor Party. I continue to raise the issue of the Traveston Crossing dam in Queensland; the Greens railed against it but then supported the Labor Party, who are hell-bent and determined to build the Traveston Crossing dam. It just shows the hypocrisy, yet again, of the Greens. They will continue to support the Labor Party at the next election, which means supporting this shorter sitting period.

It is absolutely disgusting of the Labor Party to continually reduce the number of weeks that we sit every year. Under the Howard government there was a very substantial increase in the sitting weeks because we were a government that was accountable and we wanted people to understand and to be able to challenge the then government and to look very carefully at legislation that came before the parliament. The poor decisions of this government that are putting Australia’s future at risk should be subject to scrutiny, but it should be up to the government, as Senator Parry has said, to set the program so there is the maximum number of days.

We all know that there will be an election next year. That is going to mean that whatever we decide today is going to be of little consequence because, as I say, the election is due about this time next year and so the sitting days for the balance of next year will be a matter for the new government. Hopefully, it will be a government that will have the maximum sitting hours available.

The one thing on which I do agree with the Greens is how this government has continually cut back on debate and then filibusters its own legislation to stop other parties from properly debating and discussing important legislation before the chamber. We then get this hypocrisy from the Labor Party pleading for extra days because they cannot get their legislation dealt with. They should have thought about that this time last year when they set the program and they should be thinking about that today in looking at next year’s program.

I would urge the government to withdraw this sitting program and to come back to the Senate with a new program that does allow the scrutiny that Mr Rudd is so vocal about giving. He continues to say how open and accountable his government is and yet the hallmark, the measure of this issue, is how many days the parliament sits. We know in the other chamber there is never any debate; every single bill is cut off by the government so that it cannot be properly debated by the House of Representatives. We know because of the numbers over there that the Liberal and National parties have no opportunity to oppose those cut-offs, those guillotines, that are so often applied by the other chamber. But here in the Senate chamber we do have an ability to hold the government accountable. I would urge Senator Ludwig to withdraw this sitting program and to come back to the Senate with a sitting pattern that does allow for the proper scrutiny without begging and bullying the other parties in this chamber for additional days and additional hours towards the end of every sitting.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.