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

I move:

That, on Thursday, 19 November 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 shall be government business only, and from not later than 4.45 pm shall be the government business order of the day relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills––second reading speeches only;

(d)

the routine of business from 3.30 pm till not later than 4.30 pm shall be valedictory statements;

(e)

divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

(f)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister; and

(g)

if the Senate is sitting at midnight, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9.30 am on Friday, 20 November 2009.

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

by leave—I rise to make a short statement. The opposition will not be supporting this motion, for reasons we have outlined previously in this chamber. I reiterate that we have constantly indicated to the government that the number of sitting weeks for this year has been totally inadequate. People set their diaries, their electorate business and their personal commitments around a sitting schedule that is designed to commence at the beginning of the year. We have flagged that the government needs to seriously reconsider the number of sitting weeks next year in this chamber. We cannot continue with this low number of weeks and then allow the government to continually rearrange the hours of sitting on an ad hoc basis. We believe we should have a firm sitting pattern for an entire year, not constant rearrangement. We have probably made the mistake of being too compliant and given the government so many extra hours during sitting weeks this year that they now just take it for granted. We have constantly been saying, no, we will not be extending hours. The government needs to rearrange its program to include a sufficient number of weeks to deal with the legislation that this chamber has to deal with.

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

by leave—I rise to make a short statement. Senator Parry is quite right. I reiterate that I have written twice to the Prime Minister—in September and then in October—pointing out the seriousness of the situation which we now see evolving, and recommending extra sitting weeks be scheduled before and after the session for the Senate. The Prime Minister did not reply. I had a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, who is not here at the moment, recommending this extension of sitting hours. No proper explanation was given as to why a much earlier rescheduling of the Senate time—which would have been a courtesy to all senators and constituents right across this country—could not be done. Instead, there was a disdainful view from the Prime Minister that the Senate would apparently jump to his offices’ dictates sometime this week or next. I hope that Senator Ludwig will take back to the government the very serious opposition to that form of cavalier treatment of the Senate. If the Prime Minister cannot read a written letter and bother responding to it, then he should read the Hansard. I recommend that the government take a very serious look at what is being said by the opposition, the Greens and other crossbenchers on this matter. It is no good getting up next week and bleating about matters that will not be dealt with because of the schedule. It will be entirely the fault of the government if that happens.

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

by leave—I rise to make a short statement. We have had a very similar debate on this point before. The way it is going at the moment, it looks like we are going to do it daily. Quite clearly the government cannot manage this chamber. The shortfall of hours and days is their doing. The hypocrisy of it is that this government has set sitting days for next year at 50 days—37 per cent fewer than a decade ago—and now you are coming in here, at the last second of the last minute, trying to scramble around for more time. We are nearly babysitting you. You cannot manage your way out of a wet paper bag. You have literally got yourselves into a mess. Quite clearly you had plenty of opportunity to fix this problem. We will have the same problem next year, and you will be doing the same thing in the last few weeks of next year—I bet you. You are not going to learn. So we will not be approving this, and you folks need to seriously consider how you manage this chamber. We nearly have to babysit you in this regard. It is a joke. It is an insult to the Australian public to think that you actually approved 50 sitting days next year—that is, 37 per cent fewer sitting days. I spoke against it before. It is outrageous.

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

by leave—The opposition, the minor parties and the Independents, including Senator Fielding, are entitled as always to criticise the government program. However, it has usually been the case—at least when we were in opposition and the opposition were in government—that towards the end of the program it is difficult to identify what bills still need to be dealt with and what the priorities of the government are. So the opposition usually provides assistance to the government by ensuring that we do have extended hours so we can deal with the work. The reality of this place is that, until you provide a focus towards the end of the program to ensure that bills can be passed with proper scrutiny—many of the bills have already been through committees and a range of scrutiny that this place provides—the usual mechanism and the usual courtesy that is provided to the government to ensure that its legislative program is passed is to extend the sitting hours.

There are 20-odd speakers left on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation, which highlights that this opposition is seeking to delay its passage. It is seeking to ensure that the legislation in this place is not dealt with before we finish for the year. That is the clear indication that the opposition and the minor parties have given. However, I will not call for a division on this motion because I do not want to waste any further time in dealing with it. It is clear that the opposition are only on one track and that is to delay.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move:

That immediately after motions to take note of answers, the routine of business for the remainder of the day shall be as follows:

(a)

valedictory statements, for not more than one hour;

(b)

any proposal pursuant to standing order 75;

(c)

government responses to parliamentary committee reports;

(d)

tabling of documents;

(e)

committee memberships;

(f)

general business notice of motion no. 636;

(g)

not later than 6 pm, consideration of government documents under general business; and

(h)

not later than 7 pm, consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports.

Question agreed to.