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

by leave—Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Minchin, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Minchin moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to provide that the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2009 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other government business today till determined.

I will not hold the Senate up for long. Our actions in relation to this bill are directly related to the government’s ill-considered decision to cut patient rebates for cataract surgery by 46 per cent. This was implemented by the government immediately after a previous 50 per cent cut was disallowed by the Senate. We would have preferred to do this in a much more timely and efficient manner. The Manager of Opposition Business had a discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate to find a way to smoothly handle this process, with the intention of essentially wasting as little time as possible so that we could go back to other important business of the Senate. However, given that the government did not cooperate with the very constructive suggestions made by the Manager of Opposition Business, the government does not leave us any other choice than to proceed along these lines.

I remind the Senate that on 28 October 2009 the Senate disallowed the Rudd government’s cold-hearted cut to patient rebates for cataract surgery through Medicare. We as a Senate did that in a very responsible way. We first passed a private member’s bill, which would have seen any disallowed items revert back to the previously applicable rebates for cataract surgery. Only then did we move the disallowance.

Instead of taking due note of and accepting the Senate’s actions, the minister completely thumbed her nose at the Senate. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who does not realise that she is a minister in a parliamentary democracy. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who seems to think that she is a minister in a dictatorship. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who does not realise that in our parliamentary democracy there is both the House of Representatives and the Senate and that if the Senate passes a disallowance motion there are some consequences. If the government wants to take certain actions through regulations and those actions are disallowed in the Senate, there ought to be consequences. But this is a minister who does not think that what happens in the Senate matters one bit.

The minister came out with a series of spurious claims and assertions. The first thing she said was that the bill that was passed by the Senate was unconstitutional and it should not have been introduced and passed in the Senate. That was a completely unfounded and incorrect assertion made by the minister. I remind the Senate that the minister said in the House of Representatives at the time that she was happy to provide a copy of the legal advice that was provided to her. Since then, we have chased the minister incessantly and she has refused to provide us with a copy of that advice, even though she herself promised in the House of Representatives that she would provide one. Every time that the Senate has passed an order in relation to this, government senators have voted to help the Minister for Health and Ageing essentially duck and weave and not provide us with that information. She has also said a whole range of other things which are not right, and I will deal with those on the debate proper on the amendment.

I have a final point—a bit of a constitutional newsflash for Minister Roxon. Minister Roxon, I am sending you this message: you can not limit the constitutional power of the Senate through a departmental briefing note to executive government and you cannot expand the constitutional power of executive government through a departmental briefing note to executive government. We had advice from the Clerk of the Senate that those bills were completely constitutional. We have to deal with this now through the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill, which we want to bring on for debate now so that, prior to the disallowance motion being dealt with by the Senate on Wednesday, the government will have had the opportunity to deal with this piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. I remind the Senate that a fortnight ago the government stopped this legislation in the House of Representatives at the last minute.

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

Clearly, the opposition are now trying any tactic they can not to deal with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In addition they are making sure—this is about choices—that we are not going to deal with the student income support bill. There are many, many students out there whose needs are not being dealt with.

We now see clearly the position the opposition are seeking to take in dealing with the legislative program. It is a longstanding principle in this place—a convention that has existed as far back as when I was the Manager of Opposition Business and, as I understand it, as far back as when Senator Carr was the Manager of Opposition Business—that in this place the government, not the opposition, determines the program. Why? Because it ensures that the business of the Senate is dealt with. The opposition do not get to lecture from their side. They can of course deal with how the vote is then taken. It is always within the opposition’s power to dictate that.

The opposition are trying on a stunt to ensure that we are not going to go on to deal with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. More importantly, you are not only delaying—

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

You’re wasting time.

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

but overturning the longstanding principle in this place that the government determines the legislative program and taking it upon yourselves to determine it. Whereas last week you complained about the ability of the government to deal with the program and complained of not having enough hours, you are now sucking hours from the debate that could be available for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation and the income support for students legislation.

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

Where is the deal?

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

In dealing with that you are then determining how the program will run, so, whether you like it or not, you are actually arguing against yourself. It is the government’s right to reorganise and deal with the program. The opposition does not have the ability to do that. You are now breaking longstanding principles in this place.

Last week I had a lecture from Senator Fielding in this place about managing the program. It is your right to be critical of the program but if you want to manage the program as you are now doing you are putting at risk the proper order as to how bills are dealt with in this place. The delay that you are now inflicting—as you have indicated, I have roughly three or four minutes to deal with the rejection of this motion, and it should be rejected out of hand—is nothing more than a stunt perpetrated by Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann is seeking to give precedence to a bill that this government has not given priority to; that this government has not determined shall be dealt with today.

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

It was on the red last fortnight.

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

It is the prerogative of the government, not of the opposition, to deal with the legislative program. Senator Cormann has drawn the bill from the Notice Paper not so that he can amend it with a related amendment but so that he can tack an unrelated amendment onto it and send it off to the House to deal with. It is nothing more than a foolish stunt perpetrated by the opposition to hijack the legislative program in this place. Senator Cormann is in defiance of the program that we have set. It is not the prerogative of the opposition to cherry pick legislation.

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

It is the prerogative of the Senate.

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

This is clearly an abuse of the Senate and Senator Cormann knows that, which is why he protests so much about the position that he has taken. It is also tactically dumb. The opposition will have to call themselves on to decide how they are going to vote on this—whether they are going to support the delaying tactic that Senator Cormann has put forward or whether they will pull him into line and indicate to this chamber that it is the government’s prerogative, not the opposition’s prerogative, to deal with the legislative program. There is no argument about how you might want to vote on a particular piece of legislation; that is clearly within your purview—although I am not sure you will be up to it when we turn to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Senator Cormann.

Another thing I want to deal with is that the bill Senator Cormann seeks to give precedence to does not deal with the substance of the matter. (Time expired)

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

I did not propose to rise to speak on this motion until I heard some of the horrendous comments from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Let me correct the record as briefly as I can. Firstly, Senator Cormann did not take up his full five minutes, though I note that Senator Ludwig did. Secondly, this is not a matter of delaying; this is a matter of getting through some legislation that we flagged with you. I place on record for the chamber that I went to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and indicated that we would like to do this in a far more conducive manner, and he refused, which is his right. He wanted to test it on the floor of the chamber and he wanted to have the suspension debate as well, which he is doing. I have no problem with him doing that. The problem is that he is blaming us for the delay. It is you delaying it—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi—not us.

It is not just the opposition raising this. If it were, we could not effect it. It is the opposition with the support of two other senators. On that side you have to get used to the reality that the dynamics of this chamber are different. The government does not have a majority. Nor does the opposition but, when a majority of senators agree on a course of action, that means it is the will of the Senate. Just accept the will of the Senate when it happens. Once you get over that, I think you will find the place runs a lot more smoothly.

We are not delaying the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme debate. We will not be ready to go into the committee stage tomorrow because we will still be considering the legislation in the party room, so we would have had a gap in the legislative agenda. It is an absolute furphy that this is a delaying tactic. It is not, because we would have ended up with a vacuum.

Another reason we are dealing with it now—which I offered you; you wanted to do it on Wednesday—is that the House of Representatives have to have the chance to consider it before they rise. So we are going to deal with it now and get it across to the House of Representatives, then it can come back again. We are considering all the aspects of this. We are actually assisting you with a process. You wanted to have a debate on suspension; you now have the debate. We were going to deal with it quickly. We had an agreement for brief contributions by the senators wishing to speak so it would be a brief debate to facilitate us getting the bill out of here and getting back onto the legislative program.

Contrary to the suggestion that this has got nothing to do with health insurance, the amending bill that Senator Cormann is seeking to deal with is the Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2009. It has got everything to do with what Senator Cormann is suggesting and proposing. I think a bit of honesty and a bit of factual debate would assist. I will sit down now. I will not take my full five minutes so as to allow us to get on with the job, but do not blame us. You are the one, Senator Ludwig, who brought on the suspension because you would not give us time.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been in this chamber now for 16 years and there have been two occasions when attempts have been made to reorganise the program from the opposition benches—both of them by Senator Cormann. In those 16 years, what I have seen is the acceptance by all sides of this chamber that it is the government that takes responsibility for the production of the legislative program and the order of business for that legislative program. That is the position that has been held fast to through governments from both sides of this chamber. We have here an opposition that feels it is able to rip up the conventions of this Senate and of this parliament because it cannot get what it wants through the ballot box. We heard this before in 1975.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order on relevance: I cannot believe, in light of the work program we have got this week, that this minister is being so completely irrelevant to the matter before the chamber.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1975 we had a view being expressed by the Liberal-Country Party coalition, as they were known at the time, that they could run the government from the opposition benches in the Senate. They took the view that they were able to determine the direction of this country, in terms of the government’s program, from the opposition benches. We are seeing a repeat of that sort of reckless disregard for the conventions of our parliamentary democracy by this group of constitutional hooligans, who are seeking to avoid their responsibilities when it comes to fulfilling their functions in our bicameral system of government. It is the job of the opposition to criticise the government. It is the job of the opposition to evaluate legislation. It is not the job of the opposition to order the legislative program in the manner that they see fit. That was the position we took in opposition. Throughout the entire period in which I was Manager of Opposition Business, not once did we seek to determine the legislative program by order. That was the government’s prerogative.

The result of the opposition’s cavalier disregard for the conventions of this parliament and this chamber is that we are not able to discuss the question of whether or not 150,000 students will be able to receive scholarships next year. The government’s intention was to bring back a bill on the question of student scholarships. There are 150,000 Australian students whose welfare will be adversely affected if the dispute between this Senate and the House of Representatives is not resolved in the next three days. If that does not occur, then 150,000 students will not be able to access scholarships next year. The decision of this opposition to move on this stunt, to determine to flex their muscles in order to avoid the political problems within their coalition, means that 150,000 students will not get access to government money for scholarships next year.

The opposition are reckless. They are behaving in a completely irresponsible manner. They are contemptuous of the political conventions of this place. They have a complete disregard for the proper governance of this country. Why? Because there is a political and ideological problem inside the coalition, which means that they are not able to determine the direction of their own coalition yet are trying to determine the direction of the legislative program in this chamber so that they can get away with avoiding the contradiction that exists within their ranks. The government will expose them for what they have done. The government will seek at every possible opportunity to highlight the obstructionist nature of the political position they are taking in this chamber. They are reckless and they have a complete disregard for the political conventions of this chamber and it will weigh very heavily upon them when the public comes to understand the reckless nature of their attitudes and the cavalier disregard they have for the proper running of this chamber.

Question put:

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