Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Mr President, the Greens will be asking that the question be put separately on the second procedural motion that these bills be taken together. We do not seek to have them taken together.

I will put the question in respect of each of the bills separately—that they proceed without formalities, be taken together and be read a first time.

Mr President, the Greens ask that you put the questions separately. We do not support them being taken together.

That is what I am doing. The question is that these bills may proceed without formalities.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the bills now be taken together.

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Can I clarify something first?

Yes, you may. It might help us all.

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

by leave—My understanding is that the bills will be taken together. The Greens do not want this and I understood that Senator Siewert just called for a division on that particular motion but is now seeking to make a statement before the calling of that division.

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

That is what I could not hear and I am now trying to work out precisely what is happening.

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

We will grant leave for Senator Siewert to make a two-minute statement.

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

Senator Siewert, in lieu of calling a division you are seeking to make a statement; is that correct?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and then I would like you to put the question.

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

All right, I will then put the question again. That will clear things up.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens are seeking for these private health insurance bills not be put together because we have separate positions on each of the bills and we do not think it is therefore appropriate that the bills be taken together. We want the ability to be able to comment and vote on these bills separately because they are dealing with two separate issues. One is about means testing the rebate, which the Greens have been very clear about supporting; the other is about the increase to the Medicare surcharge levy, which the Greens have a different opinion on and would like to discuss separately. By putting these bills together, the government forces the debate to be taken together. I can see what they are trying to do; however, the Greens believe differently. We would like to be able to comment and potentially vote on the bills differently. We have made no bones about the fact—and I said this last time in the chamber—that we support the concept of means testing the rebate. We have a different opinion on the surcharge and we would like to be able to comment and vote on that differently. Rather than cause confusion during the committee process by debating these bills together, it would be better to deal with them separately. We are seeking to split the bills so that they can be dealt with separately.

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

Just so we understand where we are at: the question before the chair is that the bills be taken together.

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

I understand the process. The Greens are seeking to split the bills and deal with them separately. I do not believe that that would then alter the way you would deal with it in committee, quite frankly. We would be able to deal with them. As we deal with all bills, we deal with them in seriatim and the Committee of the Whole process is designed to ensure that the questions are put separately in relation to amendments to each particular bill. So I think you would achieve the same objective. In dealing with them separately, it means that you would have three second reading debates and you would then extend the period because people could then choose to speak on each individual bill. You would then have three separate committees of the whole. It would take a significant time. The government does object to that. Where bills are related bills they can be dealt with concurrently and it is a more sensible process, in the government’s view, to deal with them in that way. You are now seeking to use up more of the time of the Senate—and we all know that the time of the Senate is precious to deal with the legislative program which we have before us. Without going into a full-blown debate on this, I have indicated that the government’s position is to oppose the matter.

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

The Greens had not alerted us to the fact but we have some sympathy with them wishing to vote separately on the bills, as presented by Senator Siewert. I think we are inclined to support Senator Siewert on the understanding that that is the only way the Greens will be able to vote separately on the bills. In light of that, we will support the Greens.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

There is no need to seek leave. There is a motion before the chair, so you can speak to the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I have a question I would like to put to you, if that is appropriate. Given the government’s concerns about having three separate committee stages and also the concerns of the Greens that there be a separate vote—given that they have, as I understand it, a different position in relation to one of the bills—is it possible under the standing orders for there to be a Committee of the Whole in respect of all the bills but then for there to be a separate vote with respect to the bills that are the subject of the Greens’ concerns?

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

Senator Xenophon, it is a matter for the committee to determine how to handle them. They can determine that they are going to handle them together or individually. That is not a matter for me to determine from the chair. Senator Xenophon, you will need leave now.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr President. Can you confirm whether, at the third reading stage, it is possible for there to be a separate vote on the various bills?

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

That is always possible at the third reading stage—that is, for the bills to be divided and put separately.

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

Mr President, to me the argument seems quite academic. If some senators—indeed the Greens and agreed to by us—want to deal with the bills separately, I do not see what the argument is about having the committee stage together. In any case, the committee stage will deal with each bill separately and, if there are amendments to each individual bill, they will be dealt with one after the other rather than all together. So I do not see that there is any problem with dealing with the whole three bills quite separately but one after the other.

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

The question is that the bills be taken together.

Question negatived

The question now is that the bills be read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.