Senate debates
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Business
Suspension of Standing Orders
10:34 am
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis from moving that the Senate take note of the President’s ruling forthwith.
Mr President, without reflecting on your ruling—which I do not do—the fact is that the motion upon which the Senate lately deliberated was a motion that the motion be put.
The motion that was before the chamber at the time that motion was deliberated upon was not the motion that Minister Ludwig is now reading. And we know what this is all about because in the original motion, the only motion that was before the chamber at the time the question was put, was a guillotine motion which would have included, among other things, eliminating question time. Plainly, embarrassed by the revelation that that motion would have eliminated question time, the government sought late in the piece to change the motion to reinstate question time. But you know, Mr President, and every senator present in this chamber is well aware, that the government’s original plan was to eliminate question time.
Everyone accepts that both sides of this chamber when in government have on occasions moved the guillotine, moved the gag. That charge has been levelled against us in interjections from the government benches, and it is true. During the Howard government, we moved the guillotine on a number of occasions, but never—and I think you will find, if you look at the precedent books, not once in the history of the Australian Senate—has a guillotine motion eliminated question time. This is a new depth in parliamentary practice which has been imposed by this government with the willing connivance of the Greens—whose heroic talk about parliamentary scrutiny, the role of the Senate and transparency in government is revealed for the fraud that it is—and, I am sorry to say, with the connivance and support of Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding as well. They perhaps, to give them the benefit of the doubt, may have been lulled into not appreciating that the motion before the chamber at the time was to eliminate question time. So let the record show that today, 25 November 2010, for the first time in the history of this Senate, an Australian government, in moving the guillotine, sought to eliminate question time. How can any Labor senator or any Greens senator ever again, without obvious hypocrisy, talk about openness in government, parliamentary scrutiny or transparency?
If it is possible that it could be worse than that, it is, because we know that this was a pre-ordained plan. Senator Conroy, the stupidest person in this place, gave it away yesterday.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy gave it away yesterday when at the end of question time he merrily waved across to the opposition benches and said, ‘Happy Christmas. See you next year.’ So Senator Conroy was in on the fix. He well knew that there would be no question time today, Thursday. That is why at the end of question time yesterday it caused some of us to be a little curious, I might say, as to why Senator Conroy would anticipate that he would not be here to answer questions the next day. The reason was that the government had already decided as early as question time yesterday that yesterday’s question time would be the last question time of the year.
Now, we can understand why this government would want to protect from scrutiny a struggling, weak and failing minister in Senator Stephen Conroy—
David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Johnston interjecting—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
A man overboard indeed, Senator Johnston. But to stoop to a new low in Australian parliamentary democracy, to actually vote to suspend the standing orders so that there could be no question time, reasonably expecting that the question time would be largely directed to the minister—the weak, struggling, failing, hopeless, flailing minister they were trying to protect—is unprecedented. Mr President, the ruling you have given, while I do not reflect upon it, was a ruling in relation to a motion that the question be put. The only question that this Senate has decided is that the motion— (Time expired)
10:40 am
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the question be now put.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Are we moving my motion? Senator Ludwig moved a motion that the motion be put. I am moving my motion to suspend standing orders.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is exactly right. I now put the question. We will now vote on it.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On my motion to suspend standing orders?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes. The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.
10:54 am
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The remaining terms of the motion have been circulated headed ‘Revised’. The correct terms of the motion are those which have been circulated headed ‘Revised’. I now move:
That the question be put.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is still unclear what motion is actually before the Senate at present because there are two different motions floating around.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I said ‘Revised’.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I understand from side comments I hear that the motion is headed ‘Revised’. All I can do is give you the information; I cannot enter into the debate.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. I seek leave to take note of the information that you have just provided to the Senate.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to take note of your ruling.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You have just said no.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, it is a ruling whether it is described as such or not because Senator Cormann raised a point of order. You have disposed of his point of order with the remarks you have just made. That is a ruling whether described as such or not.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Mr President, as the opposition well know, they queried the resolution being put. Senator Ludwig explained across the chamber and the President formally advised the chamber of that information so as to answer Senator Cormann’s query. There is no point of order on this point raised by Senator Brandis. The chamber is aware of the resolution that has been put and it ought to be put.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The chamber is not.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brandis, I cannot help you keep up if you are not prepared to keep up.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order, you provided me with information and I sought leave for the Senate to take note of the information you provided to the Senate.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We are in the middle of another motion that is before the chair, and that is that the motion be put.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I raise a point of order. There is no clarity at all. So far there have been two documents circulated and also Senator Ludwig before the previous procedural motion was halfway through reading his motion. So we now have two written motions before the chamber and a motion which was read halfway. So we now have three motions potentially before the chamber.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 199. It reads:
1. The motion that the question be now put is not open to debate or amendment and shall be forthwith put by the President and determined.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The motion before the chair is that the motion be put.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The consistent advice that I have received from the Clerk right from the day when I started is that at any one point of the procedure an individual senator can seek leave and the chamber can decide whether to give or deny leave. I ask you to put the question as to whether I have leave to take note of the information that you have provided to the Senate.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I understood that that has already been resolved. Senator Brandis, I am not sure what your point of order is, but we will come back to it in a moment. The question is that the question be now put. That is the question before the chair.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, I am not entertaining that. I have to abide by the standing orders. The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What is the question?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the question be now put. That is the question.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, Senator Cormann raised with you a point of order. You made some observations in relation to the point of order. Senator Cormann then sought leave to take note of your ruling. You said: ‘I haven’t made a ruling. I’ve merely provided information.’ I then took another point of order, my point of order being that, regardless of whether or not you characterised what you said as providing information, you had disposed of Senator Cormann’s point of order and therefore that was a ruling, whether described as such or not. I have not had a ruling on my point of order.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brandis, I have ruled that there is a motion before the chair. The motion before the chair is that the question be put. In accordance with standing orders, I will be dispensing with that question before the chair.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to move that the Senate take note—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, I do not have to entertain that. The question is that the motion—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, a senator may seek leave to do anything at any time. If leave is refused, he may then move to suspend standing orders if he so chooses. Mr President, I maintain that you have given a ruling on Senator Cormann’s point of order. But whether that be right or wrong, you have certainly given a ruling on my point of order. Senator Cormann is perfectly at liberty to seek leave to take note of your ruling on my point of order, which, as I understand it, is what he has done. The fact that he has done so is currently the question before the chair.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brandis, there is no point of order. The question before the chair is that the motion be put.
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, the scenario that has been put to you by Senator Brandis and Senator Cormann is exactly the scenario upon which the Senate went to two divisions some 10 minutes ago. The circumstances are exactly the same. There is no difference between the motion put by Senator Brandis and the motion put by Senator Cormann. If you are now refusing to take Senator Cormann’s motion, that is a completely inconsistent ruling.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question before the chair is quite clearly that the motion be put, which is a closure motion. A closure motion is not subject to further debate and has to be put. I will put that motion.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Cormann moved a motion and that motion is now the question before the chair.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No. That question has not been accepted as being before the chair because I already have a question before the chair, which is a closure motion that I need to put.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I moved a motion that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from taking note of your ruling. So we have to deal with my motion to suspend standing orders.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Cormann, that is not correct.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Through all the gag motions moved through the Howard years, I have never seen this process before. The rule that I read to you, rule 199, says that you—
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, it is. The point of order is that you have to put this motion forthwith. All this is against the standing orders, Mr President. I ask you to abide by the standing orders and put the motion forthwith.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brown, I will be putting the motion forthwith.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I direct your attention to standing order 197(3). It reads:
A question of order or a matter of privilege so raised suspends the consideration and decision of every other question until determined.
Senator Cormann has raised a question of order. The moment that he raised that question of order, the consideration of every other question was suspended, including Senator Ludwig’s motion.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. The question is that the motion by put.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move that the Senate take note of your ruling.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brandis, I have an obligation to put the motion that the question be put. That is what I will be doing, Senator Brandis. I will be putting the closure motion. How people deal with the matter after it has been put to the vote is something for the Senate to determine.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, it does seem that there is a lot of merit in Senator Brandis’s point of order in relation to standing order 197(3), which says:
A question of order … so raised suspends the consideration and decision of every other question until determined.
There is no other way, with respect, Mr President, that that can be read other than: if there is a point of order raised, that does need to be dealt with. In those circumstances I would be obliged if you would reconsider your ruling.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said before, there is no point of order. My obligation is to put the motion that sees the closure. There are other mechanisms that can be used in this debate if people wish to use them, but I have to put the motion. The motion is: that the question be now put.
Question put.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Ludwig be agreed to.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, under standing order 195, could the Clerk please read out the motion?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I can invoke the ruling of President Culvert on this matter, which is simply that the motion, as I understand, has been circulated in the chamber and Senator Culvert has—
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Which one?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is the revised motion. We will get the Clerk to read it.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I cannot hear.
The Clerk:
The motion before the chamber is headed: ‘Revised: motion circulated in the chamber on 25 November 2010’. The motion is:
That:
- (1)
- On Thursday, 25 November 2010, t he hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 7 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm.
- (2)
- The Senate meet on Friday, 26 November 2010, and that the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 3.30 pm.
- (3)
- The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined, except at 2 pm on Thursday, 25 November 2010, questions without notice shall be asked for one hour.
- (4)
- The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 shall be considered under a limitation of debate.
- (5)
- The time allocated for the remaining stages of the bill shall be as follows:
- (a)
- committee of the whole––till 11.45 am, on Friday, 26 November 2010;
- (b)
- all remaining stages––till 12 noon, on Friday, 26 November 2010; and
- (c)
- this order operate as an allocation of time under standing order 142.
- (6)
- At the conclusion of the consideration of the business listed in paragraph (3), the order of business be:
- (a)
- tabling of a report of the Selection of Bills Committee;
- (b)
- consideration of the following government business notices of motion:No. 1 – Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) – Introduction of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill 2010No. 2 – Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) – Introduction of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2010No. 3 – Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) – Exemption of bills from the provisions of standing order 111 (5) to (8) concerning the consideration of legislation (Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010; and Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010) No. 5 – Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water (Senator Farrell) – Approval of works within the Parliamentary Zone (external expansion to the Abacus childcare centre at the Treasury building); and
- (c)
- consideration of the following government business orders of the day:No. 4–Airports Amendment Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateNo. 5–Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateNo. 6–Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateNo. 7–Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateCorporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010No. 8–Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateFinancial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010No. 9–Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debateNo. 10–Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 – Resumption of second reading debate.
- (7)
- Notices of motion may be lodged in writing on Friday, 26 November 2010.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, seeking clarification, does that mean that this motion cannot be amended now that we have passed those procedural—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I understand that the debate on the motion has closed and that the motion will now be put.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And, therefore, we will not be able to take note of answers later on today, if this motion gets carried?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brown says, ‘Correct.’ I hope that is in Hansard. Thank you very much.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.
11:27 am
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion to amend the revised order of business.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me forthwith from moving a motion to amend the revised order of business.
Mr President, the order of business that has just been decided upon by the Senate as a result of the division is now, in effect, the ‘Red’ for the next two days, and the opposition—or, indeed, any senator—may amend the ‘Red’.
The amendments that the opposition proposes are these: in paragraph (3) there be added the words ‘and a 30-minute debate for motions to take note of answers to questions’, after (2) there be added (2A) ‘The Senate shall meet on Saturday, 27 November 2010 and that the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 3.30 pm’, in (5)(a) the words and expressions ‘11.45 am’ be deleted and the words and expressions ‘3.30 pm’ be inserted in their place, in (5)(b) the words ‘12 noon, on Friday 26 November 2010’ be omitted and in substitution for them there be inserted the words ‘12 noon, on Saturday 27 November 2010’.
The opposition embarks on this course with reluctance, but aware of the gravity of the situation. It is the consequence of the motion that the Senate has lately carried that, were the Senate to dispose of the business as is currently scheduled, then the Senate would not have the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. Before I come to that—
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You’ve just wasted two hours!
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We are entitled, Senator Evans, to move whatever procedural motions are appropriate to protect the right of this Senate to have proper scrutiny of the largest expenditure of public works in Australian history. It is the opposition that is proposing that the Senate meet on Saturday—
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Too late, mate! Too late!
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Watch your politics, Senator Evans, it ill becomes you.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
One year! One year this bill has been on the Notice Paper. It has been sitting on the table for one year!
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That’s a lie, Senator Conroy. Let me take Senator Conroy’s interjection, Mr President, because last night on the Lateline program Senator Conroy—either through ignorance or malice, I’m not sure—misled the Australian people. He claimed that this bill has been on the Senate Notice Paper for one year, and that claim is false.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy interjecting—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That claim is false. A bill of the same name as the bill currently before the Senate was on the Senate Notice Paper a year ago.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
A year ago! One year! One year! We moved this over a year ago, you hypocrite!
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
but Senator Conroy, who makes a habit, as viewers of Sky News would be well aware, of not knowing what is in his own legislation is ignorant—
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
One year, you hypocrite!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy, that needs to be withdrawn.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy—who, as viewers of Sky News would be aware, makes a habit of being ignorant of the content of his own legislation—is unaware, evidently, that the bill that was on the Notice Paper a year ago, which bears the same name as the bill currently before the chamber, is entirely different. It was a different bill with the same name—not the same bill. Even a person of Senator Conroy’s limited intelligence could understand that the fact that a bill bears the same name as an earlier bill does not make it the same bill. Senator Conroy is evidently entirely unaware of the fact that the claim he made on Lateline last night was false. It seems that it is Lateline, one, Sky News Agenda, one, when it comes to exposing the ignorance of the minister.
That having been said, the opposition is determined to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of this legislation. So we propose that the order of business be amended so that the Senate sits on Saturday and so that all of the time allowed for sitting tomorrow—not just the time until noon—be allowed for deliberation in the Senate on this bill. We know what the government’s game is. The government’s game is to conceal from parliamentary scrutiny this legislation, just as they have concealed from parliamentary scrutiny the business case. (Time expired)
11:32 am
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
11:39 am
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek to leave to move a motion in relation to the hours of sitting which will, in effect, delete from paragraph 2 the words:
… that the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 3.30 pm.
and include the words ‘shall continue until such time as the bills listed in paragraph 6(c) are dealt with and determined.’
Leave not granted.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Brandis’s) be agreed to.
11:48 am
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the hours of sitting which will remove from paragraph 2 the words, ‘that the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 3.30 pm’ and, in lieu thereof, insert the words ‘shall continue until such time as the bills listed in paragraph 6(c) are dealt with and determined’.
Leave not granted.
Mr President, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to amend the revised order of business.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I will have to rule that not in order. This is the second motion for the suspension of standing orders to amend the order agreed to by the Senate and such a motion is not in order. The rationale of this ruling is that, once the Senate has been asked to suspend standing orders in order to depart from the order of business on one occasion and has declined to do so, the request should not be capable of being repeatedly made because this would provide a means of permanently obstructing the business of the Senate. I am relying on a wide range of precedent that has been cited on this matter.
11:49 am
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion that your ruling be noted.
Leave not granted.
Mr President, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to take note of the President’s ruling.
This government are so hopeless and poorly managed that they do not understand that these bills listed in paragraph 6(c)—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I appreciate that the Greens would not know this because all they are interested in is any fraudulent activity that might win them a vote or two in the Victorian election. I would have hoped that the government—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ooh, is that a threat? I am being threatened by the Greens. Heaven forbid! Protect me please, Mr President, the Greens are threatening me! I am so traumatised I can barely get this out, but I was trying to say to Senator Ludwig that we could get to a position where these motions listed at paragraph 6(c), which we are told are very important, may not be voted on. I am particularly interested in the Territories Law Reform Bill, which is listed at the end. The opposition will be moving amendments in relation to that particular bill but, with the way these orders stand at the moment, we may well not get to them.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Carr interjecting—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Carr keeps yelling out. He has absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Senator Carr, if you opened your ears you would understand that I am actually trying to facilitate—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Can I suggest that debate across the chamber at this hour is not assisting anyone. Senator Macdonald, you are entitled to put your point and be heard in silence.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. Regrettably, some senior members on the other side are such boofheads—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I can name some if you want me to. They are such boofheads that they do not understand that under the current standing orders, which this government has so mismanaged this morning, it could well eventuate that we will get to three o’clock tomorrow afternoon and not have dealt with this legislation which, they tell us, is important—and I know the Territories Law Reform Bill is important.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Carr interjecting—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What I say now has nothing to do with the Territories Law Reform Bill because we do not get onto that, Senator Brown—if you would only read the motions that you have just supported—until after your 23rd gag today. Fancy that: the Greens are listed in the pages of Hansard opposing gags—I certainly hope the voters of Victoria understand this, because the Greens portray themselves as the upholders of the parliament and the democratic institution—and here they are against everything they have said for as long as they have been in parliament. Ever since they have been here, they have railed against gagging debate, and here they are, 23 times this morning, with the support of Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, trying to gag proper debate. Because they are not listening to my speech now, they are going to gag debate on the AirportsAmendment Bill 2010, the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2010 and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010—bills that we cannot start debating, according to Senator Brown’s motion, until noon on Friday.
What the Greens, the Labor Party and the Independents are effectively doing is curtailing debate on the Airports Amendment Bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill, the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill, the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill and—the one that I am particularly interested in—the Territories Law Reform Bill, where the opposition will be moving a substantial number of amendments. Clearly, under the table of time that the government and the Greens have imposed upon us we are not going to be able to meet those—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They are not noncontroversial according to this. Where does it say noncontroversial?
Rachel SiewertIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is the red here!
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The red has been replaced by this series of agreements that the Labor Party and the Greens have just imposed upon the Senate. Those things have to be dealt with. Senator Siewert, are you going to extend your gag to each of those bills? Are you going to gag us all on those bills again? That is another indication of the lack of proper scrutiny and debate on those six very important bills. We are obviously going to be gagged on those as well. (Time expired)
11:55 am
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I speak to Senator Macdonald’s motion to make this key point. The opposition have indicated that they oppose the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 before the chamber. That is accepted and is a perfectly legitimate position for them to take. They have argued that there would not be enough time to debate the bill properly under these arrangements. We sought yesterday to provide an extra three hours of sitting to debate this bill last night. The opposition determined not to support that and, therefore, denied themselves three hours of debate.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, a point of order on relevance: the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not have a clue what the motion is. The motion did not refer to the broadcasting bill, if I can call it that for brevity. It refers to those other bills listed in paragraph 6(c). Clearly, the minister is not being relevant to the motion before the chair.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We are in a situation where last night the opposition knocked back the opportunity to have three hours debate on the bill. We have now spent 2½ hours this morning debating procedural motions, which the opposition has sought to use, to delay the Senate considering the bill. So we are now in a position where the Senate has wasted a potential 5½ hours to debate the telecommunications legislation by virtue of the opposition’s tactics. Those tactics are open to them—that is a decision for them—but the Senate and the Australian public have to understand that these are tactics designed to prevent debate on the legislation. We have already lost 5½ hours of debate on the legislation. So, when they say they want to debate the legislation, they have already rejected the opportunity of debating it for another 5½ hours. The key point is this: given that the guillotine motion has been carried—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: I have just been watching the clock, Mr President, and the clock has been on four minutes 19 seconds for some time now.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have not noted that, but I do take your point.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think the point of order is correct, Mr President. I do not intend going for long, so I will stick to my five-minute period. The key point to make is this: the Senate is now in a position where every minute and every hour we debate procedural motions is less time available to debate the bill. The debate on the guillotine motion has been carried. The clock is now ticking. What everyone needs to understand is when more procedural motions are moved by the opposition more time is merely eaten up to debate the bill.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: the clock is ticking very quickly. It went to four minutes 19 seconds and the next thing it was down to three.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. That was an adjustment to accommodate the error.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Every minute now wasted on procedural motions is time taken away from the time the Senate has to consider the bill. So the opposition have to make a decision whether they are seriously interested in considering the bill or are interested in wrecking and preventing consideration of the bill. That is where they are now.
It is perfectly appropriate for them to oppose on procedural grounds the motions we have moved. We have had those debates—we have had them at length. But we are now in a situation where the more we debate procedural motions the less time there is for scrutiny of the bill, and it is on the heads of the opposition whether they choose to use the time now to scrutinise the bill. We have the rest of the day and all day tomorrow under the motion carried by the Senate. It is a decision for the opposition now whether they use that time for consideration of the bill or they use it for procedural purposes.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: I say again that the Leader of the Government in the Senate cannot understand that the motion we are talking about is to take note of your ruling on my motion about giving us time to debate not the NBN bill but all those other bills. Clearly Senator Evans does not have a clue, and he is not relevant to the motion before the chair—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. Senator Evans has the call.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am trying to deal with the legislative program in the time remaining for the Senate, and the key point is this: it is on the heads of the opposition how we use the available time. If Senator Macdonald and others are not reined in by the leadership of the Liberal Party, that is a decision for them; but the bottom line is that the Senate now has a timetable, and how we use that time is determined by the senators here. They can choose to use it on procedural matters or they can choose to use it debating the bill. I suggest we get on and debate the bill, and on that basis I move:
That the question be now put.
Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: I think it was only yesterday that—and Senator Evans, had he been here, would have realised this—you ruled that someone who has spoken in the debate cannot move that the motion be put.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That does not apply to a minister.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Chris Evans’s) be agreed to.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Macdonald be agreed to.
Question put.