Senate debates
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Business
Suspension of Standing Orders
9:31 am
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedent to a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business today.
The government has signalled its intention for the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Bill 2010 to be completed this week. We finalised the program and circulated that in the chamber, and that indicated that it was essential to have this bill dealt with in this week. Having now had a number of hours for the second reading debate and the committee stage, it is time to ensure that we complete the bill before we rise this evening or—if people require additional hours—by the end of the week. It is necessary to ensure that we put additional hours in the program to allow that to occur.
In addition, there are significant amendments that need to be progressed. We are currently in the committee stage in relation to that bill. In dealing with the committee stage, if any amendments are passed here it will be necessary for them to go over to the House for the House to deal with those amendments. If there are any messages returned, the Senate will then need to deal with those. In giving the proposed motion precedence, we seek the support of the Senate to ensure that we can finalise this bill.
If you look at the program over the last 12 months, the government has endeavoured to gain the cooperation of the opposition to ensure that we can get our legislative program dealt with in a reasonable way. The opposition have not been completely reasonable, if I can use that phrase, in ensuring that the government had sufficient time to deal with its legislative program. There are two indicia which highlight this. The first is that government business for the year to date runs at about 40 per cent of Senate time. It usually runs at about 50 per cent. Therefore, there has been about 10 per cent less government time in which to deal with legislation. The second is that the opposition have increased the number of urgency motions and matters of public importance from something in the order of between seven per cent and 15 per cent to 38 per cent. That has meant that the amount of available time for the Senate has significantly reduced.
We all know that at the end of the session it is not unusual to seek additional hours to ensure that we can deal with the legislative program. In this instance, there is but one bill that we are now pursuing with vigour to ensure that we finalise the legislative program of the government. The opposition have indicated, clearly, that they are not supportive of this approach. Therefore, the only recourse that the government had to ensure that we can proceed was to move this motion. We need the support of the minor parties and the Independents. It would be much better to have had the opposition arrange—like we have done in the past—time for a full debate and for the debate to be continued in respect of this. The opposition have indicated time and again that they do not want to debate this bill. They are seeking to frustrate the ability of the government to finalise its legislative program and frustrate the ability of the government to finish this bill. The opposition have that right. The government also has the right to pursue its legislation as outlined.
9:36 am
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of clarification: we are debating, as I understand it, motion No. 4 on today’s Notice Paper. Is that correct?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, we are not. We are debating a suspension of standing orders.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you for that clarification. At the outset let me say this opposition has been one of the most cooperative oppositions in the history of this Senate. We have helped and assisted this government. The government claims that only 40 per cent of the Senate’s time has been taken with government legislation, but that is because of one simple reason: they had no legislation to put before us. They introduced the Afghanistan motion, they introduced all sorts and manner of things, and were more than happy for private members to be given time to discuss and ventilate issues because they did not have, and still do not have, a genuine agenda to prosecute in this chamber—until now.
We had an unseemly performance last night on national TV from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, fresh from his debacle about the NBN not being mentioned in the legislation that is before us, being wrong about that not once, not twice, but 62 times. He then went on national TV last night to tell us that there are some ‘arcane practices’ in the Senate which are delaying process of his legislation. You know what the arcane practices are: that there are still some senators gutsy enough crease the back of the legislation, to crease the spine of the explanatory memorandum and actually read them. If the minister had done that he would not have made that monumental error that Senator Joyce so ably exposed on national TV. Also, the assertion was made that this legislation has been on the Notice Paper since June 2009—in fact, 15 June 2009. That is just completely and utterly incorrect and it goes to show the misinformation that Labor continually peddles and that is unfortunately regurgitated by friendly elements in the media.
The simple fact is the government did not do a deal with Telstra in relation to these matters until 20 June this year and then they only presented the new legislation—significantly different from that which was tabled on 15 September 2009—when they tabled it on 20 October. We have only had five days when it has actually been on the Notice Paper. This is a piece of legislation which will be the first step in implementing a $43-thousand-million infrastructure project—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Fifty!
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Macdonald corrects me; each time we look at it, it goes up. That is why it is so vitally important that this legislation not be rushed. I simply remind the Greens and the minors in this place that they, in their rush to assist the government in relation to the so-called stimulus package, share the responsibility of the house fires in the pink batts debacle. They share the responsibility for the Building the Education Revolution debacle. They share the responsibility for the green loans scandal. And they will share the responsibility for the huge burden, at over $2,000 per man, woman and child, that is being placed on the shoulders of not only this generation but the next generation as well. That is why we say it is wise for us not to proceed in an inappropriate, indecent, hasty manner because they should have learnt the lesson of pink batts, BER, green loans—and the list goes on. But, no, they are willing to airbrush all that from their memory and say, ‘Sure, we have mucked up three or four times; let’s do it again, but with a lot bigger sum of money’—$43-thousand-million or, indeed, $50-thousand-million.
The summary of the business plan that we were given will be ventilated in an extensive manner by the coalition at least. To my friend Senator Xenophon, who put out a press release saying ‘Government agrees to publicly release full NBN summary’, I say that that is like saying, ‘I’ve got a full half glass of water.’ With great respect, this is accepting and adopting government spin, which is not good enough when you are dealing with a $43-thousand-million or $53-thousand-million project. As a result we will be opposing the motion.
9:42 am
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is extraordinary, isn’t it, Mr President? We have poor Senator Abetz moving to oppose a motion for a debate on sitting hours that he has not seen. But it is not too unusual for Senator Abetz to be opposing things he does not understand.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Move the gag. That’s what Greens do: gag debate.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What is more, Mr President, you might note that we have bleating from his seat the even poorer Senator Macdonald, who is equally ignorant of what the motion is that the Leader of the Government in the Senate wants to put.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You’re really getting into the Christmas spirit, Bob!
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Abetz has mentioned Christmas. He said last night that there should be more sitting hours. I am in the mood that we should sit till Christmas if necessary. I am looking forward to the opposition being called on this. They might be changing a few pre-Christmas events.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We already have.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is excellent. We are in the spirit of giving ourselves more time here.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Gagging it!
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Poor Senator Macdonald is gagging, he says. That is up to him. There should be time for the debate on this. We should be enlightened by what the motion is. We will be supporting this motion so that, in the commonsense way of the Senate, it can be looked at and properly dealt with.
The opposition seem to have left the chamber—so much for attention to detail with regard to Friday morning! They are all missing except for the obligatory two senators—so much for attention to this important matter. I look forward to seeing what the government have to put before us. We support this motion, and we will support a full debate on it, if necessary, so that everybody can come to a proper arrangement for us to sit here today and, I presume tomorrow, in order to deal— (Quorum formed) So the opposition, having vacated the chamber, call for a quorum. As you know, Mr President, that is about as irresponsible an action as an opposition can take at this stage of the game. I presume more quorums will be called during the day because the opposition are absent from the chamber and unable to properly take part in the debate. That is fine too. As I say, they should get ready to sit through until Christmas if we need to; I am quite happy to. I support the suspension that is inherent in this motion.
9:47 am
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have to admit that I never bought the new paradigm. I always suspected that this parliament would resemble far, far too closely the previous parliaments. When there is talk of new paradigms, a new political culture and a new way of operating, you will forgive me if I am a little cynical. We saw the first episode of that last night when Senator Brown sought to gag debate in this place.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You do a good trade in cynicism.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Carr, it will assist if you do not interject.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy had to step in after Senator Brown bungled procedurally. Clearly Senator Conroy did not read the comments of Mr Swan, mentioned on the front page of the Australian newspaper yesterday, which were to steer clear of the Greens. The Labor Party and the Greens are in this place in an alliance. It is an alliance against accountability; it is an alliance against transparency, and that is what we saw last night. We are seeing another instalment of that today, with Senator Ludwig seeking to suspend standing orders to introduce a motion to vary the order of business today. There is a well-established pattern of business in this place, and it is the government’s obligation to manage their program within that established program, which it has failed to do.
Alongside that, we on this side of the chamber are not prepared to be party to any rush of consideration of the telecommunications legislation, which has taken up part of this week. That legislation actually has not received significant scrutiny. It is not for any lack of trying on this side of the chamber. It is because the parliament and the Australian people have been denied basic information which they need when assessing something of this magnitude—when assessing a $42 billion or $43 billion government program. We wanted the business case but that has been denied. We have been given an abridged version of it but that is not adequate; it is not sufficient. We have argued time and again that something of this magnitude should go to the Productivity Commission.
Even the $16 billion Building the Education Revolution program at least gets the scrutiny of the hapless Mr Orgill. Even that program gets a modicum of objective assessment. But for something that will cost $42 billion this government seeks to deny even the most basic elementary scrutiny. We are not minded to support—and we will not be supporting—the suspension of standing orders to consider a motion to vary the hours in this place—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It still hasn’t been written.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is still being written as we speak, as Senator Abetz points out. This legislation does deserve proper scrutiny. In my own portfolio of disabilities, just the concept—it is a good concept—of a national disability insurance scheme, which probably goes to a dollar figure of $3 billion to $5 billion, is being examined by the Productivity Commission, even before it has come into existence, just as a concept.
In my time here, I have never seen such a denial of scrutiny, such a denial of accountability. We had the farce last night of Senator Conroy on TV referring to the processes of this place, this chamber of which he is a member, as ‘arcane’. But there is nothing arcane about good old-fashioned scrutiny. There is nothing arcane about having sunlight, having the spotlight, put on government legislation. We heard a lot about Operation Sunlight, as colleagues would remember. It sounded like a North Korean concept, but we gave it the benefit of the doubt. This government was going to be better and do better than previous governments. They have failed, and we will not be supporting this motion. (Time expired)
9:53 am
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think we know it is going to a momentous day in the Senate when Annabel Crabb graces us with her presence in the press gallery. We know something big is happening.
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I indicate that I will be supporting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Xenophon, just address your remarks to the chair; ignore other distractions.
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As always, Mr President. I indicate that I will be supporting the suspension of standing orders. This is an important—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Shame!
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Macdonald, whom I have a lot of time for, says ‘shame’. But the suspension allows for debate to continue through tonight and they allow for debate tomorrow for the committee stages. I think inadequate consideration—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, we don’t know what the motion is.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We haven’t seen it.
Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Have you seen it?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It’s giving a blank cheque.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Xenophon, just continue. Ignore the interjections and address your remarks to the chair. Those on my left, cease interjecting.
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think it is important that we have adequate time to debate this very important piece of legislation. We know that there are time constraints. We know that there is an issue here. The structural separation of Telstra, I believe, is in the interests of consumers. It is not sustainable to have such a vertically integrated telecommunications network, as we have in this country. The OECD acknowledges how constrained we are because of the vertical integration of Telstra.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I am always courteous to Senator Abetz. I listen to him in silence. Perhaps he could give me the same courtesy.
I think that there are some compelling reasons why we need to deal with this legislation now. We saw what happened at the Telstra board meeting last Friday. If the deal between Telstra, the government and the NBN falls over then we will lose a golden opportunity to structurally separate Telstra and, with it, benefits to consumers in the longer term. There will be another opportunity to deal with the NBN legislation, but I think it is important that we have adequate scrutiny of this piece of legislation. What I said to the media this morning and what I said last night was that if we need to sit on Friday to deal with this then so be it. But I support the suspension of standing orders because—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And Saturday and Sunday?
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Well, the thought of spending the weekend with Senator Macdonald is a very alluring one! But I am not sure that that will be necessary. I support the suspension of standing orders.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on a point of order: I wonder how the Senate can be debating a motion to suspend standing orders to consider a motion that has not been drafted and has not been circulated so we do not know what its contents are.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is not a point of order. There is no point of order there, Senator Abetz.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Mr President: it is not unusual to read out the motion. When we come to that, I will read it out.
9:57 am
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It becomes stranger by the moment, doesn’t it?
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And we just heard Bob Brown interjecting. What we have—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Joyce, you will refer to people by their correct titles, thank you.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Bob Brown.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Dr Bob Brown.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That’s much better!
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It appears we are now suspending standing orders for a motion that we do not know. Apparently, it is supposed to come to us through divine inspiration! But everybody else seems to know it. It would be interesting, since they know it, for them to read out this motion into the Hansard. Otherwise, this is another form of that caucusing—caucusing so as to remove the right of this chamber to proper and open transparency in the delivery of the facts that are so pertinent to this piece of legislation. And now the Greens are in unison with the government on this. The Greens now want to deliver gags. We already have a statement by Senator Bob Brown that he is prepared to sit here till Christmas. Well, so am I, Senator Brown; but the moment you move a gag you make yourself a complete and utter hypocrite, a complete and utter hypocrite—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Joyce, you need to withdraw that.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw that he is a ‘complete and utter’ hypocrite—maybe just partially.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, we are not going play around. You need to withdraw.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw. So if Senator Brown’s word is good then he will not move for a gag today because he is prepared to sit here till Christmas, as are we. Now we will see and test his mettle. We will test his mettle and test his word. We will test his word today to see what he does. We will be able to determine from that whether Senator Dr Bob Brown is as true to his word on this issue as he will be on everything else. Or is it one thing for one group and one thing for somebody else? Is it narrowcasting, Senator Dr Bob Brown?
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, Robert. Why is this such an issue? Because we apparently have this complete change in process of where we are on this piece of legislation as a result of this motion. Isn’t this funding amazing? I quote:
NBN Co’s funding requirement is driven by the Company’s earning before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA)—
that is remarkable—
and Capex profiles, including working capital.
If you just went with the acronym, you could put it almost in a line—for $27.1 billion of borrowings. That is what we are going to get. We might be going to borrow more because on the next line we talk about the equity requirements:
This is based on advice from Goldman Sachs that NBN Co should be able to arrange debt funding.
That is it. That is where it stops. These are motherhood statements. This is year 9 economics. This is a cover-up. This is a total and utter cover-up and our job in this place is to ventilate this issue for the Australian people. It will be interesting today to see who actually has a genuine desire for the ventilation of this issue because the people who have to pay this money back have that right.
The Labor Party have all been up here talking to Dr Robert Brown, Senator for Tasmania, then going back, organising times and saying when they think we should be out of here by. It is all a set-up. The Australian people are being set up. The Australian people are having a snow job done on them. It is all right if you do not pretend to be as pure as the driven snow, but they do. They are all part of this process and they are going to do you over today, Australia. They are going to let you down. They are going to hide, they are going to prevaricate and they are going to guillotine. This crowd are not good for their word. They are not transparent. They are not the arbiters of light. There is no light in this. This is all tinea. That is we are getting in this show. There is no light in this place. This is what we get.
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If you want to know what is inane, look at the rubbish you have got in this NBN Co business case summary. We are about to spend this money so I can get on Facebook—what a relief!—and so I can download movies quicker. That is why my nation should go into this much debt. (Time expired)
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I do advise the next speaker that there is a 30-minute time limit on this debate, which means that there are probably two minutes left in the debate.
10:02 am
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to use my couple of minutes to emphasise what I heard both Senator Dr Robert James Brown and Senator Xenophon say in this debate and that is that they both want a full and open debate on the NBN proposal. There are a hell of a lot of amendments to be dealt with and they need to be properly scrutinised, so I again emphasise to the parliament that both Senator Brown and Senator Xenophon have guaranteed a full, open and accountable debate, which means that neither of them will be moving the gag motion and neither of them, nor their parties and followers, will be supporting the gag debate at any time during the debate on the NBN. I want to emphasise that. Thank you, Senator Brown, and thank you, Senator Xenophon, for indicating there will be a full and open debate, which means you will not be moving and you will not be supporting a gag motion. The Greens, since time immemorial, have railed against the imposition of gags. I am sure they will not change their mind; otherwise, Senator Brown would be called a hypocrite.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I did not say he was a hypocrite; I said if he voted for it he would be a hypocrite, because he has spoken for so long about not supporting gags. Should it be the case that Senator Brown did change his mind and did prove what he just said now to be a complete lie, then it would show that Senator Brown would be displaying his absolute and unmitigated hypocrisy.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The time for the debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You spineless worm, Senator Sterle!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That does not help the debate. I think that should be withdrawn.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I withdraw.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I was wondering if you could explain to us, for absolute clarity, the motion that has now been circulated. Paragraph 3 says:
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business …
Does that mean that question time today will not take place?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator, there is no point of order in the sense that the motion has not been moved and it is not my job as the Presiding Officer to explain the motion. It is a matter for the debate of the chamber, and I will leave it to the debate of the chamber.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I have a most serious point of order to raise, and I have some hesitation in doing it, because I do not like pointing the finger at my colleagues. Two of our colleagues have just said they would not curtail debate. This motion that they have indicated—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Wait a minute, Senator Macdonald. There is an exchange across the chamber and I am trying to listen to you.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This motion, which they have both indicated they will support, clearly indicates they will curtail debate. I point out to you, Mr President, that both senators have deliberately misled this chamber and should be dealt with by you accordingly.