Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(1)   On Tuesday, 19 June, Thursday, 21 June, and Tuesday, 26 June 2012, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.

(2)   On Wednesday, 20 June and 27 June 2012, consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with, and instead the routine of business shall be government business only.

(3)   Divisions may take place on:

  (a)   Thursday, 21 June and 28 June 2012, after 4.30 pm; and

  (b)   Monday, 25 June 2012, before 12.30 pm.

(4)   On Tuesday, 19 June and 26 June 2012:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.40 pm;

  (b)   the routine of business from not later than 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and

  (c)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(5)   On Thursday, 21 June 2012:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6 pm and 7 pm to 10.40 pm;

  (b)   the routine of business from not later than 7 pm shall be government business only; and

  (c)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(6)   The Senate shall sit on Friday, 22 June 2012, and that:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 3.40 pm;

  (b)   the routine of business shall be:

     (i)   notices of motion, and

     (ii)   government business only; and

  (c)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3 pm.

(7)   On Wednesday, 27 June 2012, consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Whish-Wilson to make his first speech without any question before the chair.

(8)   The following government business orders of the day shall have precedence over all government business, be called on in the following order and be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be as follows:

  (9)   Paragraph (8) of this order operate as an allocation of time under standing order 142.

This motion aims to structure Senate debate on legislation over the next week so that the budget and other critical bills can be passed in these sittings while still providing opportunity for debating private senators' business, general business and several MPIs. The Senate was scheduled to sit only three weeks in these winter sittings. This is a relatively short period for the major pieces of legislation that arise from the budget—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who put the program together?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the government's reform agenda. As Senator Cormann knows, the winter session is generally a reasonably short period.

I recognise that the Senate has made very good progress in considering legislation in the days that we have sat for the winter sittings. In particular, I take the opportunity to thank all senators for a very productive day yesterday. The passage of 19 bills, or 12 packages of legislation, was outstanding. Many of these bills were noncontroversial, and that reduces debate time. If we could guarantee this level of productivity in terms of legislation considered by the Senate on more sitting days then time management motions would be redundant. Time management motions by a government in the last weeks of sitting are, as the opposition knows, not unusual. Governments of all persuasions are faced with the same options in managing their legislation program. Inevitably, they make the same decision.

When they can, governments use time management motions to structure debate. The only differences are in how generous these motions are and how much time they allow for the scrutiny of sometimes contentious matters arising from legislation. Without a doubt, the Senate plays a central role in the scrutiny of legislation, and this role should not be overly constrained. However, scrutiny is not always the same as open-ended consideration of legislation. The aim is to ensure sufficient consideration for thorough scrutiny by Senate committees and through debate in the chamber.

This motion aims to provide relatively lengthy periods for debate of bills of major significance, with less time provided for less contentious bills. It has also accounted for referrals to committees so that committee consideration can be given to bills to inform debate and policy implementation. This government will aim to avoid situations where major policy reforms are subject to very limited committee inquiries. Generous committee time has been provided for the most significant bills in this motion.

I do not apologise for the use of a time management motion when the alternative is extended weeks and hours of sitting to grind through sometimes repetitious debates. It is true that without a time management motion senators' contributions to debates on legislation and other matters are not constrained. Perhaps this is ideal. I say 'perhaps' because sometimes there is a very important role for focused debate for concentrating on the chamber's role as a house to consider legislation in a measured and productive way. Sometimes this is only achieved through the majority of this chamber supporting the use of time management. I recommend the motion to the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We should not be surprised that a government that cannot run a budget surplus, cannot control our borders and cannot administer a pink batts scheme without people being killed and houses being burnt down cannot run the Senate either. The motion moved by the Manager of Government Business tells us three things about this government: first, the government is untrustworthy; second, the government has no legislative agenda; and, third, the government is administratively incompetent.

Let us turn to those things in detail—first, that the government is untrustworthy. On 13 June, just a few days ago, I was provided with a letter from the Leader of the Government in this place, Senator the Hon. Chris Evans. He said, in part:

The government has a number of key appropriation and budget related bills which require passage before 1 July 2012. I have attached a list of these bills for your consideration.

That list numbered 55 bills—55 bills which, in the Leader of the Government in the Senate's own language, are 'key appropriation and budget related bills'. If ever the people of Australia needed to be told that those opposite are ex trade union bosses, there is a classic example. We have the classic example of the ambit claim—the ambit claim that 55 bills have to be rammed through within this sitting fortnight. Then yesterday we were given two motions, one dealing with 30 bills and another with nine bills. So what happened to the 55 bills that were 'key appropriation and budget related bills'? Depending on what the Greens allow Labor to do, the list could collapse from 55 right down to nine. Somehow the Greens have acquiesced to motion No. 1 rather than motion No. 2 and, as a result, under motion No.1 we have, I think, 34 bills, some of which have now already been passed.

This is a classic case of the Labor Party making a big statement, coming in with an ambit claim and then saying, 'Aren't we really being reasonable, because we've taken 20 bills off the list?' That is not reasonable; that is dishonest. To suggest that those pieces of legislation were 'key' and had to be passed by 1 July and then meekly take off about 20 of those bills indicates that they were not key bills in the first place and did not require passage before 1 July 2012. But why should that surprise us? This is the same government that went to the Australian people saying 'there will be no carbon tax'. This is the same government that said they would not seek to change the definition of marriage. And so it goes on and on. This is a government that is untrustworthy.

With this motion to ram through all these bills, very important accountability measures that the Senate has had in place, on its books, for years and years will be discarded, including opportunities such as the consideration of government documents—documents that deal with literally billions of dollars of government expenditure that come before this place for discussion. Courtesy of the Greens-Labor alliance, these documents will be tabled but we will be denied the opportunity of discussing them properly and ensuring accountability for these huge sums of taxpayers' money.

Let us recall that, after the 2010 election, we were promised by the Australian Greens and the country Independent that parliamentary processes would no longer be abused but be allowed to take their course, that they would allow for transparency and accountability. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself said the government would 'let the sun shine in'. Well, guillotining legislation through this place and denying the opposition the opportunity to discuss government documents is not about transparency; it is not about accountability. Matters of public interest has been wiped out as well, so private members' time to discuss matters that are of genuine public importance to our constituencies has been denied us; it has been shut down. We have been shut out, and it is not to be discussed. And how is the Labor government able to do this? Because the Australian Greens have said so. What an embarrassment for any self-respecting government to have to come into this place and say, 'We've got a management issue; we've got motion No. 1 if the Greens like us today and, just in case they don't like us today, we've also got a backup motion, No. 2, that only lists nine bills.' So it clearly shows us—and no wonder; the government is so administratively incompetent—it is the Greens that are dictating what Labor are allowed to do.

Of course, that is why we have a carbon tax—because the Greens insisted on it and the Australian Labor Party, in breach of their promise, succumbed to it. That is why we are debating gay marriage—because the Greens insisted on it and the Labor Party succumbed to it, in breach of their election promise. And so it goes on and on with this government. It is the Greens that are dictating not only the policy of this government but also how matters dealt with in this place.

I say to those opposite, because I know that there are many who share my view on this: the more the Labor Party are identified with the Greens, the more the Labor Party vote haemorrhages. When I say 'the Labor Party vote', I am mindful of the fact that we have a Democratic Labor Party senator in this place and of course I am not directing my comments to him. But the more the Labor Party are beholden to the Greens, the more the Labor Party vote haemorrhages. From a coalition point of view, that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing when policy and the administration of this place are being dictated by that small wedge of nine Greens senators being able to wag the Labor Party dog and, as a result, together determine the outcome of Senate proceedings.

There was some criticism when the Australian people, in their kindness, gave the coalition the privilege of having the numbers in the Senate from 2004 to 2007. During that time, I remind those opposite, especially the Greens, they railed and rallied against the coalition having control because so many bills were being rammed through the Senate without proper accountability. Let me remind Senator Milne and the Australian Greens: in those three years under the coalition, only 36 bills were so guillotined. As a result of today's motion, since the Green-Labor alliance have taken control of the Senate, over 110 bills will have been guillotined and by the time the full three-year term expires, we could well expect that to be 200 bills on the current rate of guillotining. As a result of this, people can come to the conclusion that a coalition controlled Senate is a much safer bet for proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny than a Green-Labor alliance controlled Senate. What we have seen is abuse of power by the Greens. During the Howard government, the Greens said to the electorate, 'What an abuse of process to guillotine bills through this place'—36 bills, how horrendous! But under this government it is 110 and, by the end of the term, it will be 200 bills being guillotined, so you see a wonderful democratic process at work here! Do you know what the difference is? It is that the Greens voted for these guillotines. Whether it is accountable and transparent depends on Senator Milne and the Greens agreeing with the guillotine. If she happens to disagree with the guillotine, it is an abuse of process.

The Australian people are more intelligent than not to see through this nonsense from the Australian Greens and, might I add, the country Independents, and Messrs Windsor and Oakeshott need to take responsibility for this as well. They promised that there would be accountability, that there would be transparency, that they would not allow the government to run roughshod over parliamentary process. Yet here they are maintaining, as they do constantly, a guilty silence about the guillotine process being abused in this place, as it is day after day by the Green-Labor alliance with whom the country Independents are in cahoots. There is no wonder that those two country Independents are so anxious to see the government serve their full term. They will not be serving another term because the electorates are a wake-up to the government and the Australian people will cast their judgment on the Australian Greens and the Labor Party on election day. By the end of this term, the Greens-ALP alliance—if they go for their full three years—will have used the guillotine for the most unprecedented number of bills ever in the history of the Senate, to a factor of six times more than under the coalition. I simply repeat: the Australian people should think very carefully at the next Senate election because a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Labor Party. A Green-Labor alliance will be six times more likely to guillotine matters through this place, without due parliamentary process and without due accountability.

Let me refer to one bill of which I have carriage, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2012, the one that is trying to clean up the mess after the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is going to a committee.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Government Business might also like to interject to say, 'When will it be referred to a committee and by what date would the committee need to report?'

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is being referred today by Selection of Bills.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is being referred today and by what date would the committee need to report? The reporting date is Monday, 25 June—that is, less than seven days to consider the bill. This is a classic example of the Labor Party saying, 'Sure we are sending this bill to the committee,' but the parliament will be sitting on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, according to this motion. Can you tell us when the committee will have time to consider the bill? That would be on Saturday and Sunday, of course, so that we can report on Monday and have the bill passed with due process! You know, Manager of Government Business, that this is nonsense. You know that the Australian people do not accept that, especially when the Labor Party and the Greens were so outspoken in relation to the small number of guillotines under the Howard government. I say to Senator Milne and Senator Collins that it is not by your words that you will be judged; it will be by your votes and you have voted for six times as many bills to be guillotined than the number of bills guillotined under the Howard government.

Let us return to the bill that will be guillotined and slid through this place. I wonder why it is that Labor are so anxious to guillotine this bill to ensure that we have only three hours of debate. In fact, I am not even sure whether we will have three hours of debate, with or without a dinner break. We will have only three hours of discussion about the failures of Fair Work Australia and Mr Bill Shorten's bill. Mr Bill Shorten is an ex-union boss who is trying to cover up for union bosses' mismanagement, to put it politely—'abuse' would be a better word—of hard-working union members' money. We have ex-union bosses coming up with a regime which is a smokescreen to be administered by another ex-union boss, to ensure that we have accountability from union bosses! I do not think so. No wonder the Labor Party want to sneak that one through and conveniently put it into the parliamentary timetable between 5 pm and 8 pm to ensure that the evening news bulletins will all be too late to have it mentioned and by the next day, with a 24-hour news cycle, of course it will be old news. That is the way the Labor Party play their game of politics in this place. It is a disgrace and we as a coalition will continue to stand up to ensure proper accountability. Having said that, I fully accept, and the coalition fully accepts, that from time to time a guillotine is required. We have moved them. The question is in the sense of proportion: how often you do it and why you do it. Whilst the coalition had control of the Senate—and I stress this—36 bills were so guillotined. Under this Greens-Labor alliance controlled Senate, we will have, as a result of proceedings ending next week, over 110 bills guillotined in about 20 months of the parliament. So, if we have even more time with this Greens-Labor alliance, we will undoubtedly see a lot more guillotining of legislation.

We will also see the demise of government documents being considered and the demise of matters of public importance—times interest.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Wednesday lunch time.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not the Wednesday lunch time one, Manager. I am referring to matters of public importance, which are dealt with on a regular basis to allow private senators to deal with matters. It will also be discarded. I would have thought that would be something that the Australian Greens would seek to champion. No, they are more than happy to use the jackboot of the guillotine to ensure that the coalition is denied the opportunity to voice its concerns, if it helps the Greens-Labor alliance agenda. Make no mistake, when I say 'Greens-Labor alliance', it is a Greens-Labor alliance, because the Greens are the ones who are dictating policy and it is the Greens who are dictating the administration of the Senate, as well. That is why the Manager of Government Business in the Senate was reduced, in such a humiliating way, to coming into this place with two separate motions. We knew straight away. We could not be told which motion would be favoured until the Labor Party had that puff of white smoke coming out from the Greens as to which motion they were going to vote for. They needed the permission of the Greens to determine which motion they would go for. How humiliating for a government to have to say, 'Well, we do not know what we are doing until we get word from the Australian Greens, and we only got the word this morning.'

We believe that the use—abuse, in fact—of the guillotine has now got to such an extent that we as a coalition will fight the abuse of the guillotine all the way. Senator Milne and the Labor Party will try to justify the unjustifiable, but all I would remind them is to remember what they said when the coalition used the guillotine 36 times. By the end of today you will have voted for the guillotine on over 110 bills in about half the time coalition guillotined 36. It is by your actions that you will be judged, not by your words.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By one's actions one will be judged, not by their words. I think the level of hypocrisy we have just heard from Senator Abetz actually goes to that.

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

You can talk about hypocrisy!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind fellow senators—

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

What you used to say in the old days when it was a coalition government—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that the Howard government guillotined the privatisation of Telstra.

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

What did you say about that? Hypocrisy in the 10th degree.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard Senator Abetz ranting and raving and mixing his metaphors here. So far, we have had jackboots, the guillotine and the puff of white smoke. But let us actually go to what happened. The coalition actually guillotined the privatisation of Telstra after 14 hours of debate and only a one-day inquiry. Let's just get that on the record. Not only that, but the coalition also guillotined the Northern Territory intervention.

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

What hypocrisy. The carbon tax—18 bills, 10 mins each.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that Senator Macdonald thinks that the 1,900 people who have lost their jobs from Fairfax have done so because of carbon pricing. That is the lunacy of the coalition, and we hear that day in and day out. That was one of their more lunatic statements yesterday.

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

How much time did you allow to debate that?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition also guillotined the water reform package. So, let us go to those three things: the privatisation of Telstra, the intervention in the Northern Territory, and water reform in Australia.

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

What about the Regional Forest Agreements Bill? Your former leader went for 27 hours on that.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, I am having difficulty speaking here because of the constant harping from Senator Macdonald. Thank goodness he is now learning to be quiet.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz says that he should be judged on his actions rather than his words.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I want to remind the Senate that when the coalition controlled the Senate his bragging in here went to the issue of the time management of the Senate. I want to remind the Senate that when the coalition had control they completely abused the Senate by changing the Senate committee process, and gave the coalition itself control of every single Senate committee.

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

And your guillotine fixes that? What hypocrisy.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is more, they used their numbers in here to block Senate inquiry after Senate inquiry. They blocked every single move for a Senate inquiry that the Greens put up between 2004 and 2007, except for two. One of those was the inquiry into peak oil and the impact of Australia's dependence on foreign oil.

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

How can you, bare faced, get up and repeat this hypocrisy?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other, after many times of trying, was when Senator Siewert and I managed to get an inquiry into the impacts of climate change on Australian agriculture. Had the coalition allowed the kinds of inquiries the Greens tried to get up through those years, we would have had an awareness of the impacts of climate change across all sectors a lot sooner. So, when the coalition talk about time management, they need to refer to the fact that they tightly controlled the Senate committee process as to what committee inquiries could be held, for how long and so on. Also, they not only controlled the outcomes, by controlling the numbers on those committees, but they actually blocked many inquiries. Unlike that, in this period of government, when there has been shared power, we have seen not only a large number of Senate inquiries go forward from all parties; we have also seen particular select committee inquiries get up which the coalition have moved ad infinitum and have had many inquiries around the country on particular matters. So there has been a much more democratic representation of the concerns of the community, represented through those Senate inquiry processes, than ever occurred when the coalition had control of both houses.

When Senator Abetz talked about a coalition controlled Senate, he failed to mention one of the most appalling scandals in modern Australian history—that is, the Wheat Board scandal. People around Australia still shake their heads and wonder how it could have been that, at a time when Australia had our troops serving in Iraq, the Australian Wheat Board was paying off, to the tune of $220 million, transport companies—bribery, I think it is called. That occurred when the coalition had control of both houses of parliament. So, when you talk, be judged on your actions and not on your words. Australia will never forget the scandal of the Wheat Board inquiry.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, I draw your attention to the fact that interjections are usually accepted as part of the process, but continual interjections are disorderly—and you are getting to the stage of being disorderly. Senator Milne.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying about the Wheat Board scandal—where $220 million in bribes was paid—when the royal commission was set up Minister Ruddock made the terms of reference so narrow that ministers could not be called before the Cole royal commission. So, if we want to get to talking about what actually happens when there is no accountability, when you have one party controlling both houses of parliament: you get anti-democratic outcomes. I was here this week—

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

But this is okay, is it? When you guillotine debates, that's okay, is it?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, it is rather tedious to have someone so lacking in imagination that there is no repartee or excitement or interest in this; it is just a drone from over there. But, never mind, I will continue. The Northern Territory intervention was a disgrace, and indeed there is no evidence base to support it, which is why the Greens continue to oppose it—and, indeed, oppose the government's proposed Stronger Futures, because there is no evidence base for that. I can assure you that, at least in a democratic parliament, where power is shared, there will be a serious—

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

This is democratic!

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

Order! Senator Macdonald!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There will be a proper investigation into Stronger Futures, and I will ensure that that is the case—having held a press conference earlier this week, with a number of Aboriginal elders from around the country, putting on the record their opposition. I raise that in the context that it was the Howard government, with several of the members still in this parliament here at the time, who guillotined that debate on the Northern Territory intervention.

We had Senator Abetz talking about the fact that the Greens, in a balance-of-power parliament, where there is the opportunity for all parties, all Independents—

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

Except the coalition!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All parties, including the coalition, have an opportunity to actually cooperate and work on constructive outcomes. That is one of the real benefits of a shared-power parliament, and smart oppositions recognise that they actually have some power in those contexts—

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

You are delusional!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and work with other parties to get constructive outcomes. But the coalition has chosen not to be constructive and use the power it has in a balance-of-power parliament. Instead, it has chosen to run a negative agenda from day one, opposing everything and filibustering for days and days. The filibuster that occurred around the Carbon Farming Initiative is a classic case of this. For weeks in the Senate the coalition, the National Party and the Liberals stood up one after the other and said how bad it was, how shocking it was, what a disaster it would be for rural Australia—and then, when finally we got through the Carbon Farming Initiative, we heard from the coalition that it no longer opposed that part of that clean energy package; no, it was going to support it and keep it, in the event that the coalition ever got back into power.

The issue here is that the coalition absolutely wasted the time of the parliament. They railed full of complete and utter rubbish, put up all kinds of propositions that were unsubstantiated and then, when they lost and it passed, they said, 'Oh, no, we will keep it as it is'—having just spent hours, weeks, saying how bad it was. That is the kind of nonsense that you get when an unintelligent opposition refuse to use a shared balance-of-power parliament to actually get constructive outcomes. Senator Abetz was criticising the Greens for using a balance-of-power parliament to get constructive outcomes. Well, I say that the most productive periods of parliament are balance-of-power or shared-power parliaments, because it is in those circumstances that ideas have to be negotiated and talked about, that amendments are brought forward and significant progress is made. For example, we are addressing climate change. Unfortunately there are still members of the coalition who do not believe that climate change is happening and that it is human induced. And I see that Senator Bernardi has his hand up. He is still—

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

It has been happening for millions of years.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, you are continually interrupting. Your conduct is disorderly. You know the standing orders as well as, if not better than, most people in the Senate. I ask you to show some respect to the Senate and some respect for the speaker.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Macdonald is demonstrating a lack of respect for the Senate. On addressing climate change, this is the most compelling issue that any parliament right around the world is ever going to have to deal with. I point out to the Senate that Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, came out with a report this week that said that emissions trading and carbon pricing were indeed the way to address—

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This speaker is trying to rehash a debate on climate change, which everybody knows has been happening for millions of years.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, that is not a point of order.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am merely responding to Senator Abetz. I noticed that Senator Macdonald found Senator Abetz riveting and totally relevant but does not find the same issue relevant now. Senator Macdonald needs to recognise that the IMF has exactly the same position as the Greens on emissions trading. It says that $20 a tonne is an appropriate carbon price and that there needs to be a pathway to increase that over time consistent with the scientific imperative.

On the issue of marriage equality, I am very delighted and proud of the fact that the Greens are playing a very strong role in working towards marriage equality, just as we are on the issue of addressing climate change. This is an issue of discrimination in the Australian community. We want to get rid of discrimination in Australia and that is why we opposed the Stronger Futures legislation and the Northern Territory intervention—they are discriminatory. It is why we take such a strong view on social justice when it comes to people seeking asylum in our country. It is also why we support marriage equality. We happen to think that the removal of discrimination is a key component of a healthy life in a democratic society that is progressive and pursuing long-term change for the better. That is where the Greens are coming from.

If the coalition had demonstrated that they were able to use the shared balance of power in a constructive way and not spent all their time on useless filibusters and in making ridiculous claims—such as the claim that Fairfax is reducing its workforce by 1,900 because of carbon pricing, which is complete and utter nonsense—then we would not need to pass this kind of motion. Because their nonsense goes on for days and days, we want to make sure that we get legislation through this parliament for the long-term betterment of the country.

One of the bills that will be coming before the Senate soon is to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That will provide $10 billion to support renewable energy and low carbon emissions technology in Australia. That will help drive the kinds of change that the community wants us to pursue. We are trying to make this country more responsive to the climate task and more innovative. We want new manufacturing to be built in Australia to make up for the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector that occurred under the Howard government.

We also want to see a major investment in education in Australia and particularly the implementation of the Gonski review. As the Secretary of the Treasury said last night, Australia cannot expect to continue to base its prosperity on mineral extraction. We have to invest in increased productivity. He called it hard work but I say that it has to do with investing in education and training. That is the key way in which we will improve productivity in Australia. That productivity increase has to come from maximising our investment in education and training.

For a democratic parliament to work well all parties need to be positive and need to want to bring about long-term change for a better future for Australia. That does not mean filibustering debates; that does not mean stacking and changing parliamentary committees to make sure that you can never get outcomes other than those the government wants; that does not mean blocking other people from being able to set up Senate inquires. The Senate inquiry process is one of the strengths of the Senate and that process was completely destroyed under the Howard government. It does not augur well to hear someone like Senator Abetz speaking with such hypocrisy about time management while failing to acknowledge that the Howard government chose to guillotine the privatisation of Telstra, the Northern Territory intervention and the water reforms.

The Greens will be supporting this motion. We want to see constructive outcomes for Australia in the long term. We want a stronger and better Australia. That is where we come from. We are going to put our shoulders to the wheel and make sure that we get good legislative outcomes for Australia. We will do that while the coalition continues with its harping negativity, its complete denial of science and reality and the intent to uphold discrimination in Australia. If that is what the coalition stands for, then it will be judged by its actions.

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012 will be debated for a total of one hour and 40 minutes under the motion that we are now addressing. There could not be a more important bill relating to human rights, something that the Greens are always carrying on about. Yet they are restricting debate on that particular bill to one hour and 40 minutes. And Senator Milne has the gall to call others hypocrites. The hypocrisy of the Greens knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever. I thought that the Greens—or so they are always telling everyone—were the party of human rights. But when are we going to debate this bill on human rights? In one hour and 40 minutes—that probably works out to two minutes per senator. What a great debate that will be!

The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill is a bill which will again put pressure on the already overstressed tourism industry in Australia. It is a bill that, no doubt, will pass with the support of the Labor-Greens political alliance. The debate on that particular bill, which will add some 17 to 20 per cent to the cost of inbound passengers coming into Australia, is going to last exactly one hour and 40 minutes. One of the most important bills for all those small businesses around Australia, which will be absolutely devastated by this increase in the passenger movement charge, will be debated for fully one hour and 40 minutes.

I remember the days when the Howard government was in charge and we used to get these speeches from Senator Milne and Senator Brown, as he then was, about how undemocratic it was to curtail debate. I remember Senator Brown speaking for 27 hours solid on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, a bill that established a regime in Tasmania which, had it continued, would have allowed for the jobs of the workers in that industry to build a first-class timber industry for Australia. The Greens opposed that; they spent 27 hours filibustering to try to prevent that bill. In that instance, the Labor Party, for once, stood up for forestry workers and supported the government's Regional Forest Agreements Bill. But the Greens filibustered for 27 hours, and there was no guillotine moved. We allowed the Greens to have their say, even though it was so repetitive that Senator Brown spoke the same words every time he got to his feet. But did we guillotine that? We allowed the Greens to have their debate on that because we knew it was important to them. As Senator Abetz has pointed out, what hypocrisy from the Greens political party.

When it controlled both chambers, the Howard government had only 36 bills that were time-managed in three years. The Greens and the Labor Party now have well over a hundred bills that will be guillotined and debate curtailed. I need to remind listeners that this carbon tax that will start in a few days' time—the one that the Labor Prime Minister promised before the last election would never be introduced under her government—amounted to 18 bills with every senator having only a couple of minutes to debate those bills. The result, of course, was that few of those bills were debated fully and properly, because of the Greens and the Labor Party getting together to substantially restrict debate on that.

Senator Milne has prattled on about climate change again, again accusing coalition members of not recognising climate change. Of course, we recognise climate change—the climate has been changing for millions of years. Once upon a time, the earth used to be covered in ice and snow, but it is not now. Clearly, climate has changed over a long, long period of time, but will imposing the world's greatest carbon tax do anything about the changing climate of the world? As everyone knows, Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the total emissions of the world. This world's greatest carbon tax is going to reduce emissions by five per cent. This tax will continue to increase. It is not just a tax this year; it is a tax that continues to rise every year. No matter what compensation or what voting bribes the Prime Minister might send out to the Australian people, nothing will ever compensate for the increases in the cost of living that every Australian will suffer as a result of this Labor-Greens tax. Did members of this chamber have the right to debate those bills and to point out the very obvious flaws in those bills? Clearly they did not.

Senator Abetz also mentioned the fact that every time bills are guillotined, it is government documents that are thrown to the wind. Why do you think this would be? The Greens have little interest in accountability, but you will also note that by Thursday afternoon, when government documents come on, most of the Greens have left parliament and gone home.

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Jetting their way home, as Senator Birmingham says. They never bother to participate in that. Yet, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, as you would know, those hundreds of government documents that come through every week give the Senate the ability to look at the expenditure, to look at the decisions of government, to question particular issues and to really make accountable government actions and expenditure. But the Greens and the Labor Party want to get rid of the time for those government documents. Why? Because it takes away the Senate's opportunity to keep the government accountable for its expenditure. Anything this government can do with the support of their Green allies to stop accountability, they will do. This guillotine motion before the chamber at the moment is yet another example of this. How can the Greens get up and with a straight face and actually promote this guillotine, this undemocratic action, when you read what they used to say when a different government on a very few occasions sought to time manage the important bills through the parliament? I am just aghast with the hypocrisy. But then I think most people who would be listening to this debate know of the hypocrisy of the Greens political party.

Not many of us take too much notice of opinion polls but when the Labor Party is currently supported by less than 30 per cent of Australians you can understand why the Australian public are just sick of the way the Greens and the Labor Party get together to run—or ruin, I should say—this parliament. So many people ask me why the Labor and Greens parties get together to curtail debate. They have got the numbers to pass things anyhow, but why prevent the elected representatives of the people from exploring every avenue and looking at every opportunity to perhaps suggest ways of improving bad legislation, to perhaps try and convince some of those in the Labor Party that what they are doing is wrong?

Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, you and I both know that there are many members of the Labor Party who are totally opposed to a carbon tax, not only because it is bad policy but also because it is electoral oblivion for many Labor politicians. But because of the pressure put on by the Greens political party and then the Labor Party being so weak, with their leadership so weak and divided that they can do nothing else but roll over to the Greens, we have this type of government that we have at the moment which brings in this undemocratic form of management of this chamber. Why is it that the government and the Greens do not allow full debate?

The Manager of Government Business in the Senate says a lot of the bills were noncontroversial and they had the support of the opposition and therefore we should allow only five minutes to debate them. I say to the Manager of Government Business she does not understand that around all of those bills there is a lot of issues which need to be aired. Whilst the opposition does sometimes support some of those bills, it is done reluctantly. There are ways those bills could the improved. There are other issues relating to bills which are classed as noncontroversial which should be debated. Yet if members of this chamber exercise their democratic rights and their procedural rights to discuss those bills we get the Manager of Government Business saying it is a filibuster. So, according to the manager, free speech and proper debate on any bill is a filibuster.

I do not want to take too much more time on this debate as I know my colleagues have an interest in this motion before the chair at the moment that they want to expose as well. But I wonder about the future and think of when governments change and when perhaps a time management regime might be put in place on rare occasions. Mr Acting Deputy President, could you imagine the howls of outrage that you will get from the Greens political party then! I could write their speeches for them because I would only have to go back to what Senator Milne and Senator Bob Brown used to say on the rare occasions that time management was introduced under the Howard regime. I will be here for a while and I am sure I will be in the parliament when the government changes and, while it would be unlikely that the Abbott government would introduce too much of a time management regime, on the rare occasion that it will be necessary I cannot wait to hear the Greens then. You can just imagine now hearing Senator Milne, holier than thou, with great umbrage being taken, yet here she is today spending 20 minutes trying to justify the Greens' unholy alliance with the Labor Party in curtailing free speech in this parliament. I hope that perhaps the debate here has convinced some members of the Labor Party to appreciate—and I know the Greens will never do it—that free speech is more important than this motion before the chamber and will vote against it. I would certainly urge all senators to vote against the motion.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.