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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to using the matters of public interest time today to give the Senate the opportunity to debate the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012. I understand there are some other issues in terms of the government business program that are still under discussion.

Leave granted.

Senators will be aware that this has been circulated in part yesterday, although it has been amended. I move:

That the order of the Senate agreed to on 19 June 2012, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be varied to provide that:

On Wednesday, 27 June 2012:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8 pm;

(b) consideration of matters of public interest shall not be called on and instead the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 be called on, have precedence over all business, be considered under a limitation of time—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Order, both sides! Senator Sterle, order!

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

As other senators are noting, this is a very important piece of legislation, responding to the High Court, and I understand that other parties too believe that it should be dealt with promptly—and, indeed, on the run, given the timetable involved. I continue reading the motion:

That the order of the Senate agreed to on 19 June 2012, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be varied to provide that:

On Wednesday, 27 June 2012:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8 pm;

(b) consideration of matters of public interest shall not be called on and instead the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 be called on, have precedence over all business, be considered under a limitation of time and the time for the remaining stages commence at 12.45 pm until 1.50 pm;

(c) paragraph (b) operate as an allocation of time under standing order 142;

(d) divisions may take place between 12.45 pm and 2 pm; and

(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm.

The Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 is known as the Williams matter.

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

Just speaking to the motion, I am unclear. I have not seen this before, and I suspect other senators are in this situation. I wonder if the minister could—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

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

You mentioned something about time limitation, Minister, which I am unclear about. I and many of us, in spite of the way the Greens have rolled over on guillotines—

Senator Milne interjecting—

I have not, so this has been your standard position.

Government senators interjecting—

Sorry, I have 20 minutes to speak, and I will—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, would you address the chair with your remarks, please.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I remember the days when the Greens would spend hours in here berating the Howard government for time-managing just 36 bills in three years.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

We are now up to, I am told—I accept Senator Cormann's interjection—125 bills that the Greens have so far guillotined—36 in this current two-week period. You talk about hypocrisy. I just cannot believe how any Australian would ever believe anything the Greens say, because of their hypocrisy on issues like this. Mind you, while I am at it I might say that I and nearly every Australian cannot believe anything the Labor Party says after 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—although, in Ms Gillard's favour, I might just say that perhaps she was being honest; perhaps she will not be the leader of the government on 2 July, when the carbon tax comes in. I await with bated breath the end of this week, as the hawks circle around the Prime Minister's office. It is a fascinating week.

But, getting back to this more serious issue, I am just uncertain of what we are being asked to do. I agree—and it is not my position to speak for everyone here, but I know we all agree—that this is an important bill to get through, but I am reluctant to be part of any guillotining of any bill. If it is important—and it is important—I think we should debate all weekend if necessary to have this bill through. I am not sure—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to stand up.

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

You are going to mention things. I want to indicate to those who are listening to this debate and wondering what it is about that this is a dramatic issue for the governance of Australia. The High Court has made a ruling which means some legislation and some grants programs are put in jeopardy and in doubt. What we are trying to do is fix that in a short period of time so that the procedures of government can continue. But there are many of us who are concerned about bringing in this urgent legislation within such a short time after the High Court's decision, perhaps without it being fully investigated; there is a bit of concern in people's minds. That is why, as I understand it, the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has indicated that there should be a sunset clause on any broadscale agreement today to cover what the High Court has dealt with. I think that is a very sensible arrangement. We can do what needs to be done to make sure the normal process of government continues but we put a sunset clause on it to say, 'Just in case we have been a bit too hasty; perhaps there are unintended consequences'—and, heaven knows, nearly every piece of legislation this government has brought in has had an unintended consequence. I and a lot of others are just a little bit reluctant, so I urge on all parties the thought that perhaps we should fix this up today but make sure that we revisit it in a short period of time so we are not doing things that have unintended consequences.

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

The Greens understand how important it is to deal with the High Court decision in relation to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012, and we have very strong and clear views about it, including the need to properly recognise that the High Court has ruled there needs to be a readjustment of influence or power between the executive and the parliament. We have always supported more power being vested in the parliament. We think it is a really important ruling and we think it needs proper discussion. We also recognise the urgency of allowing existing programs to continue and not putting them in jeopardy. So I want to inform the government that we are prepared to give this matter precedence over matters of public interest at 12:45 today, but we are not prepared to have it time managed. We think that the debate should continue and should take precedence over other business, but it should be allowed to be debated in the Senate's time. Clearly we have amendments we want to deal with and, on that basis, I informed the government that we would be prepared to give it precedence over other government business but we are not prepared to put a time limit on the debate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition have indicated to the government over a couple of days that we are very happy to facilitate the passage of legislation to address the issues raised by the High Court. I know the shadow Attorney-General has been in discussions with the Attorney-General about the form the legislation might take and also with other parties about any necessary amendments. We recognise that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with this week and that the opposition was prepared to give up its own time in the matters of public interest discussion to facilitate the debate. However, at no stage have we supported time management or a guillotine. As you know, Mr Deputy President, that is something we do take very seriously; we think that time management should be used only in exceptional circumstances. But this is significant legislation. It does deserve to be properly debated. The parliament does deserve the opportunity to have amendments properly considered, and all colleagues who wish to make a contribution to this debate should have the opportunity to do so. For its part, the opposition will be limiting the number of speakers that it puts forward, so as to make sure the matter does come to a vote this week, but at no stage have we indicated that we would support a guillotine or time management on this legislation—informal arrangements, yes; but no guillotine, no time management. We could not support a motion which contained an element of time management, but if the government were minded to remove that part of the motion we would be able to support a motion to have this legislation debated at 12:45 today. We have not indicated at any time that we would support time management.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, do you want to move an amendment in relation to the removal of the time management provision?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the part of the motion which relates to time management be deleted.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that people have given a broad commitment to dealing with the bill today. The reason the government have sought time management, as explained by Senator Collins, is that we have an absolute necessity, in terms of the payments being made, to get to this bill today in order not to prevent the capacity for those payments to be made, given the end of the financial year.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator, I just make the point that I appreciate that in discussions with the opposition they have been prepared to support the bill. It was put to the—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The proposition—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, have you had your go?

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

No, you ought to belt up and let me give my—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Evans; through the chair please—and order, Senator Macdonald; do not interject.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate it, because if you stop him running the commentary I am happy to—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have asked both of you to adhere to the procedures.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The point—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald! You have the call, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am not sure that Senator Macdonald was party to the conversation I am referring to, but I have asked the opposition and we did talk about how we might manage it. It is true that the opposition have always made it clear that they are not going to support a guillotine, but it was also made clear that we were looking to time manage the debate in order to get the bill today, because in the normal course of events it is possible that we may not get the bill today. We have very little time available for that purpose, so the approach has been about trying to manage that process.

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

We've got tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, it is not possible to have this bill passed on Saturday or Sunday and meet the deadline, which the opposition recognises. The point I want to make is that if the view of the Senate is that we do not have support for the time management, with the Greens and the opposition indicating that they will not agree to that, I accept that that is the will of the Senate.

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

The Greens have agreed to every other time management—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald! You have the call, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I am happy to deal with him or you can deal with him, but I will deal with him—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am dealing with the matter, Senator Evans. You have the call.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. If a senator wants to continually talk over the top, it is very hard for me to not deal with him myself, so one of us needs to deal with him.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the call, Senator Evans.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I try and deal with the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate because they allegedly are able to control the way that their party operates in the Senate—something that is starting to be questioned. But I appreciate the goodwill from the opposition. They are trying to deal with this issue. I just make the point, without delaying the Senate any further, that the government has made the argument and we continue to make the argument that we need this bill carried today in order to have those payments met and the normal processes of government continue and for organisations to administer those funds. I just want to make the point that, if there is no agreement to time management this morning, we run the risk of the bill not being carried tonight—in the absence of management—because the time allotted for government time late this evening is very short. I just urge the Senate—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald!

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Order, Senator Collins! Senator Evans has the call.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order! Ignore the interjections, Senator Evans. Have you concluded your remarks?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I am waiting for you to bring order, Senator.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, I have brought order to the chamber. Interjections are disorderly. Senators know this, and I suggest you ignore the interjections. You have the call.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try and ignore them, Mr Deputy President. I appreciate your keeping control of the Senate in that regard. I am just trying to make the point that we need the bill today. In the absence of a time management resolution, I am relying on the goodwill of the Senate, all of the Senate, to do that, and that means we have to have an understanding about the use of the time available. If people are not prepared to vote for a time management solution, we need to informally have an understanding about that. That does not have to be on the record. I am just making the point that otherwise we may well find that some of the people who seem not to be under any discipline in this place may talk and may prevent us bringing that matter to a conclusion tonight. That is the only point I want to make. If the view of the Senate is that the attempt by Senator Collins to have that time management included in the resolution will not be supported—and I think Senator Fifield's amendment will be supported, given what I caught of Senator Milne's contribution as I came into the chamber—I accept that that is the view of the Senate, but I do make the point that we will need the full cooperation of the Senate if we are not to find ourselves in the position where we run out of time. I just make that point very strongly because, in the absence of a time management mechanism, that is not always possible. Some senators, including the one who continually interjects now, are famous for not meeting the broader agreements that are reached around this place.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, you pointed out that the chamber was disorderly. You are contributing to that now. Senator Macdonald, please do not interject.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, may I say through you to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: let not your heart be troubled, Senator Evans. The opposition's attitude, as I understand, has been set out by Senator Fifield, but, to make assurance doubly sure, as the shadow minister with responsibility for this bill let me indicate to the chamber what the opposition's attitude is. As I said to the Attorney-General yesterday, the opposition will agree to expedite the passage of this bill through the parliament this week.

The opposition has concerns about the bill. We have both concerns as to its legal validity and concerns about the process which the government and, in particular, the Attorney-General have adopted. Our willingness to cooperate in expediting the passage of the bill this week reflects merely the fact that we are in uncertain constitutional territory at the moment, and we the opposition certainly do not want to stand in the way of the government's attempts to seek to regularise or validate the position following last week's High Court decision.

Nevertheless, as I said a moment ago, I do have serious concerns about the legal method, as it were, chosen by the government to validate these payments. For that reason, the opposition will be moving an amendment to propose a short sunset clause on the bill which would sunset the operation of the bill to 31 December this year. I would hope that particularly crossbench members of the Senate would see the point in this. The reality is that we had, last Wednesday, a very complex High Court decision. I do not know how many senators have had the opportunity to study it. I have. I think it is not controversial to say that the High Court decision casts a great deal of doubt over a very large range of Commonwealth programs. Most, but not all, of those programs are programs that have the support of the opposition—and I dare say that many of them would have the support of all senators. The opposition's willingness to expedite the passage of the bill, subject to a short sunset clause, is merely to hold the situation in statu quo so that the High Court's decision can be properly considered, particularly by the Attorney-General's Department and by those who advise the government. A more thorough and effective statutory response to the High Court decision can be considered in the six months that the sunset provision allows. With that very significant reservation of the opposition's position, that is the reason we are prepared to expedite the passage of this bill this week, and I have told the Attorney-General that. Finally, I should indicate that, when we have the second reading debate, I will be the only speaker from the opposition.

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. I could not hear the speaker because the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate were chatting among themselves. What Senator Brandis is saying was particularly important, and I think the Manager of Government Business would benefit if he actually listened to what Senator Brandis is saying.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Collins, as amended, be agreed to.

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

In closing the discussion around this proposal, for the benefit of the Senate I thought it might be useful to read, as amended, what we are now voting on and make some brief comments. The amended motion states:

That the order of the Senate agreed to on 19 June 2012, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be varied to provide that:

On Wednesday, 27 June 2012:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8 pm;

(b) consideration of matters of public interest shall not be called on and instead the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 shall be called on;

(c) divisions may take place between 12.45 pm and 2 pm; and

(d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm.

That removes any of the previous references, Senator Fifield, to time management and I think that satisfies the concerns that you had raised. I would like to reflect on the comments made in respect of the time that will be involved in debating this, as Senator Evans said. We take as indications of goodwill the comments about how promptly this matter will be dealt with. But, at the same time, I note Senator Brandis's comments about concerns with the legislation that will be dealt with this week. The concerning factor there is that we take longer than today to deal with this matter, and I must highlight the urgency that is involved.

For the information of senators, we are seeking to pass this bill today. This legislation is largely agreed, as demonstrated by public comments of all parties and the passage of the bill through the House last night. I remind Senator Brandis that passage did occur in the House last night. But, more critically, the bill needs royal assent with regulations in place before the end of this financial year. The only opportunity for this process to occur is tomorrow morning and, on that basis, because of the arrangements for Ex Co tomorrow morning, I seek the cooperation of the Senate to achieve passage of this bill today.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Question agreed to.