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

I move:

That, on Thursday, 29 November 2012:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;

(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

(c) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;

(d) consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(e) the routine of business from not later than 12.45 pm to 2 pm and from not later than 3.45 pm shall be government business only;

(f) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister;

(g) 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 be as follows:

(h) Paragraph (g) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

This motion was anticipated in my speech to the hours motion passed by the Senate last Tuesday. The motion organises the consideration of the government legislation for the remainder of today. Limiting the hours to be spent on the remaining bills for 2012 will ensure that the government's program of legislation is completed in a timely fashion. In drafting the motion I have taken up the suggestion of opposition senators from the debate on Tuesday that we do sit later tonight.

Once again, I would like to thank all senators for their cooperation in debating legislation in these spring sittings. Particularly this fortnight, the Senate has sat extended hours and dealt with a very high volume of legislation. With the notable exception of Senator Abetz's contribution on the fair work bill on Tuesday and yesterday, when we spent well over an hour of the debate on the name of an organisation, I recognise that debate has moved constructively and that most positions on bills are now on the record. This is hard work for all of us, our staff and Senate staff, and thank you all for your corporation.

The motion before us aims to allow enough time for the four remaining contentious government bills so that all parties and Senator Xenophon will have a chance to speak on these bills. As I said on Tuesday, such motions are typical of this time of year, regardless of the party in government. I recommend the motion to the chamber and foreshadow amendments that Senator McEwen will move that have been circulated in the chamber. These amendments simply reflect or update the order of messages we have from the House.

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

I must confess to sometimes feeling a little bit like Nostradamus in this place in terms of my ability to predict what is likely to happen. I do recall a matter of days ago, when the government were moving the hours motion and also moving the motion to exempt a number of bills from the cut-off, that I predicted that the chamber, if it approved the motion to exempt bills from the cut-off, would be doing so in order that those bills could subsequently be guillotined. That is what the motion before us today seeks to do: to guillotine the very bills that the cut-off exemption enabled to be brought forward. I must confess I do see that as a little perverse.

We again see the situation where the government on one hand are seeking to extend hours, so they are seeking to give with one hand to the chamber by providing more hours, but then they are seeking to take with the other hand by guillotining the bills which are listed in the motion before us—giving with one hand and taking with the other.

We actually have before us the fourth proposal this week for how today should proceed. The first proposal for how the day should proceed was the standard way a Thursday would flow. The second proposal that we had for how today should proceed was a variation in hours, which was moved earlier this week and would have seen the Senate rise earlier than usual. The third proposal for how today should proceed is the one that we see on the Notice Paper, which is there for you to see, Madam Acting Deputy President. Then the fourth proposal for how we should proceed today is the amended version of that motion as circulated in the chamber and moved by Senator Collins. So I do not think it is stretching things too far to say that the government are perhaps a little untidy and a little inelegant when it comes to the management of the chamber: four propositions put to this place for how to handle one day.

As Senator Collins did indicate, legislation has been moving through this chamber at a clip. The chamber has been very productive. All senators have had the opportunity to contribute as they choose on all bills exempt the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill, to date. That is the way that this place should work. There should be cooperation, but there should also be the opportunity for all senators to contribute, to speak and to examine legislation as they choose.

What we would be agreeing to if we supported this motion would be the neutering of the Senate chamber on the last sitting day of the year. We have before us a proposal to compress severely the time available to senators for the consideration of four bills. I note that Senator Collins said all colleagues, all parties, would have the opportunity to contribute to debate on these bills. That is clearly not the case, and especially not the case in relation to the gambling package of legislation. How all colleagues who choose to can contribute in that time frame of two-odd hours is not clear to me.

This chamber does have an important role as a place of review of legislation. As I have said before, often this is the first place that legislation is actually read in this building. We know that it is not always the case that the party rooms in this building look carefully at legislation. We know that it is not always the case that the cabinet room closely examines legislation. We know that it is not always the case that ministerial officers will look closely at legislation, and it is often the case that the first group of people who will carefully and closely examine and read the legislation in this building are indeed the senators of this chamber. It is always surprising the things that do get picked up by the senators in this place.

We do not want to be complicit in any way, shape or form in seeking to neuter this chamber on the last day of the year and stopping this chamber from performing its duties. I know that there is a great deal of interest in a number of these bills. There is a great deal of interest in the National Gambling Reform Bill in particular, which is the last item scheduled to be guillotined in this place.

I started by saying that I often feel like Nostradamus in this place. I know that Nostradamus did not always get his predictions right, but I feel that my batting average on that front is not too bad at the moment. This situation was entirely predictable. We said this would be the case, that the government would seek to use the guillotine. They have got a taste for the guillotine. Senator Collins has a taste for the guillotine and I am sure that I will think of some appropriate historical analogy to use in relation to Senator Collins before the day is up.

We will not be supporting this motion. The past weeks in this chamber have been marked by cooperation to facilitate the good working of this chamber and it is extremely disappointing that that has fallen by the wayside as we approach the final hours of this sitting here on this final sitting day of the year. For those reasons, we are unable to support this motion.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion, the terms of which have been circulated in the chamber:

That, on Thursday, 29 November 2012:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;

(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

(c) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;

(d) consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

(e) the routine of business from not later than 12.45 pm to 2 pm and from not later than 3.45 pm shall be government business only;

(f) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister;

(g) 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 be as follows: (g) 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 be as follows:

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise on behalf of the coalition to speak to the motion put by the Manager of Government Business in relation to the hours of meeting and the routine of business variation, and to endorse the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business that this motion that is being presented by the government to the Senate is one that strikes at the very heart of what the Senate's role is. It strikes at the very heart of the Senate's capacity to fulfil its role and its function as a democratic house of review.

I note that in the comments made by the Manager of Government Business she actually said that she has taken on board the suggestions put forward by the opposition when we debated a very similar motion on Tuesday in this place. I would say to the Manager of Government Business: by those comments you are actually misleading the Senate because in no way did the Manager of Opposition Business or myself suggest that we should have a guillotine imposed in relation to the debate of legislation on the final sitting day of the parliament. By this motion, this is exactly what this Senate intends to do.

The Manager of Opposition Business, Senator Fifield, has stated that Senator Collins has a taste for the guillotine. Let me read out to the Senate just how voracious this taste for the guillotine is. This is exactly what the motion is going to do. The Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012—a bill that has had a lot to be said about it and which has a large speaking list—is going to be finished by 3.45 pm today. For any senator who has not been able to speak, at 3.45 pm today the government will move that debate on this particular bill 'will now be finished'. We will then move at 3.45 into all remaining stages. The only problem with that part of it is that it finishes at 4.15 pm. You have got 30 minutes to get through an entire committee stage on what is a very important bill.

At 4.15 pm in relation to this motion, we move to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. At 5.30 pm the guillotine again comes down and all debate in relation to that particular bill will be finished. In relation to the motion that I have in front of me, the next bill that is to be debated is the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill 2012—between 6 pm and 8 pm. What is going to happen then? Yet again, the guillotine is going to fall in relation to debate on what, once again, is a very, very important piece of legislation. There is a very large speaking list in relation to this legislation but because of the way that the government manages this chamber, senators are again not going to be able to have an opportunity to properly debate this legislation.

But it does not stop there. After that bill has been guillotined, we are going into perhaps what is one of the most contentious and fundamental pieces of legislation that has come before this parliament this year, and that of course is the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, and related bills. We have just over an hour and a bit, it would appear, to debate a very, very meaty piece of legislation. If that is not an abuse of the Senate's process, of the ability of this chamber to undertake properly its role in scrutinising legislation, then, quite frankly, I do not know what is.

The government can only put through this motion if either the Greens or the opposition agree with them so they have the numbers—and we have clearly indicated that we will not be agreeing with the government because we will not be imposing a guillotine on what are exceptionally important pieces of legislation that deserve the debate of the Senate. Quite frankly, if we were to sit all night and into tomorrow, that would not worry me because I believe we should be giving these pieces of legislation the scrutiny that they deserve. On the basis that the opposition are not supporting this motion, there is only one other party here who has the numbers to join with the government. Lo and behold, there they are right there—the Australian Greens, who time and time again in this place go on the record with complete hysteria, calling the opposition and the government every name in the book, for even thinking of contemplating gagging debate in this place.

Well, lo and behold, the only way this gag motion will go through in a few minutes is for the Australian Greens come running into the chamber—clearly they have been promised something else; an end of the year Christmas present for the Australian Greens—and sit with the government on the yes side of the chamber government. They will join the government in a completely hypocritical manner, but I do not think that surprises any Australians, other than those that vote for the Greens. Even then they might be surprised on a regular basis. Despite the rhetoric and despite the Hansard they like to so proudly display to say that they are a party that supports scrutiny of legislation, the Australian Greens will still be recorded as having voted with the government to curtail debate on what are exceptionally important pieces of legislation to come before this Senate.

I do not think anyone should be surprised that the Australian Greens are a party that can be bought. Despite their protestations about political donations and the acceptance of political donations when it comes to the Australian Labor Party or the coalition, we all know that the Greens speak with forked tongue. Just for the record I will highlight their hypocrisy. Which party in this place is on the record as having accepted the largest political donation ever made to a political party in Australia—$1.3 million? That would be the Australian Greens, who hungrily and greedily accepted the money and tried to pretend that they did not. I give Senator Rhiannon credit there. At least she has been upfront about that and said that if she had been running the party—and it is a bit of a shame that she is not, because she is actually a lady of principle; I do not agree with her principles, but she is a lady of principles—she would not have accepted that donation.

Under the former leader of the Australian Greens and the current leader of the Australian Greens, the Australian Greens accepted what is known to be the biggest donation to a political party of all times—$1.3 million. If that does not say that the Australian Greens can be bought, I do not know what does. And they will be bought again very shortly when the division bells ring. They will come running into the chamber and vote with the government to gag debate on exceptionally important legislation that should be given appropriate scrutiny by the Senate.

It is the government's obligation to manage the sitting calendar. As I said in my comments on Tuesday, under the former Howard government we sat for 22 weeks a year and under the current Gillard Labor government and the former Rudd government we sit for 18 weeks a year. That within itself shows that this is not a government that is interested in being accountable to the people. As the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has stated, the government set the timetable, the government set the agenda and they should be able to manage the year's sitting within that timetable. If they cannot, that is their problem. They should come to the parliament and explain exactly why they have been unable to manage appropriately the business of the Senate. They have failed to do that and on that basis, the opposition will not be supporting the guillotine motion before the Senate.

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

I will not be supporting the government's motion. I understand what the government is doing. It would have been preferable to sit another day, another two days or another week if necessary to go through the legislation. Having said that, I understand where the numbers lie in relation to this so, accordingly, in relation to the gambling bills that will be coming up later tonight, I will have to cut my cloth accordingly and I guess the rest of us will as well. Even though I believe this is a far less than satisfactory way of dealing with important legislation, I guess we will have to get on with it. An extra sitting day or two would have made all the difference in appropriate scrutiny.

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

I want to take a few minutes to add to the concerns—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise of a point of order. You were aware that I was seeking the call. As I understand it, in terms of general precedence in the chamber, the call should have been given to me.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand what you are saying, Senator Collins; however, previously three of you jumped up seeking the call at the same time: Senator Xenophon, Senator Macdonald and yourself. I was simply following that. I will seek advice on the precedence.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the minister does not even want discussion on this motion of guillotine to expose the evilness of a government that will not allow proper debate. Madam Acting Deputy President, you made the right ruling.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you are now actually debating—

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

I am just talking on the point of order. I am saying that previously you called Senator Xenophon in preference to me. You could have called me in preference to Senator Xenophon, but you did not, appropriately. I agree with your ruling that I should be the next person to speak.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order with the conventions of the Senate, the call will be with Senator Collins.

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 motion moved by Senator Collins, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McEwen be agreed to.

The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.