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

I move government business notice of motion No. 1:

That, on Thursday, 21 March 2013:

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

(b) the routine of business shall be:

  (i) general business orders of the day consideration of bills only for up to 2 hours and 20 mins,

  (ii) non-controversial government business only,

  (iii) petitions,

  (iv) notices of motion,

  (v) tabling of Selection of Bills Committee report,

  (vi) postponement and rearrangement of business,

  (vii) consideration of reports under standing order 62(4),

  (viii) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 12.30 pm to enable a motion relating to the National Apology for Forced Adoptions to be moved,

  (ix) at 2 pm, questions,

  (x) motions to take note of answers,

  (xi) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded,

  (xii) formal motions – discovery of formal business,

  (xiii) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,

  (xiv) from not later than 4.30 pm to 5 pm, statements relating to the imminent retirement of Senator Evans,

  (xv) consideration of general business under standing order 57(1) (d) (xi) shall not be proceeded with,

  (xvi) from not later than 5 pm to 6 pm, consideration of government documents under standing order 57(1) (d) (xii),

  (xvii) from not later than 6 pm to 7 pm, consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1),

  (xviii) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7 pm, and

  (xix) the time limit for the adjournment shall be 40 minutes.

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Senators will be aware that we were seeking to arrange business tomorrow to deal with, amongst other things, the statement with respect to the apology for forced adoptions. It will also come as no surprise to senators that the government is determined to progress some other matters, principally the NDIS and the broadcasting and related bills. I foreshadow that I will be seeking to move a further motion separately to deal with those issues.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

I am pleased that the government has reverted to the motion No. 1 in the Notice Paper, as opposed to the motion which was circulated recently in the chamber which would have provided for the arrangements in relation to the forced apology, as is appropriate, but would also have provided for debate for the government's package of media bills. I think it would have been entirely inappropriate to mire the arrangement for the forced apology in partisanship by tying it to the package of media bills. It would be entirely inappropriate for those two things to be in the one motion, so I am pleased that the government has reverted to the original motion.

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

I see that there have been amendments from the red. Are we voting on the motion at page 3 on today's notice paper?

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

As I understand it, Senator Macdonald, it is the motion as in the Notice paper. Question agreed to.

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

I rise to say that I am looking forward to getting the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill through the Senate. I note that there has already been significant progress in the committee stage. There are now another 2¼ hours in which to progress the bill further through that committee and, the sooner we can get on with it, the sooner that debate will occur. I do not think there is anyone who does not want to see that legislation dealt with, passed and brought into law. The Greens support that happening.

As to the particular media bills, the Greens have worked very hard to ensure that we get recognition for the online platform for the ABC and SBS and also to ensure that the ABC can continue to do its overseas programming instead of putting it out to tender. Those bills are very, very important. I do not think that there would be anyone listening, especially the Friends of the ABC, who would not recognise just how important it is to have that protection of its online presence. A technological change has enabled it, but it is not enshrined as it currently applies. I, for one, want to see that protection being given to the ABC and SBS as quickly as possible and want to ensure that the ABC's overseas service continues in the way that it has.

I think there has been a bit of grandstanding here. It is definitely in the public interest to get these particular bills through. It is disingenuous to bring the apology for forced adoptions into this debate. My colleague Senator Siewert has done a huge amount of work through the committee system to deliver for people seeking this apology. The Greens are very pleased that this day will come to the parliament tomorrow. We will certainly be there as part of a very respectful apology to people who have been victims of forced adoptions. I do not want that process to be part of a grandstand by the coalition. There should be tripartite support for this in a dignified manner tomorrow. With that, Mr President, we want to see the disability legislation go through, we want to see the legislation that protects the ABC and SBS go through and we will be pleased to see those go through today.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is, once again, an outrageous abuse of Senate process by a government that, frankly, is addicted to gagging debate in this place, is addicted to curtailing the proper scrutiny of its reforms and just cannot help itself but to mismanage the affairs of this chamber and ram through laws that this country should not have without proper debate.

In the life of this parliament we have seen 158 bills guillotined through this chamber and, if this motion is successful, another seven will be added to that list and 165 bills will have been guillotined under the watch of this government. Senator Fifield already outlined the fact that this move to guillotine debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme is an astounding step by the government. Everyone in this chamber, especially people on this side, wants to see that legislation passed. The opposition is more than willing to work cooperatively with the government to do so but, instead, in an attack on the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that exists around the NDIS, this government, addicted to guillotining it, addicted to the guillotine, had to guillotine this measure as well.

Equally, they are guillotining the six media reform bills, four of them highly controversial. The hypocrisy of all this is astounding, especially from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy. Let me reflect on what Senator Conroy had to say, back in 2006, about media reforms then. At that stage he put out a press release, in which he said:

Government senators have used their numbers to turn the communications committee inquiry into the media law bills into an absolute farce …

And further:

It is clear that the Government does not want its legislation subjected to proper scrutiny by the senate committee …

Senator Conroy went on:

The committee will be forced to cram more than 30 witnesses into just two days of hearings …

In a complete abuse of the Senate committee process, the minister nominated the reporting date before the committee had even met. The public are entitled to wonder what the government is trying to hide. The government is clearly determined to ram this legislation through the parliament and is arrogantly prepared to sacrifice proper Senate scrutiny to achieve this objective.

Those were Senator Conroy's words in 2006. In 2006 there were four media bills under consideration. Today there are six bills under consideration. In 2006 the government of the day allowed 34 days for consideration of the bills between the houses. This year, the government of the day is allowing just seven days worth of consideration. In 2006 the government of the day allowed 17 days for the committee to report. This year, the government has allowed barely two days for the committee to conduct hearings and report.

This is an amazing situation, where this government wants to push through the most far-reaching, first-ever peacetime regulation of media in this country, and it is doing it under guillotine. This reform process is shambolic, it is too rushed and it is half baked. And do not take my word for it, Mr President, because they are not my words; they are the words of Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, who just a short while ago described the media reform process of this government as 'shambolic, too rushed and half baked'. I could not agree more. That is why this motion should be defeated and that is why there is no way these six media reform bills should be guillotined.

We all know that this government's desire to ram this media legislation through this Senate and through this parliament is driven purely by vengeance; purely by their vengeance to get back at those who have criticised the many, many failures of this government. They have thin skins over there on the government benches and on the cross benches; they want to get back at the people who have been their chief critics and they want to do it by the end of this week.

Although the Prime Minister has completely sidelined Senator Conroy from this process and made a mockery of his take-it-or-leave-it stance in terms of no amendments to the bills, the government remains determined to exact its revenge. This Senate should reject this motion and reject the government's desire to have that revenge.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join this debate reluctantly, but just to put a bit of practical advice into the chamber if I could be so bold. It is currently quarter past four. The motion says that if we pass this motion we will have two hours to debate the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have spent all of this morning in committee. The legislation was actually introduced to the House of Representatives last year. We have had an extended second reading debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and no speaker was curtailed. If we were to stop the grandstanding—and I do apologise, Senator Birmingham, but I think you were more or less debating the media laws rather than an hours motion—and get on with the business of dealing with this, we would have two more hours in committee to deal with the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We all agree about the bipartisanship—the tripartisanship, in fact—around this bill; it is a very important bill. So I do urge the Senate to consider that in the passage of this debate.

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

For Senator McLucas's information—you would think she would know better, having been here as long as she has—this is actually a motion to set aside standing orders to allow the government to move a motion. It is not the motion about the hours. She is criticising Senator Birmingham for debating the media laws and she herself then committed the error of debating the hours motion rather than the motion which is to set aside standing orders, which I actually want to talk about.

I do not think that any of the government speakers have actually demonstrated a need to set aside the standing orders or to allow for this motion to be dealt with now in preference to the agenda that was before us. I do want to point out that the government's proposed motion that Senator McLucas wants us to deal with now is as dysfunctional as is this government generally. I suspect that what the government is trying to do is to get a little bit of free time for tomorrow so that we can have the ultimate leadership challenge as it comes along, and I am surprised that the Greens are facilitating the leadership challenge tomorrow.

If the government's proposal is eventually adopted—if this motion is passed and we are allowed to continue with the hours motion—it does mean that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which has met today and carefully looked at both the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill and the broadcasting bills, if I can call them that, is not going to be able to table until after all of those bills are dealt with. Mr President, you would understand that one of the reasons the Senate sets up committees like the Scrutiny of Bills is so that we can in a bipartisan way have a look at bills that come through and alert senators—as you know, the committee itself does not give opinions or take partisan views, but it does alert senators—to things that the committee thinks the chamber should be aware of. As I said, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has done a fair bit of work on these two bills. There are some horrendous provisions in the broadcasting bills which do impact on freedoms, rights and liberties, and it is the duty of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to alert senators to those, because the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has more time and better advisers, I might say, to make senators aware of these.

These draconian measures really need to be brought to the attention of the senators when they are debating these two bills. And yet, the Labor Party in promoting the change to the order, simply overlooks the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It obviously does not want us—want the Scrutiny of Bills Committee—to alert the parliament to some of the tremendously restrictive provisions of the broadcasting bills. These provisions clearly take away people's rights—infringe upon their rights—and give some quite unfettered powers to the government. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, quite rightly, is not making a judgement on them, but rightly pointing that out to the parliament. This government is so dysfunctional—or, perhaps, so functional and so clever—that it wants to make sure that the particular Scrutiny of Bills Committee report does not come in until after those two bills are voted upon by the Senate.

How unfortunate is that? Had the government consulted a bit wider, had they taken senators into their confidence, perhaps that could have been pointed out to them. But they rushed forward with these bills—anything to get through these draconian measures, measures that really impact upon freedom of speech—without any concern for the forms and norms of this chamber.

As I say, I know that this is all about giving a bit of space tomorrow for the leadership challenge, which we all know is coming along, but you could do it in a different way to this and you could allow the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to at least precede these bills. (Time expired)

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

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

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

I move:

That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday 20 March 2013 and Thursday 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.

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

Senator Collins, you are not speaking to this, clearly?

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

We want to get to the NDIS!

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

Mr President, I must start by noting that interjection. The government are so keen to get legislation passed they are seeking to move a motion to guillotine debate. There is a slight inconsistency there.

As I mentioned in the earlier procedural debate, this motion seeks to mire two important issues in grubby partisanship. It seeks to sully the NDIS debate by giving precedence to the government's package of media bills. I would have thought that if there was a piece of legislation that deserved to be considered on its merits—that deserved all the opportunities that this forum provides for discussion and debate—it would be the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Indeed, it has been a matter of some pride for all those around the chamber that the proposition of legislation for a National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that could demonstrate the Australian parliamentary and political system at its very best to the Australian people—where all parties come together to say that there is an issue, a cause, that is bigger than ourselves and the parliament, and that the need to deliver a new deal for Australians with disability is so great.

That has been the experience to date. That was very much the tone and theme in the other place when they were debating the NDIS legislation. There were no restrictions on debate in the other place. There was no effort to curtail examination in the other place. There was no attempt to limit the airing of views of stakeholders in relation to the NDIS in the other place. I have taken some pride in the fact that we in the Australian Senate tend to be a little more respectful of the processes of this parliament, that we tend to defend more vigorously the role of parliamentary committees and the committee stage for bills in this place. But what we see in the motion before us is a pure, simple, naked guillotine.

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

Order! This is the precedence motion that is before the chair. I just thought I would draw that to your attention.

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

This is nothing more than an attempt to give precedence to something that will ultimately give effect to a guillotine that will curtail debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There were 1,600 submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the NDIS legislation—an extraordinary number of submissions. It just goes to show the level of community feeling and the desire for that piece of legislation to be passed. So it has been with a heavy heart and great disappointment that I have seen this afternoon a series of motions, the ultimate objective of which is to facilitate the passage of a motion that would see the guillotining of debate on the NDIS legislation.

The other issue which the various procedural motions today have sought to sully is that of the apology to those who have been forcibly adopted. We had, I thought, reached agreement around the chamber that Thursday's arrangements would be reordered in order to facilitate that apology in the Australian parliament. I thought that agreement had been reached on that. We willingly said that we would do whatever was necessary to arrange tomorrow's program in the Senate to acknowledge the special nature of the day and facilitate the activities that will take place. That was an unexceptional decision by those around this chamber. I thought it had been clear that any motions that the government might seek to move in this place in relation to business today to facilitate their package of media bills would be completely separate from Thursday—that Thursday would be quarantined and respected and that the significance of the apology would be acknowledged in this place by not seeking to drag matters of controversy into tomorrow.

We saw in the motion that Senator Collins circulated earlier today an attempt to combine the rearrangement of business today with the rearrangement of business tomorrow, which was bad enough in itself. But in addition to that, Senator Collins sought to include in the arrangements for Thursday another guillotine and the listing of the package of media bills. That should never have happened. It should never have been contemplated. When that fundamental error was drawn to the attention of the government they reverted to the original motion on the Notice Paper for Thursday—but subsequently proceeded to endeavour to amend that and repeat the errors that were in the motion they circulated today.

You may have some difficulty following that train of events, Mr President, but probably not because you know this place better than almost anyone. For those who may be listening, yes, it sounds confusing, and it is confusing because this government's management of this chamber and their efforts to seek to arrange government business in this place have been nothing but a shambles. It has been completely chaotic over the last day. There is no other way to put it.

We have two issues which should never have been mired in controversy: the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation and the apology to those who were forcibly adopted. This Senate still has the opportunity to not be complicit in the government's attempts to merge, muddy and sully the handling of the NDIS legislation and the apology on forced adoptions. That is why the coalition have not supported any of the procedural motions in relation to these matters today, and we will not be supporting this motion either. To do so would be to make senators on this side of the chamber complicit in an effort to say to the Australian people that Senator Conroy's package of fundamentally flawed media bills—Senator Conroy's Orwellian legislation—was more important than the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Let me tell you, I do not think Senator Conroy's legislation is more important than the National Disability Insurance Scheme and I do not think that Senator Conroy's legislation is more important than the apology to those were forcibly adopted. I think these motions and the activities of the last 24 to 48 hours in this place tell you everything you need to know about this government. Yes, they pay lip-service to the importance of a National Disability Insurance Scheme and, yes, they pay lip-service to the importance of an apology to those who have been forcibly adopted. But when it comes down to it, what really matters to this government is partisan political advantage, and they will seek to get that however they can. If that means introducing draconian media laws to gag a free press, then they will do that. If it means seeking to gag and guillotine legislation on the NDIS in this place in order to give precedence to Senator Conroy's package of media bills, then they will do that. If it means sullying Thursday, which is meant to be a day dedicated to the issue of an apology to those who have been forcibly adopted, by combining it with consideration of Senator Conroy's deeply controversial package of media bills, then they will do that. That is what this motion is about, that is what the motion before was about and that is what the next motion will be about—naked, partisan political advantage and the pursuit thereof. As I say, if there were any two issues that should have been quarantined, separated and defended from being dragged into that grubby, grubby objective of this government, it would have been the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation and the apology to those forcibly adopted. That is why we cannot support this motion.

But, as I said earlier today, I do have to hand it to the government in one respect: they are remorselessly consistent. They always default to the restriction of expression, the restriction of freedom, the restriction of debate and the restriction of scrutiny at each and every opportunity. That is what the package of media bills is about. We have all heard of the Public Interest Media Advocate. We all know that that is really a political interest media advocate or, if you want to dress it up a little bit, you can call it a government interest media advocate. That is what that new position is about. That is the fundamental essence of most of the bills in that media package which Senator Conroy is seeking to put forward. We know they always default to seeking to curtail expression, to curtail thought, to curtail a free expression and to curtail legitimate democratic criticisms of a deeply flawed government.

We know that this government do not like criticism. Who does like criticism? There is not a government that has ever been elected—or a government that has been in office who has not been elected, for that matter—who likes or enjoys criticism. When we had the privilege of being on the other side of this chamber, we did not particularly enjoy the media criticism that we received. But you know what? It kept us on our toes. It helped make us better. It helped ensure that where there were errors and where there were failures, they were exposed, and it helped the government of the day to govern better—much as an opposition providing scrutiny of the government of the day should help them to govern better. I must say, I feel a complete failure on that score because our scrutiny has not helped this government govern better in any way, shape or form. Lord only knows what their governing might have been like if we had not applied the scrutiny that we have. We know that they always default to curtailing and seeking to gag the critics, as is the objective of their package of media bills, the passage of which these procedural motions are ultimately designed to help facilitate.

We all agree with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but it is very complex legislation. I spent nine days in public hearings with the Community Affairs Legislation Committee looking at the NDIS. I spent a lot of time looking at the legislation, looking at the draft rules, talking to stakeholder groups and reading the submissions that have come in—it is complex legislation. Even when there is an area that you agree upon, you still have a job to try and make sure that the legislation is the best that it can be. That is why we have these processes. It does not matter whether a proposition is one that all parties agree with or one that is the subject of deep controversy, this chamber, this Senate and the committees of the Senate have a job to do to examine all legislation to make sure that it is the best that it can be. The more complex it is, the greater that task and the greater that responsibility is. This is why the parliament as a whole has spent the best part of 3½ months looking at the NDIS legislation. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee spent the best part of 3½ months looking at that legislation.

And yet this government wants to curtail the very important committee stage of consideration of that legislation. There are many, many community groups, people with disabilities, disability organisations and disability advocates who have views that they want ventilated, who have made the effort to put submissions to the community affairs committee and who, at the very least, want some of the questions that they have posed put to the government. They support the legislation—of course they do—but they still have questions in relation to it, and yet this government seeks to deny them the opportunity to do that.

I want to draw a contrast between the level of scrutiny that there has been on the NDIS legislation, which is going to be curtailed, and the media bill package. There have been 3½ months of scrutiny by the community affairs committee into the NDIS legislation. Let me compare that to the scrutiny that there has been on the package of media bills which Senator Birmingham has been so assiduously working on. That package of media bills has had 3½ days of consideration. Just compare that: 3½ months consideration of the NDIS versus 3½ days consideration of the package of media bills. It is bad enough that the guillotine will come down on the consideration of the NDIS legislation, but it is appalling beyond belief that the package of media bills that Senator Conroy would like to see through this parliament has only had 3½ days of consideration.

When you think about it, if a package of legislation which is complex and which has the support of the whole parliament has 3½ months of consideration, how much more consideration should a package of bills, which do not have the support of the whole parliament, are incredibly controversial and do not have the support of a single media outlet or a single card-carrying member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance—other than Senator Bob Carr, who proudly produced his MEAA card last night; he is the sole member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance who was actually in favour of Senator Conroy's package of legislation—deserve? But if we need 3½ months to consider a complex but supported piece of legislation in the NDIS, why on earth is this government only allowing 3½ days consideration by the Senate environment and communications committee of Senator Conroy's package of bills? There is only one reason—that is, this government knows that the legislation will not stand scrutiny. This government knows that with every day that passes, more and more Australians recognise Senator Conroy's package of bills for what they are: an attempt to muddle—well, it is a muddle, that is for sure—an attempt to muzzle the free press.

We have a tendency in Australia to take for granted those things that underpin a free and democratic society. We all know what they are. It is the freedom of association, the rule of law, freedom of speech and a free press. This government has systematically set about undermining each and every one of those underpinnings of our free and democratic society, including freedom of association, where they are quite happy for unions to march in at will through the front door of a business. I think people in business should be able to associate with whomever they want. As for freedom of expression, we saw what happened to Mr Bolt when he simply expressed a view in a newspaper on something—he was hauled off to court. And we know now that Senator Conroy is seeking to curtail freedom of the press. When it comes to the rule of law, you only need look at the government's abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to see what their attitude is to the rule of law. The rule of law does not apply if you are a particular sort of organisation. This government have been remorselessly consistent in their attempts to curtail freedom. They have been remorselessly consistent in their efforts to curtail their critics. As I said, they have always defaulted and always will, because that is the Labor way—to try to shut down their critics.

We cannot support the motion that is before the chair at the moment because we cannot and never will be complicit in anything that seeks to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That is the ultimate objective of each of these procedural motions—that is, to facilitate, through this parliament, without scrutiny, a package of media bills that will fundamentally undermine one of the underpinnings of our free and democratic society. We cannot do that; we will not do it. As long as we have breath in this place we will speak out against what Senator Conroy is trying to do. We will speak out against what the Prime Minister is attempting to do. I do not care whether she is the Prime Minister or whether she is replaced by someone else, Labor is, at essence, the same. What we really need is a change of government. We are not going to allow them to facilitate this particular measure.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion strikes at two very significant principles: firstly, the principle of an effective and democratic and fair parliament and, secondly, the principle of a free and open media to scrutinise the operations of the parliament. This motion strikes very deeply at the heart of both of those things, because this motion undermines the capacity of this parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny to far-reaching legislation going through this place. In doing so, this motion will facilitate the passage of that far-reaching legislation that attacks the principle of a free media and a free press in Australia. For that reason this motion must be opposed, should be opposed and should be defeated so that this chamber can have a proper debate on issues of such significance.

This motion applies, of course, to two areas of very significant legislation—two far-reaching reforms: one of which the opposition, along with the cross-benchers and the government, is deeply and sincerely committed to; and the other of which we are deeply and sincerely opposed to. We are deeply and sincerely committed to seeing the passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation.

Senator Fifield has led, on behalf of the opposition, a passionate stance of supporting this, of trying to strengthen the reform and of calling for greater detail and greater commitments through the life of this parliament. He has sought every step of the way to try to make this a bipartisan measure on behalf of the coalition. We want this measure to succeed. This is a far-reaching measure of fundamental and profound importance to millions of Australians, the many Australians with a disability and the many more Australians who are related to those with disabilities, carers for those with disabilities and friends of those with disabilities.

Getting this legislation right is fundamental to its future success, and we want the NDIS to be a success. Therefore, we want to get this legislation right and we believe that it deserved complete and thorough scrutiny through this parliament. As Senator Fifield said, it got the scrutiny it deserved in the other place. In the House of Representatives, there was no guillotine to the NDIS legislation; there was open debate. The open debate ensured that there was the right level of scrutiny.

In this place, sadly, the government is now seeking to curtail that debate, and quite unnecessarily so. The government could have very easily proposed extended hours to solely deal with the NDIS. I am confident that in the spirit of bipartisanship and spirit of cooperation the opposition has to this policy issue those extended hours would have been granted. We would have been willing to sit for as long as it took this week to deal with the NDIS and to deal with the sensible amendments related to it. However, the government, because it also wants to get its media reforms through and wants to exact its revenge on those who have dared to criticise it, has had to apply a guillotine not just to those controversial media reforms but to the very sincere and important reforms related to the NDIS.

That is a shame because it undermines the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that should surround those reforms. It is to the credit of the opposition and Senator Fifield in particular that we have been so willing to work with the government on this important issue—difficult at times though it can be—and to the shame of the government that they are wrapping up the NDIS in a guillotine motion in this controversial procedure at this time.

As I said, their motives for doing so are clear. It is not to do with the NDIS, in fairness to the government; it is to do, of course, with the media law reforms. Reforms that are the most far-reaching in terms of their impact on the operation of media in this country. When it comes to the hours of sitting for this Senate and when it comes to ensuring we have proper scrutiny of legislation in this place, we should expect that to be adhered to.

I am not the first person to stand in this place and criticise a procedural motion like this that tries to vary the hours and vary the arrangements and in doing so tries to ram legislation through this place. I am far from the first person to do so. Senator Wong, now the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, back in 2005 said:

We are asking for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised by this chamber through a Senate committee process before it is voted on.

Let us look very closely at what Senator Wong was asking for there: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised. Both of the legislative packages that are before the chamber fit into that realm. The NDIS may have far-reaching support but it is complex—it is complex for sure. The media reform legislation, equally, has far-reaching effect across all Australians. It is complex and it is most certainly controversial as well.

Senator Wong was right in 2005. She was correct in saying that such legislation deserved proper scrutiny then, and it deserves proper scrutiny today as we debate this. When this chamber divides shortly, I hope that Senator Wong and her Labor colleagues will reflect on the words that she said in 2005 and remember that they were asking, as she said, for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised.

Equally, in 2006 the now Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy, who of course is the proponent of these media reforms—or at least was the proponent of these media reforms until the Prime Minister pulled the rug out from under his feet and subsumed all negotiations with the cross-benchers in the other place, said:

You do not just need to be here in this chamber to realise how arrogant and out of touch this government has become with the ramming through of legislation, ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, changing the sitting pattern all the time and using the guillotine. It is turning this chamber, which for 30 or 40 years has been a chamber of accountability and scrutiny, into a farce.

Senator Conroy is of course now the leader of the government in this place. Prior to that, he was the deputy leader of the government in this place.

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

It is hard to believe.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very hard to believe, Senator Fifield, and I think many on the other side find it equally hard to believe that Senator Conroy is their leader.

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

But not for long.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Possibly not. That could be the case across the parliament. Senator Conroy prior to being a cabinet minister, prior to being one of the leaders of the government in this place, had a very sanctimonious stance it seems. He was more than happy to criticise the previous government. He was more than happy to criticise the changing of the sitting pattern, the ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, the ramming through of legislation and the use of the guillotine—all things that this government and Senator Conroy are guilty of time and time again. In fact, this government has used the guillotine on many more occasions than the previous government ever did. On some 158 occasions to date this government has applied the guillotine to separate pieces of legislation. If this motion is successful, another seven will be added to that list, bringing the total number of bills that have been guillotined through this place to 165. Senator Conroy should equally think long and hard when he comes to vote on this as to how hypocritical his stance is compared with what he previously uttered.

The crossbenchers are not innocent in this place either. Senator Milne previously said:

The Australian people deserve a house of review. A house of review means appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of governments.

It does indeed. Senator Milne was correct. The Greens, who have supported this process to date, should when the division comes think long and hard again about Senator Milne's words. Do the Greens genuinely support a house of review that provides appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of government? If they do, they would not support this motion. They would not support this motion because it most definitely does not provide for appropriate scrutiny of legislation in this place.

This motion will see, as I said, two very significant areas of reform undertaken. Debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013 will be concluded in the next couple of hours if this motion is successful. Despite the number of amendments that are outstanding and despite the cooperative nature of the debate to date, the NDIS reforms will be rammed through. They are far-reaching reforms that will have—hopefully—positive, profound impacts on the lives of so many Australians. The government is curtailing proper consideration. We need to make sure we maximise the long-term benefits of those reforms.

With the media reform package, the government proposes to deal with two of the bills tonight and four of the bills tomorrow. Again, there will be just a few hours of consideration for each of those packages. There will be a few hours for changes to our media landscape that are quite profound. Perhaps it would be acceptable to have curtailed debate on these matters had there been proper, thorough debate through the Senate committee process beforehand. But it has been far from it. The Senate committee sat for two days this week. The bills were released only last Thursday and witnesses had no time whatsoever to provide submissions to that process. Perhaps it would be appropriate for this place to curtail debate as proposed in this motion had there been proper consideration through the Senate committee, but that has not been possible under the terms stipulated by this government.

Perhaps it would be possible to curtail debate to some extent had there been proper consideration of these bills in the other place, but no, in the other place the bills have been brought on and taken off by the government—they have mostly been off; they have been sitting off the table without any debate while negotiations were happening behind closed doors. Mr Wilkie has confirmed that Senator Conroy has been shut out of those negotiations. Amazingly, the lead minister has also been absent during this debate about whether his laws get debated in this chamber. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is missing in action once again. Perhaps it would be acceptable to see some element of curtailed debate in this place if there were thorough scrutiny in the other place, but that most certainly will not be the case. If the Senate is to debate these bills as proposed in the motion before us, then the other place will have a maximum of only a few hours to finalise consideration of the legislation as no doubt it will be pushed through under guillotine in that chamber as well.

Perhaps it would even be acceptable to see some degree of curtailed debate on these bills on these far-reaching media reforms had there been proper public debate surrounding them, but they were released for the public to see only last Thursday. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013—that is a rather ironically titled bill. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013. So, if this motion is successful, in the space of a week the government will have expected the public to have had proper debate around these proposed far-reaching media reforms and their restrictions on the operation of free media in Australia, in the space of a week the government will have expected the parliamentary committee processes of the House of Representatives and the joint committees, like the human rights standing committee that handed down a most interesting and damning report on these reforms, to have considered the legislation. The government believes that a week is sufficient time for the House of Representatives to consider these bills and that a week is sufficient time for the Senate to consider these bills.

I know that Senator Ludlam, who is sitting over there, has a different view from mine on media regulation. However, I also know that Senator Ludlam believes in proper public policy processes, and I would urge Senator Ludlam to exercise whatever influence he can on his colleagues in the Australian Greens to make sure that they stand up for proper public policy-making processes, oppose this motion before the Senate and support the proper scrutiny of these far-reaching media reforms.

Not only has there been no case made in any adequate terms as to why these reforms are necessary or how these reforms would work but there most certainly has been no case made as to why there is such urgency surrounding these reforms—why it is that this parliament must finalise them by 9 pm tomorrow night. Why must this parliament finalise these reforms by 9 pm tomorrow night? No member of the government stood up and said why it is so necessary or why it is so urgent. Senator Conroy, the responsible minister and the leader of the government in this place, has not been seen for hours. He has not been seen in this chamber. He has not been seen, according to Mr Wilkie, in the negotiations around his legislation. It seems as if the government has gone and hidden Senator Conroy in a corner somewhere.

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

Good plan!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very good plan, Senator Fifield. I understand their embarrassment. I understand why they are embarrassed that he is part of their leadership team. I understand why they are embarrassed that he has put them in this position, where they have been subjected to ridicule and criticism over the abhorrent handling of this legislation and where even Mr Wilkie, the Independent member for Denison, has described the process as 'shambolic', 'too rushed' and 'half-baked'. They are words that perhaps the crossbenchers might reflect on. They are not my words as to the process being applied; they are the words of a fellow crossbencher and Independent member in this parliament, the member for Denison, who describes the process applied to these media reforms as 'shambolic', 'too rushed' and 'half-baked'.

Pass this motion and you will only add to it. Pass this motion and we will see a bad process get worse. Pass this motion and we will see bad laws pushed through this parliament. Pass this motion and we will see a further eroding of the proper principles when it comes to handling of parliamentary standards and media laws. That is why this motion should be defeated, and I urge the chamber to do so.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Before I call Senator Macdonald—

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

No, Xenophon.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a moment. I am going to remind honourable senators that the motion before the chair is:

That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday 20 March 2013 and Thursday 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.

I would ask those contributing to the debate to be as relevant to that motion as possible, within the high degree of latitude which is typically granted to others. I did see Senator Macdonald on his feet.

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

Senator Xenophon was too.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald was on his feet first.

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

Senator Xenophon was on his feet as well.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am conscious Senator Xenophon wants to speak.

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

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Xenophon was on his feet. You may not have seen him at the time. I have made that point to you. We have already had two speakers from the other side of the chamber. It is quite out of order not to allow Senator Xenophon to make his contribution at this stage.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Macdonald was on his feet first. I do understand the convention of moving the speakers around the chamber. However, I think there is only so long a senator should be expected to stand on their feet before they are recognised and given the call. A senator cannot stand on their feet indefinitely waiting for another senator to get to their feet. But there should be the opportunity for all senators to contribute. Senator Xenophon and Senator Macdonald should both have the opportunity to contribute. The only way that will not occur is if the government moves a gag motion.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just give you the benefit of the advice that I have received. It was very clear to me that Senator Macdonald was on his feet well before Senator Xenophon, but I have been advised by the Clerk that it is reasonable to expect proportionality in contribution to debate. Given those circumstances, I will call Senator Xenophon.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I am grateful for your ruling but I am also conscious that Senator Macdonald wants to make a contribution. My contribution will be for less than two minutes; it may even be for only a minute. Can I indicate that I will oppose the government's position. I think that this is really diminishing the role of the Senate as a house of review. This is not the way that parliament is supposed to run. I am concerned that with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a very important piece of legislation, we have just over an hour to determine 15 series of amendments—substantial amendments that go to the heart of the integrity of the scheme in terms of people's rights to appeal. We also have the media laws, which will be rushed through, with significant impacts on the media in this country, issues of freedom of speech and a whole range of other issues. The Senate is meant to be a house of review. The parliament is meant to do its job properly. The founding fathers of the Constitution determined that this Senate was about reviewing legislation in an appropriate and proper manner, and we are not doing it by this motion. So I cannot support this in good conscience. Finally, I say that, if I am fortunate enough to be in this place next year and if there is a change of government, I will hold any new government to the same standards that I am now applying in relation to debates not being curtailed or gagged.

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

At Senator Fifield's suggestion, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You were not there, so you did not see what happened, but it was clearly understood that I stood first by an appropriate ruling by the Acting Deputy President. Senator Xenophon was given the call, but it was quite clear that I was the next one on my feet, as I was just then. I ask that you recognise me before you recognise—

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

Senator Collins has moved a procedural motion. I am required to put that without debate.

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

I am raising the point of order that you should have recognised me in preference to her.

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

And I am saying there is no point of order at this stage. I am required to put the procedural motion without debate.

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

Mr President, you were not even here to see what happened previously.

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

I am now in the chair. I am dealing with the matters as they arise in the chamber.

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

Yes, but there was an order of speaking. I was called but, through an appropriate decision, Senator Xenophon was called, and then—

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

There is no order of speaking in this debate.

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

you had a choice of selecting either me or Senator Collins. You clearly looked only at Senator Collins, but I tell you I was on my feet before her and ask that you might recognise the first person on their feet, not the second person.

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

I have a procedural motion before me, and the question is that the question be put. I put the question.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Collins did verbal me. I rose when the matter was before the previous occupant of the chair.

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

If you have been verballed, I ask Senator Collins to withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

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

The verballing has been withdrawn if that is the way you took it.

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

Thank you; but, on a point of order—

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

I thought that was the point of order.

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

I have another point of order.

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

I have started putting the question. The question needs to be put. The question is that the motion—

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

It is a point of order in relation to the procedural motion currently before you. If I cannot do it now then it is not relevant to do it afterward, so now is the appropriate opportunity for me.

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

All right. The question that I have to put—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The order of business is that I must put the motion that the question be put. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion to vary the hours of meeting be given precedence over other business today. That is the shorthand version.

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

Mr President, with respect, I thought we just voted on that.

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

No, what we have just dealt with was that the motion be put. We are now voting on the question that the motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday, 20 March 2013 and Thursday, 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined. That is now the motion that is before the chair. The question is that that motion be agreed to.

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

I move the motion, in the terms circulated in the chamber:

That:

(1) On Wednesday, 20 March 2013:

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

(b) the routine of business for the remainder of the day be as follows:

  (i) consideration of the following government business orders of the day:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013,

  (ii) the bills listed in paragraph (1)(b)(i) be considered under a limitation of debate, and that the time allotted be as follows:

and this paragraph shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142,

  (iii) committee memberships,

  (iv) messages from the House of Representatives,

  (v) tabling of committee reports,

  (vi) the proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,

  (vii) consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with, and

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

(2) On Thursday, 21 March 2013:

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

(b) the routine of business shall be:

  (i) general business orders of the day for consideration of bills only for up to 2 hours and 20 minutes,

  (ii) non-controversial government business only,

  (iii) petitions,

  (iv) notices of motion,

  (v) tabling of Selection of Bills Committee report,

  (vi) postponement and rearrangement of business,

  (vii) consideration of reports under standing order 62(4),

  (viii) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 12.30 pm to enable a motion relating to the National Apology for Forced Adoptions to be moved,

  (ix) at 2 pm, questions,

  (x) motions to take note of answers,

  (xi) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded,

  (xii) formal motions – discovery of formal business,

  (xiii) from not later than 4.45 pm consideration of the following government business order of the day:

     Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013

     News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013

     News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

     Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013,

  (xiv) the bills listed in paragraph (2)(b)(xiii) be considered under a limitation of debate, and that the time allotted be as follows:

     4.45 pm to 6.30 pm, and from not later than 7 pm to 9 pm––all remaining stages,

     and this paragraph shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142,

  (xv) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm,

  (xvi) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,

  (xvii) 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, and

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

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

I seek leave to table and consider the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report now, with myself, Senator Edwards, who is a member of the committee, and Senator Fifield—should I not be able to finish my 10 minutes—having up to 15 minutes to talk on the consideration of the report. By way of explanation, I indicate that I was going to move an amendment to the substantive motion to provide for that. It was agreed, I thought, by the government for me, instead of moving the amendment, to be given leave to do that.

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

If you are seeking leave that is not in my hands, as you know. I will ask if leave is granted. Is leave granted?

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 make a brief statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

The request for leave in the terms described by Senator Macdonald leaves us in a situation where the Senate will not be able to consider the motion proper as has been circulated. I would suggest that leave be granted for Senator Macdonald to speak for five minutes.

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

On the question of leave, leave has been granted for Senator Macdonald to speak for five minutes. That is not something within my control. Senator Macdonald.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than one minute.

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

Leave is granted for one minute. Wait: this is a matter in progress. Senator Collins.

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

I might be able to assist the Senate, on advice from the Clerk. The leave that Senator Macdonald is requesting we are happy to provide after the Senate has determined the motion.

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

Is leave granted for one minute? Leave is granted. Senator Macdonald.

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

Why am I surprised? My alternative is to move an amendment to the motion that the minister is about to or has moved. To facilitate her and at her request, I agreed not to move the amendment because she would give me leave to table and speak to this report for up to 15 minutes.

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

Afterwards.

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

She is saying after that, but she told me earlier that if this goes after 6.15 then I will not get the leave. So it is the ultimate doublecross. So I will refuse her offer and move my amendment and I hope that the Greens would support me in allowing the scrutiny of bills issue to be put in place in front of both the disability and the media bills.

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

You are entitled to move an amendment. We need the motion in writing and if you could give us that, that would assist.

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

Is it now appropriate for me to move—

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

Yes, you are in order.

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

I move an amendment to the motion that the minister has tabled so that before subparagraph (1)(b)(i) we insert a new subparagraph (1)(a) taking consideration of committee reports—I cannot read someone's writing; I will not indicate whose writing it was—pursuant to standing order 62.4. My motion is here written out. So I move:

Before subparagraph (1) (b) (i), insert:

(ia) tabling and consideration of committee reports pursuant to standing order 62(4),

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 put.

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

Senator Macdonald, I now have a motion that the question on the amendment be put. That is the motion that I have. I now have a motion that the motion be put. It is a procedural motion. I will put it straight. As a division is required, ring the bells for one minute.

Opposition senators interjecting—

If you want it for four minutes, I am quite happy to make it four minutes.

The question is that the question be put on the amendment moved by Senator Macdonald.

Order! The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Macdonald be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:42]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the motion for the variation of the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday, 20 March 2013 and Thursday, 21 March 2013 be amended, as follows:

With respect to paragraph (2) (b):

Omit paragraphs (xi) and (xii), and substitute:

  (xi) formal motions—discovery of formal business,

  (xii) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded.

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 put.

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

Mr President, again I rise to raise the same point of order. Under anyone's view, I was on my feet a long time before Senator Collins rose—

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

Senator Macdonald, you should consult the rules of this place. At any time I can recognise a minister in the debate, and the minister did stand to her feet, and I am recognising the minister.

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

My point of order, Mr President, is that I was clearly, by anyone's view, on my feet a long time before the minister rose.

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

Senator Macdonald, I am not going to argue. There is no point of order. I have recognised Senator Collins—

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

Well it shows something about the way these things run, Mr President.

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

Senator Macdonald, that is an uncalled for comment. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins that the question be now put be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, 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

I move:

That the question be 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 put on the amendment moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

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

The Senate divided. [17:51]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.