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

I seek leave to move:

  That further consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013 be an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the government provides for equal funding for both the yes and the no case, to ensure that the Australian community is properly informed about the arguments for and against the proposed change to the Constitution.

Leave not granted.

): Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the motion to provide for the consideration of the matter that I just read out to the chamber.

There is no more important debate for this country than a change to its fundamental document, the Constitution. It is absolutely appropriate that any discussion of matters constitutional be dealt with on a fair and equitable basis, as has always occurred in Australia. The prime example of that is when we had Prime Minister Howard—an ardent constitutional monarchist—saying that in deciding whether or not Australia should become a republic there should be equal funding to the constitutional monarchists and the republicans.

In relation to the local government issue the coalition have always proceeded on the basis of bipartisanship, with the hope that there would be an equality of treatment for the yes and no cases. What we now have is a government sneaking a proposal through to ensure that the yes case gets 20 times the funding of the no case. That is not fair. That is not transparent. That is not the way that we do business in Australia.

That is why we, as a coalition, are most concerned to ensure that before this matter proceeds further we have the opportunity of ensuring equality of funding for the yes and no cases. This is so typical of this government. They see an outcome that they want. What do they do? They throw buckets of money at it—$10 million worth—and say that the no case is worthy of only $500,000. That is a factor of 20 to one.

Any sense of decency or fairness would surely motivate somebody to say that both sides should be equally funded. That is what we in the coalition believe. It is the integrity of the referendum process that is ultimately even more important than the question itself. We want to ensure that the Australian people are properly informed in relation to these matters, and that the government does not buy—with taxpayers' money—a victory in a referendum. So the coalition say that, above all things, the principles here are vitally more important than the consideration of the actual question.

Never before has this occurred. What is even worse is that this government, without any consultation with the opposition said, 'We will declare the funding on the basis of how many people voted no and yes in the House of Representatives.

What about the Senate? I thought we were in a bicameral system of parliament. And any senator who is worthy of their stipend as a senator must surely vote against a proposal put forward by Mr Albanese and Ms Gillard saying that the Senate does not count when it comes to constitutional change. Of course the Senate must count, otherwise you are abrogating your responsibilities as senators in this place.

It will be very interesting to see how our friends in the Australian Greens vote on this particular proposition, because they are the ones who I understand now are trying to adopt the Australian Democrats' slogan of keeping certain people honest. Well, this is a good example—the first test for them to live up to their own challenge of keeping certain people honest, namely, the Australian Labor Party government—of keeping them honest to ensure that there is equality, there is transparency and there is fairness in the issue of equality of funding for a referendum proposal and, more importantly, the role of the Australian Senate in determining constitutional issues.

The coalition comes to the Senate arguing cohesively, on principle—on all the principles that we can muster—to ensure that equality in this debate is assured for the Australian people and that the government and others do not buy a result based on throwing taxpayers' money at it.

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

The government will be opposing this suspension motion, and there are several reasons for that.

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

A disgraceful act of bad faith.

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

Firstly, what was completely disgraceful was the way in which the opposition attempted to progress this matter. For all the whinging from Senator Fifield this morning, there was no notice given at all that you wanted to seek leave to progress this matter—none at all. That is the first main reason we will be opposing the suspension and indeed why we oppose leave. Senator Abetz, Senator Brandis and Senator Fifield are all well aware of the appropriate conduct in a matter such as this. You came before the Senate with no notice and read a motion which you sought leave to move, which was deliberately designed to be opposed. So, for those that carry on and talk about stunts and high jinks, here is the best example.

I look forward to an opportunity—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you would cease yelling across the chamber we would be able to hear the argument. Senator Collins.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, I look forward to an opportunity to differentiate fact from fiction here. I have very little confidence in this opposition presenting before us, in a clear and proper way, the facts of this matter. Too often, as we see in question time and as we see in other debates, the hype and hyperbole is what is presented in this chamber.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, hyperbole.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Oh, thank you, Senator Brandis, because you expose yourself completely every time.

An opposition senator: You wouldn't answer this question in a debate in this chamber.

I answered this question in the debate, but, as I said, I look forward to an opportunity to differentiate the fact from the fiction here.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators on the left side would remember that Senator Abetz was heard in silence.

An opposition senator: Relative silence.

Absolutely relative silence. Senator Collins.

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

Thank you, and Senator Brandis might like to stop screeching. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to address the points in this matter in a more appropriate way.

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

You are so decorous.

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

Should I acknowledge that interjection as well?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't, Senator Collins.

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

Senator Abetz—sorry, Senator Brandis; I apologise, Senator Abetz, because you do not conduct yourself in this way. Senator Brandis does not seem to understand that the nature of the interjections that he is shrieking and his carrying on do him no service at all. You only need to look at the faces of his colleagues when he carries on this way. Fortunately, because of where I sit in the chamber, I do not often see his face and his carry-on, but now as I stand it is pretty obvious that he understands, as does Senator Abetz, that this clearly is a stunt.

I look forward to looking at the merits of this situation. Senator Abetz is obviously excited about a matter. But, if you were serious, you would have consulted us before bringing this on. I understand Senator Brandis and Senator Abetz were all very excited. They trotted into the chamber and it was very obvious that a stunt was coming, and here it is and it is presented in this way. Next time, give notice if you wish to seek leave. It is as clear as that. Give notice if you wish to seek leave. Until you act accordingly, yes, we will oppose a suspension of this character.

I look forward, with an opportunity of time and facts, to clearly assess what has been asserted here. But, for the moment, unfortunately, this opposition has form—very clear form—of coming into this place with inaccuracies and fiction. Until I can see the facts of this matter, I certainly will not be agreeing to completely circumvent the Senate program for the day.

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

I rise to second the motion.

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

You don't second motions, you goose!

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

Madam Acting Deputy President—

A government senator interjecting—

Madam Acting Deputy President, will you impose the same standards on the government as you imposed on the opposition?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always do, Senator Brandis. Continue your statement.

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

The opposition’s position in relation to this referendum has been transparent from the start. Our position has been, after very difficult discussions, I might say, inside the Liberal Party, that we would not oppose the putting of this referendum question to the people. We see that, following the Pape case and the Williams case, there are issues about grants to local government which do require to be addressed by constitutional amendment, and it has always been our position—even though some of my colleagues have a different view, in good faith—that we would not stand in the way of this referendum proposal being passed through the parliament. However, that was always on the footing—and the discussions between the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Leader of the Opposition have always been conducted on this basis—that there would be equal funding for the yes case and the no case so that the Australian people would have the opportunity to make up their minds on the basis of a full expression of the yes case and a full expression of the no case. It was on that basis, on the basis of those assurances, that the opposition, in the House of Representatives, did not oppose these referendum bills. After they had been passed through the House of Representatives, after the issue of funding for the yes case and the no case had been explored in Senate estimates and the opposition had been led to believe by the government that there was not a problem here, yesterday, for the first time, the government, through Mr Albanese, the minister with carriage of this, announced that the yes case would be funded to the tune of $20 million and the no case would be funded to the tune of half a million dollars.

An opposition senator: It's appalling!

That is the most appalling breach of faith with an opposition which was prepared, and had indicated to the government that it was prepared, to allow the passage of these bills through the parliament on the basis that the yes and no cases both had equal funding.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

You are right, Senator Cormann. You cannot trust these people. You cannot trust the Labor Party. Senator Collins says there was no notice of this suspension motion. That might be so, but nor was there any notice to the opposition of the trick that Mr Albanese tried to execute yesterday. It has always been the constitutional practice that the yes case and the no case at a referendum have been funded equally, regardless of the vote for or against the referendum bills in the parliament. Senator Abetz referred to the republic plebiscite, but let me give you an example of the most recent referendum where that occurred—the 1977 referendum, during the Fraser government, for simultaneous elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was defeated. It had bipartisan support. It was proposed by the government and supported by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives. It was carried in the Senate with bipartisan support, but a small group of backbench Liberal senators—some of them I note, Senator Cormann, were Western Australians—

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

And Tasmanian.

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

and Senator Abetz reminds me at least one of them was a Tasmanian; there were about half a dozen of them—crossed the floor, against the position of their party, to vote no. And in that referendum, because there was a division of opinion in the parliament, the yes case and the no case were funded equally. That is the relevant constitutional precedent that establishes the constitutional practice. But, yesterday, dishonestly, in a most disingenuous way, Mr Albanese, on behalf of the government, said that, because most members of the House of Representatives voted yes and only a couple of opposition members voted no, the funding would be split in a 20 to one ratio. That is inconsistent with the assurances given to the opposition by the government and inconsistent with constitutional practice. It is a disgrace.

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

The proposition before the Senate is that we suspend the standing orders so that a matter that Senator Abetz wishes to debate with regard to the local government referendum can be brought on ahead of all other government business. There are a number of bills before this parliament that we need to get through before we leave here for the winter. We were dealing with the EPBC Amendment Bill and dealing with a filibuster that the coalition set up and have to have talked out. They continue to talk it out so that they are not forced to go to a vote. They will eventually be forced to go to the vote, but there has been a filibuster on, so it is an absolute cheek to come in here after setting up a filibuster on one bill and then want everything else suspended to deal with this matter. This matter should be dealt with when we debate the referendum bill, which was on the Notice Paper for today. If we had not had the filibuster on the EPBC Amendment Bill, we would have been onto the local government bill and had this debate in the context of the debate on that referendum bill.

The Local Government Association are holding their national conference here in Canberra at the moment. They want this matter taken seriously and they do not want it being played with in a political sense. It is quite obvious from what Senator Brandis has just said that the coalition have no intention of supporting the yes case. All they have agreed is that they will not oppose the question being put. In other words, they will not oppose a referendum being held.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

As I was saying, they will not oppose the question being put, but they have not indicated whether they would support the yes or no case. It is fairly obvious that that is the case. However, that is not the point. The point here is: should we suspend standing orders to debate—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

We are here to debate whether Senator Abetz's proposition should take precedence over all other business, when the second item on the Notice Paper for today was the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government), during which he could have raised these matters if the coalition had not set up a filibuster on the EPBC Amendment Bill. That is why we are not going to support this. We will deal with these issues when we get to debate the local government referendum bill, which is the context in which we ought to deal with them.

I note with interest the outrage from Senator Brandis that the backroom deal that they had obviously done with the government on this matter has fallen to bits. I wonder if he got a letter that he could perhaps brandish to show how the agreement that was signed was so badly ratted upon, as occurred to the government only a few weeks ago. So I find it fascinating that there is such high dudgeon in relation to breached agreements when that is what happened over the last couple of weeks.

The Greens point of view is that we should continue with the bills which were agreed. We should have been onto the local government bills, but we have three other bills to deal with tonight. We shall deal with them and then deal with these matters when we get to the local government referendum bill.

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

This government's true north is bad process. Unerringly, that is where this government heads every single time—whether it is bad process by design, as in the case of a carbon tax; whether it is bad process through sheer incompetence, as in the case of the mining tax; or whether it is bad process as a cover to rig an outcome, as we are seeing with the referendum. There should be only one threshold requirement for equal funding being provided to a yes case and a no case: that there are two sides to the argument, that there are two options for voting—yes or no. That is the only threshold which should need to be passed in order for there to be equal funding for both cases in a referendum campaign.

Amongst all parliamentarians, there is—or so I had thought—a sense that there is something bordering on sacred when it comes to the Australian Constitution. Similarly, up until now I had thought that all parliamentarians, regardless of which side of politics they come from, would approach any change to the Constitution with great sobriety, with great sincerity and with great solemnity—because the Constitution is the overarching legal framework within which our system of government operates. I had thought, no matter which side of a proposed change to the Constitution a senator or member was on, that that was something all parliamentarians would agree upon—that it was a serious business, that we should approach it in that fashion and that we should support the yes case and the no case being equally put.

A fundamental part of a yes case and a no case being equally put is equal resourcing. You cannot have equality in the public presentation of the yes case and the no case when only one side is substantially funded. There is only one conclusion you can draw when the government of the day seeks to provide significant resources to put one side of the argument and minimal resources to put the other side—and that is that the government of the day wants to rig or skew the outcome.

We have no issue at all with the government of the day arguing vigorously for a particular position. That is not what is in question here. What is in question here is the complete and absolute abrogation of what has been a cross-party, bipartisan Australian convention—that, when any proposition to change the Australian Constitution is put forward, both sides are presented equally and fairly and funded accordingly. Mr Albanese has come up with this bizarre new concept—that the resources allocated to the various sides of the argument should be dependent upon the number of people who vote a particular way in the Australian parliament. In fact it is not even the number of people who vote a particular way in the Australian parliament; it is just those in the House of Representatives. Even if the voting patterns of both chambers were looked at, however, it is still a bizarre new threshold that Mr Albanese has set. The only conclusion to draw is that the government are worried about their ability to mount the case for their preferred outcome.

There are different views about the referendum among people on this side of the chamber, but I think there is one thing which unites everyone on this side of the chamber, regardless of whether they see a need to change the Constitution or not. The one thing which unites everyone on this side of the chamber is the desire to see the Australian people fully informed so that any referendum gives a fair and accurate reflection of their views. That is the only thing which Mr Albanese should take into account with this proposition. For those reasons, further consideration of the legislation should be deferred until this issue is resolved. (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had hoped that we could get through these two weeks, deal with the legislative agenda and not have the Liberals come down here and hijack the chamber. It appears that they want to continue to oppose a sensible amendment to the Constitution to give local government recognition. That is what they are on about and that is what they are here to argue. Bizarrely, the way they have decided to prosecute their case is by preventing the chamber from getting onto the local government referendum bill. Instead, they are arguing for a suspension so they can debate the issue—when all they had to do was wait 10 minutes and they could have had the debate they say they want to have.

Apart from all that, they could have raised it between leaders or they could have raised it in a range of other ways. But instead they turn up in this chamber, try to up-end it with a stunt and then argue that they are being the rational Liberals that they are not. That is rejected. It is bizarre in the extreme, when you look at the actions of the Liberals. They are all over the place on this issue, like a dropped pie.

When you look at the issues currently before us, fact 1 is that constitutional recognition had bipartisan support, or so I thought, at the federal level. I am now starting to doubt that, quite frankly. The government supports constitutional recognition of local government; the coalition, I thought, supported it; and the minor parties and the crossbenchers support it. The vote earlier this month was almost unanimous. Only two members of the House of Representatives voted against this proposal. Fact 2—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

is that local government will continue to be the responsibility of state governments—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, I remind you that you are not in your seat. Interjecting is disorderly in any case, but it is more disorderly when you are not in your seat.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Well, I can hear you.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that were only true, Acting Deputy President Marshall. Fact 3 is that the referendum campaign funding is proportionate. The amount of funding to be provided for each case will reflect the proportion of members that voted for and against the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) 2013 amendment bill. The government will offer, as we have said, up to $500,000 to proponents of the no case—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ludwig, please resume your seat for a minute. I have been trying to bring—

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

Your government is an absolute disgrace.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, I have been trying to bring senators to order, and people continue to interject. It is disorderly, and I would ask senators to remain silent.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two members who voted against the bill have been asked to determine the distribution of this funding. The government will provide $10 million to the Australian Local Government Association for the yes campaign. That is the way that we will proceed with this referendum.

What we are seeing now is a rearguard action from the rump who are opposed to recognition for local government in our Constitution. That is what this is all about. That is why those opposite are here. That is why they are running down to the chamber, whispering little secrets about how they are going to surprise us when they arrive here, jumping out of the box and saying, 'We want to suspend the Senate, up-end the Senate.' They then want to have a debate about the suspension, not about the substantive issues.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Of course, Senator Abetz is the lead proponent of the stunts in this place. He has decided he will be the one to run down with his loyal servant, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—just like Dick Dastardly and his companion, Muttley—to argue a particular case. This is not a debate that should be held now. It is a debate that can be dealt with properly and appropriately when the bill comes on. The bill is on the Notice Paper, but instead we are going to have to have this suspension debate. And we will vote against it, because not only is the motion substantively inaccurate but also the Senate has important work to deal with this week and we should not be wasting our time on stunts. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.