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

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the routine of business for today.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the conduct of business, namely a motion relating to the consideration of government business order of the day No. 3.

The issue that the Senate faces on this final day is to deal with some important legislation. The important legislation that we want to see dealt with today is the legislation that will deal with temporary protection visas. It is legislation that will actually help get people and children out of detention to face an appropriate Christmas. Keeping in mind that people in the case load of which we speak are not people that have come to Australia courtesy of coalition policy, but courtesy of the legacy issues that we are still trying to clean up on this side.

I simply say this, especially to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens who might oppose this motion: do they really want children and others in detention over the Christmas period or would they want this issue to in fact be resolved? Here they have a very real opportunity to assist in providing some legislation that undoubtedly is within the best interests of our country and especially in the best interests of that 30,000 case load legacy that the Australian Labor Party and the Greens have left us.

That is all we seek. It is a relatively modest request for and on behalf of the government to at least complete business order of the day No. 3, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014. That is the issue that we want to deal with before we rise for the Christmas break. We believe it is an appropriate measure, it is a humanitarian measure and it is good all around. I trust that the Labor Party and Greens will see it within themselves to expedite this legislation so that we can deal with it in a manner that is expeditious and then allows us to break for the rest of the year.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point I wish to make is to place on record not only our disappointment but also our opposition to having a discussion about children in detention used in order to further the government's attempt to rearrange the business here in the Senate. It should be very clear to everybody that if the minister, Mr Morrison, chose to allow children to leave detention, he could do so. He could do so today; in fact, he could have done it yesterday.

Senator Madigan hit the nail on the head after a profoundly important question, where he also put to Minister Cash that it was not an appropriate thing, it was not a compassionate thing and it was not a principled thing to use the issue of children in detention to try to gain some advantage for a Senate program. I want to associate myself with the sentiment that was expressed by Senator Madigan.

But this is not a debate about the substantive bill. This is a debate about whether this government can suspend standing orders in order to move a motion about the hours that the Senate should sit and about the bills that the Senate should consider. I want to, in the brief time I have, just remind the Senate of the history of the way in which this government has run this chamber.

As I previously indicated, I wrote to Senator Abetz on the Monday of last week. I asked him for an indication from the government as to what were their priority bills, I asked him for an indication as to what additional time would be required and I asked him for an indication of how they wanted to structure this last week and whether any additional sitting days would be required. I did not get a reply to that.

A week later, along with every other leader and whip in this place, I got an invitation to Senator Abetz's office. It was very nice office. We all sat around a table. We had three meetings. In each of the three meetings, Senator Abetz's indication to us about what his priority legislation would be was changed. It changed depending on, as he said, 'It depends whether we have got the numbers. It depends what happens. We have to have a discussion.' He also refused on Monday to tell us what additional hours were required.

Now, because of that frankly chaotic management of the chamber, his solution is to come in here after question time on Thursday and to up-end standing orders in order for him to be able to now move a motion, because he has finally decided which bills are actually priority and what the hours should be. We had the Manager of Government Business in this place lodging a motion yesterday that will require, if passed, the Senate to sit every day—tomorrow and over the weekend—until a range of bills were passed. That was lodged without notice to anybody. We had three meetings on Monday where you might have raised this, but you do not want to talk to anybody about how long you want the Senate to sit. You do not ever want to even approach the opposition—I do not know if you approached the crossbenchers before you lodged that motion—and say, 'Look, we would like to discuss how we might rearrange things et cetera'. No, there was nothing like that. We had a chat in Senator Abetz's office three times on Monday where none of this was discussed, and then we get lobbed with a motion, put in yesterday without notice, that the Senate is going to sit every day of the weekend for a whole bunch of bills in order to get legislation passed.

Senator Abetz also put out a press release talking about the Mr Fluffy asbestos issue, trying to suggest that we have to sit to deal with that, when I told him on Monday that we would do that in non-controversial legislation and get that through.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I told him on Monday. So do not try and use children in detention or asbestos removal to cover up the fact that this Senate leadership team—and goodness knows where Senator Brandis is, because he never seems to be around on these issues—has presided over chaos and mismanagement when it comes to running this chamber and a refusal to engage in adult, responsible dialogue with other members of this Senate in order to facilitate how this last week was to be handled. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The phrase that comes to mind right now is 'hypocrisy, thy name is Labor'.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, look in a mirror.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard day in, day out from Senator Wong and Senator Conroy about what they state to be the management capacity of those on this side of the chamber. The reality is that those opposite have given up any of the basic courtesies or protocols or understandings in this place that make it work. Even the worst opposition—which I think those opposite are—usually can find it within themselves to recognise that there is a public interest greater than themselves to be served in this place through agreement on certain pieces of legislation and on when the Senate will sit.

I have seen a few things that I have never seen before this week. Today, there was a first, and that was seeing the Selection of Bills Committee report adoption motion filibustered. That is a new one. I have not seen that before. Even when the government indicated that we were not going to seek to divide on an amendment to that report which those opposite were moving, they filibustered the selection of bills committee report adoption. That is a new one.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, you have made your contribution.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then there was the one that I spoke about at some length earlier this week—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We gave you notice at 11 o'clock last night. You have no-one to blame but yourself.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

when, during the leaders, managers and whips meeting, Senator Conroy on behalf of Senator Wong pulled a stunt that we have never seen before. He used that meeting—which is meant to be all about cooperation—as a cover for bringing on the omnibus repeal day bill so that they could move amendments to do with submarine tenders, which was countermanding the agreement that had already been reached with those opposite about the rearrangement of business.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is clearly misleading this chamber, and I ask you—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to call him to order, because it is not allowed under standing orders to mislead the chamber like that.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order; you are debating the matter.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I was referring to was a breach of agreement, where it was agreed with those opposite and the Australian Greens as to what the reordering of business would be. Our word on those matters should be something that can be trusted. What did those opposite do? They spent the night up-ending government business time and denying the government the time to debate its agenda. So we on this side are not going to cop that there is some lack of capacity to manage this place, because when you do not have the numbers in your own right in this place, chamber management is a shared responsibility—a responsibility that you abrogate. That is why Senator Abetz has sought to suspend standing orders so—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. If it is a shared responsibility, why does the manager not talk to anyone?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of how the opposition have conducted themselves, Senator Abetz has been put in the position where he is seeking to suspend standing orders so that he can move a rearrangement of business—and it is a very modest rearrangement of business. It seeks to have one bill debate—one bill—and those opposite cannot even bring themselves to allow the government of the day to have one bill debated on the last sitting day of the year. That is how low they have sunk.

This is a very modest proposition to rearrange business—to suspend standing orders so that Senator Abetz can move a motion to debate the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014. That is what this procedural motion is about. It is the government seeking to make up for the acts of those opposite to deny the government of the day the opportunity to debate in an orderly fashion its legislative program. Indeed, we even saw in non-controversial business time today the opposition undertaking filibusters.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Could you ask the minister to address the chair?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I remind all senators that all comments go to the chair and not across the chamber, but I did not detect the minister overtly doing that.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think that it is appropriate that the government misrepresent the opposition. He has just made a claim about us speaking for 20 minutes—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point, Senator Carr.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition have even dispensed with the custom in this place to give short, sharp speeches in non-controversial bill time so that those things we can agree upon can be facilitated. We did not get to conclude that list of legislation as a result. Mr President, you know you always have my fevered and rapt attention. As always, I am directing my comments to you. I just hope those opposite listen. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, and I remind you to direct your remarks to the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has descended into a shambles. Let us go back 12 months: the adults were going to be elected. Remember that proud boast? What a pack of clowns they have become. I think the best demonstration of this comes, in actual fact, from a senator on the crossbenches who votes with the government 99.9 per cent of the time. Senator Leyonhjelm said, 'The government are hopeless at negotiating.' The crossbench senator who is considered most closely aligned with the Liberal Party says the government is hopeless at negotiating. So do not come in here and say the Labor Party has tossed away all of this. You have failed miserably at your own job. The senator who votes for you—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Conroy used the word 'you', directing his comments not through the chair but directly across the chamber. He who raises the point of order should surely abide by his own admonition.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all senators to direct their comments to the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept your admonition, Mr President. This is what Senator Leyonhjelm had to say—it is particularly relevant at this moment as the government scrambles pathetically to try and piece together a Senate agenda:

They're hopeless at making clear what their objectives are, they're hopeless at convincing me to vote for their legislation—

I find that a bit shocking, because you are actually voting for 99.9 per cent of the legislation.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair, Senator Conroy.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy rightly raised with you not too long ago that he should address all of his remarks through the chair. Can you please ask him to abide by his own admonitions.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind you, Senator Conroy, to direct your comments to the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise again. Senator Leyonhjelm went on to say:

They have a few exceptions and you think OK, now they've figured it out then they go back to normal again.

He went on to say:

The government should certainly lift its game.

Hear, hear, Senator! The government should certainly lift its game.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, of course, Mr President. He went on to say, through the chair:

They haven't got any alternative ideas.

That is what Senator Leyonhjelm said, Mr President: 'They haven't got any alternative ideas.' He said:

There's two years to go to an election ... so they say there's plenty of time to put forward their policies.

And he went on to say:

It's kind of like the old joke about going to the dentist and you reach up under his jacket and you grab him by his delicate parts and you squeeze a little bit and say we're not going to hurt each other are we.

Through you, Mr President, Senator Leyonhjelm said:

My advice to Tony Abbott—

Mr Tony Abbott, but Senator Leyonhjelm called him Tony Abbott—

is, let's not hurt each other.

The fundamental point of this very eloquent explanation is that this government is a shambles. We see it from the head down. We see it in the way the Minister for Foreign Affairs stormed into the Prime Minister's office just this week and, I am quoting a Liberal party person, 'she went bananas.' Why did she go bananas? Because the Prime Minister's office had briefed the media that she was not up to the job of defending Australia's interests at Lima and needed a chaperone. She needed Mr Robb to attend. Senator Macdonald is on his feet again because he has lost the plot, as usual.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, withdraw that.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly withdraw that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order on relevance: I know we allow a little bit of latitude in these motions to set aside standing orders, but talking about what someone said about Ms Bishop, the best foreign minister this country has had for a long period of time, can hardly—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not what Peta Credlin thinks!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why does she need a chaperone?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy and Senator Cameron! Senator Fifield and Senator Xenophon, could you just move? I cannot see Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just repeat: while we do allow a lot of latitude in motions to set aside standing orders, talking about something completely irrelevant and out of the atmospherics cannot be part of this debate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: with respect to Senator Macdonald, I think Senator Conroy's comments go directly to the issue of why this matter is not urgent, which is the core of the suspension—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone called Julie Bishop names!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Not across the chamber, thank you. To me Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is germane to the suspension of standing orders argument.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the point of order, Senator Macdonald, you are correct that there is usually a lot of latitude in relation to a suspension motion.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure if it was Senator Leyonhjelm who said: 'The only time we hear from this government is when they want to borrow some money or the keys to the car,'—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like a kid!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like a child. That is absolutely what we are seeing here.

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

That is harsh!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is what he said. It is harsh. It is absolutely a reflection on you, Senator Abetz.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr President. Through the chair, it is a reflection on the negotiating ability of those opposite, who are incapable of managing this chamber. They are incapable of managing a simple conversation with Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Day, Senator Lazarus and Senator Lambie, and then they come in here and complain and blame everybody else. It has been demonstrated by the statements that I have referred to. Even Senator Macdonald, Mr President, has given them a serve today. He has talked about how they will not listen. He has talked about how they have a tin ear. We have had the Liberal Party economics backbench committee refuse to consider a bill put forward for the medical research fund because they were sick of being railroaded by this government. So they have the crossbench senators sick of it, they have the backbench senators sick of it and they have the chamber sick of it, and they come in here and try and blame somebody else. They have to have an absolute good look at themselves, because they have nobody but themselves to blame for the debacle they are faced with at the moment.

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

Senator Xenophon.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you can't call him!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Siewert is on her feet, and Senator Siewert will have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I am glad that you made sure you exercised your authority over the chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President, your practice is to go from one side of the chamber to the other. The Greens and the Labor Party are one and the same, as we all know.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Macdonald is just the grumpy old man of the Senate. You correctly called Senator Siewert and you should tell him to sit down and stop taking spurious points of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy! You will withdraw that remark. That is an adverse reflection on the senator.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My goodness! I withdraw unreservedly.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. And I do not need any assistance on the point of order. Senator Siewert was clearly the only senator on her feet at that time—and for quite some time. Senator Siewert has the call.

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

Thank you, Mr President. The Greens, it will come as no surprise, will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders. The government have failed to manage this place over the last period of sitting, to the extent where they were stacking their own bills. So, when they did not have the numbers, they started putting people on the speaking list. Because of their failed management of the chamber, they expect us to sit here late. We could go through a list of the times that the government have, in fact, used up the time of this Senate because they were not managing it properly. I will note just a few of them. For a start, there was the time when Senator Brandis refused to do his job as the Attorney-General and answer questions during committee-stage debate on the counter-terrorism bill. Senator Wright and Senator Ludlam were asking totally legitimate and very necessary questions over a critical piece of legislation in this place, and what did Senator Brandis do? He sat there and sat there. In fact, the video of that particularly poor performance is rather popular on the internet at the moment. Last time I looked, there had been 40-odd thousand views of that clip—and it is probably more by now. It was a classic example of where the government were refusing to answer questions on their own legislation. So they wasted valuable hours of government debating time, and here they are with their key law person of the country refusing—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. Senator Conroy on a point of order?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure, but I think I might have misheard Senator Siewert. If I could just ask her to clarify, she may have used an unparliamentary term. Could she just clarify what she was describing Senator Brandis as? Otherwise, I think you should ask her to withdraw, because I think it was unparliamentary.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy! If that was the case, I would certainly not be asking her to repeat it.

Senator Conroy interjecting —

Order! Senator Conroy! If Senator Siewert did say something unparliamentary, I expect that she will withdraw it. But, Senator Siewert, it is at your discretion. You have the call.

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

I sincerely withdraw the comment I made about Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General, being the senior law person of this country.

Then, finally, someone obviously spoke to him and said, 'You'd better get things moving and actually do your job and start answering the questions.' So he begrudgingly started answering the odd question now and again. That cost this chamber hours, because he was refusing to do his job.

Then, of course, we lost more time when we, rightly, censured the Minister for Defence for saying that ASC could not build a canoe, which was a totally ridiculous comment to make. What did the government expect—that we would just suck it up when such accusations were being chucked around? Then, of course, on FoFA, they deliberately filibustered the debate for half a day when we tried to very sensibly address a huge flaw in that legislation. That was another day lost. Now they come in here and say that we should give up more time—because they now think that maybe they have the numbers. They have been re-counting, re-counting and re-counting, putting people on their speakers' list and putting their legislation on and off the agenda. First it is top of the list; then it is down the list. Really, do not come in here and expect us, at two minutes before going-home time, to be willing to discuss hours.

At the beginning of the week, we finally had a leaders and whips meeting—finally. The list of what they wanted to discuss was as long as your arm. Then some form of agreement was reached on what was going to be on the list. Then we got the hours motion with more bills stacked back on. Maybe that was because they thought they had the numbers then, whereas they did not think they had the numbers earlier in the week. Now that very important list of bills—there were seven in the previous motion—has just one bill on it. There is now only one urgent bill. This is not good management.

We do not believe that we should be sitting here to debate this bill because the government think they may have the numbers. What happens a bit later when they do not have the numbers? That was obviously what happened yesterday, when you started adding people to the speaking list because you did not have the numbers at that time. Therefore, you started stacking it up, wasting Senate time when there was other work that could have been done. The non-controversial bills could have been discussed. Because you did not manage it well enough, we still have not got through all of those so-called non-controversial bills. For example, with the adoption bill—though I do not think it is non-controversial—we were willing to debate it at that point because we were trying to help manage the chamber. That is a bad piece of legislation. The other legislation is bad legislation. You know it. You have not got the numbers to deal with it. We will not be supporting the suspension.

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

I will make a very brief contribution. I indicate that I will be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders. I think the government—or governments as a general principle—ought to be able to rearrange their business. So I indicate that. Secondly, in relation to the bill in question, I think it is an important bill that is the subject of passionate debate on both sides of the fence. It is important, and I also believe it ought to be debated and dealt with one way or the other.

I will support the government's motion that this bill be dealt with, but I think there ought to be some reasonableness in terms of sitting hours. That is not in the motion, but I think that can be dealt with as the debate evolves. In respect of this being seen to be a gag on any debate, I make it clear that in procedural matters I think there is a clear distinction between the two. There ought not be under any circumstances a gag in terms of the consideration of this bill in the committee stage in terms of any amendments or any consideration of this particular bill.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The normal custom and practice in this chamber is for a government to actually go through a methodical process of ensuring the chamber is aware of the bills the government regards as urgent, as a priority, and to plan for that. This is a government that I recall recently went through a very widespread public relations exercise called Operation De-barnacle. We had an extensive media campaign where the government said it was going to careen the ship of state. The ship of state would be put in the dry-dock, and then all the barnacles would be scraped away. Of course, what we had was the government saying that the things they were not able to secure support for in this chamber would be jettisoned. So we had the Prime Minister's office saying that the medical co-payment bills would be scrapped. We had the Prime Minister saying that the higher education bill would be put to the Senate and, if it failed, it would be removed.

But what the government then did was to go through a process of trying to get those bills by wasting as much time as possible. We had speakers list after speakers list amended by government senators being added to the list in the vain hope of trying to secure the support of this chamber. That measure failed. But you cannot then say to this chamber that we need extra time at five minutes to midnight, to suggest that there is some urgent bill which they should have considered in a much earlier part of the proceedings of this parliamentary session.

This is a government which its own members recognise is in chaos because of its arrogance. Take for instance the Western Australian Liberal MP Ken Wyatt, who has complained of a culture of arrogance inside the Abbott government ministry, which is reported to have struck a chord right through the Liberal Party party room. Mr Wyatt explained to The West Australian that, after one young staffer used his mobile phone to text message throughout a meeting that was being held with backbench members of the government, Mr Wyatt told the staffer to never come back again. He had a ministerial adviser telling his wife and backbenchers that they do not matter in Canberra.

This is a situation where the government cannot even organise its own back bench. We have a situation here where senators who are well known for their closeness to this government are complaining about the way in which they have been treated. We had Senator Lazarus drawing to our attention the undue attention that has received from a marauding minister that had to harass him in their desperate bid to secure support for government legislation which they knew was not likely to attract the support of the chamber yet consumed—what is it—eight hours of normal business and about 15 hours of government business time. They spent it on a bill which went nowhere and which they knew— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am not quite sure what we are voting on here. I have not got a copy of what is being presented. Could you explain exactly what is before the chamber, in detail, so that those that do not have something before them can understand exactly what we are voting on?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was about to put that question and, as I always do, I explain what the question is before I put it. The question is—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a further point of order. I am not happy with you explaining it. I would like a copy of what we are voting on.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We never have a copy of a suspension of standing orders motion. Would you please resume your seat. I am going to put the question. The question is that the motion to suspend the standing orders moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is a point of order, Senator Conroy, it can only relate to the division.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking clarification of what will happen after the division, if that is permissible.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What will happen after the division will be determined by the result of the division.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, but I want to indicate that I have an amendment to the substantive motion. I am seeking guidance from you about what will be the process if this division is successful.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The next motion has not been moved yet—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I appreciate that, but I am seeking guidance.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the division is successful—and really we are talking hypothetically; we have to wait until we count—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to avoid confusion after the vote, so I am seeking your guidance.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once the motion is moved and is before the chair, you have the right to move an amendment.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a substantive amendment.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Conroy.

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

I move:

That—

(a) consideration of government business order of the day no. 3 (Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014) be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business till determined;

(b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

(c) the Senate shall adjourn after it has finally considered the bill listed in paragraph (a), or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two senators on their feet. I am going to give the call to Senator Conroy only for the purposes of a point of order or clarification.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you indicated during the division that I would be able to move an amendment.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I deliberately sought clarification from you and now I am going to seek to move my amendment given Senator Abetz has sat down.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, resume your seat and I will explain what has happened. Firstly, I indicated to you during the division in a point of clarification that if there was a question before the chair you could move an amendment. Senator Abetz has not only moved his motion but also moved a procedural motion, which a minister has the right to do. I cannot anticipate from this position—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

But that is the procedural motion. Those are the standing orders of the Senate. So, in relation to the point of clarification, the minister has the right to do that and now I am obliged under the standing orders to put the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I will allow a point of clarification.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

A government senator: This looks like a speech.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I will determine what happens.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy gave a clear indication to the chamber that he wanted to move an amendment. What the crossbench and the government are doing is denying Senator Conroy the right to move an amendment.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am sorry; I will not take any—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot seek leave at the moment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can seek leave, Mr President, with respect.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; there is a question before the chair, and I have been indulgent in allowing you and Senator Conroy—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking leave to move an amendment.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you have no leave; you cannot seek leave. I am putting the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am Senator Wong, not Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm Senator Conroy.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I am going to put the question.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Sit down, Senator Conroy.

Senator Wong interjecting—

No, you cannot seek leave.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can always seek leave.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a question before the chair; you can seek leave immediately after the question has been put. I am obliged to put a procedural question. I am not entertaining any further points of order or clarification.

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, there cannot be a point of order!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, it was, Senator—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Right, I am not taking any further comments, points of order or clarifications. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz, to vary the routine of business for today to consider a bill, be agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For clarification, is it possible for Senator Conroy to move his amendment to this motion?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, because the question was that the question be now put.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are denying the—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators, you do not help.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

No, I am dealing with Senator Wong at the moment, Senator Conroy. Senator Wong, I am not denying anything. I am complying with the standing orders of the Senate. That is exactly what I am doing.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, you cannot do that in this process. It is a procedural matter we are dealing with. The procedural matter is that we have to deal with this motion straightaway without any other business before the Senate. Leave cannot be sought.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking leave to move an amendment to the motion and leave is denied?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Senator Wong, you cannot seek leave in the first place, so it cannot be denied. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz, to vary the routine of business for today to consider a bill, be agreed to.