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

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to government business notice of motion No. 5.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate and I commenced this week in discussions with representatives of all groupings in this place. We met with the Australian Labor Party. We met the Australian Greens and we met with each member of the crossbench or a representative of their office.

In those discussions, it rapidly became clear that there were some people who were very willing to talk about how this week may play out, particularly in the light of Mr Malcolm Fraser's passing and the obvious effect that that had in relation to the Monday sitting.

We discussed a range of options in relation to this sitting week and, as I say, it became clear that there was a greater willingness amongst some senators—in this case, particularly those senators who are crossbenchers—to discuss these sorts of matters. It also became clear that there wasn't such a willingness on the part of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens for those discussions. We had some good discussions and, as a result of those, we were able to enter into agreement for arrangements which flow through the course of this week.

We, subsequently, continued those discussions with those individual senators who were keen to work on a cooperative basis. We continued those discussions in relation to bringing the first sitting day of the budget week forward: having a sitting on the Monday—indeed, that was a proposition which one or two of the crossbenchers put forward.

I know that there is a proposition in this place, which has been circulated in the chamber by the Australian Labor Party, to have that sitting Monday of that budget week take place according to a different format to that which is contained within my motion.

We were very pleased that there was the proposition from members of the crossbench, which I think was broadly supported, to have a Monday sitting. The way that the Monday sitting is laid out here is that it will be, essentially, an opportunity to transact a bit of additional government business but, most importantly of all, there is a question time there for that day as is appropriate

I make clear to all colleagues that there has never been a suggestion that we have a sitting on the Monday without question time. Question time is there within that motion.

That is the proposition which the government has before the chamber and which I hope receives the support of the chamber. If the opposition senators are wondering why there hasn't been an ability to reach an agreement with them on this front, it is probably partly a function of the earlier disposition this week, which was manifest.

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

We just gave you all the hours you wanted!

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

I am hearing a voice of support from Senator Wong at the table and I appreciate that. We are appreciative that the chamber has supported the additional hours for this week. We are also grateful that there is broad support in this place to sit on the Monday of the budget week. There are two propositions, I suspect, that will be before this place in relation to how that Monday flows, and we will see what the will of the chamber is.

I do not think that it is reasonable on this occasion for those opposite to deny leave to move this motion, but that is why I am in this position of seeking to move a motion to suspend standing orders so that I can move the motion which is on the Notice Paper.

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

The reason we are in this position for Senator Fifield's information is that there was an inability from the government to appropriately consult with the many people on this side of the chamber on the important issue of extended hours.

I agree with Senator Fifield: we did meet to look at a range of issues about the need for extra hours of debate. We acknowledge the government was in a position that they had important legislation that needed to be considered and also the special circumstances of this week with the death of Malcolm Fraser and the state funeral for him on Friday. There was no disagreement about that, and you can see from notices on this paper today that there was agreement with significant extra hours this week—more so than we have ever seen in my experience in this place.

We agree that we need to focus the attention of the Senate on the important matters to be discussed. At one of those meetings, there was a discussion about maybe sitting on the Monday. We were told that we would receive a letter from the government following up on that meeting about what would be the proposal for extended hours for the Monday of budget week. There was no in-principle opposition to meeting on that day. However, this notice, which talks about a process different to any other sitting day for the Monday of budget week, came to us in a letter today at lunchtime after this notice of motion had already been circulated to everyone. That was the consultation process.

In good faith, we need to look at how the Senate best operates to meet the requirements of legislation. There were 'robust discussions' in those meetings we had earlier this week, and that is how it should be. Governments put forward proposals, and we look at the way that we can make them work. We have come up with an agreed result: two notices of motion amending hours this week have already been passed by this place without any dissent. We have put forward a reasonable proposal in the notice of motion about hours for the Monday of budget week that, if we agree to meet in this place on the Monday, we have a standard sitting day of the Senate. That would allow not just question time but the ability to take note of the answers of question time, formal business, any proposal to debate a matter of public importance or an urgency motion—standard operations of the Senate.

If our amendment is passed—and it has been circulated and should have come forward for debate—we would have between seven and eight hours of dedicated time to look at the items of business put forward by the government. That is not standing in the way of debate in this place; that is looking at how we can operate as a Senate, do our business and also ensure that the way the discussions are held are similar to that which we had earlier this week, where all the interested parties are gathered together, the discussion is held and the propositions are heard at the same time. Discussions should not be held in the way that this particular proposal has operated, which was that we got a letter from the Leader of Government which says that the members of the crossbench have already been favourably considering this proposal, rather than us having the opportunity as a group to put forward what we wanted.

In the discussion that we had with the government earlier this week, there was no debate on what would happen on Monday of budget week. People who were in attendance at that meeting had opportunities to talk about what would happen this week and also how we would look at the legislation agenda that the government is trying to have us consider. There has been great consideration, negotiation and allowance by the Senate to have extra hours to look at the important issues of legislation that came forward. Then, today, we had yet another demand and it was put as a fait accompli. That is not the best operation of the Senate.

We would save a lot of time if we could have these discussions as we did earlier this week. That does not mean that there will be absolute agreement; that does not always happen in negotiations. The way that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate has put it today, if we do not agree, we will be punished by not being part of the discussion. That was how I heard Senator Fifield put forward his position that, because there was a certain lack of accommodation or cooperation in the meetings earlier this week, they had to exclude the Labor Party from further decisions about what would happen in future hours motions. We think it is important— (Time expired)

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

The Greens will be supporting the amendment to the motion proposing that the Senate sit on the Monday before budget day. I think that this will be the first time since I have been in this chamber that we have sat on the Monday before the budget. There is a reason for that: there is a lot of preparation and work done in the lead-up to the budget and a lot of talk about it before the budget. So it will be the first time that we have sat on the Monday.

When we sit on Fridays in this place, it is usually considered a rollover of the Thursday. Despite the fact that the Greens have argued for question time and other business to be transacted on a Friday, when we sit on Fridays in this place we have always been told, 'No, this is just a rollover of Thursday.' We have failed to get question time and some of the other business that we consider important on the Friday. However, this Monday is the beginning of a sitting week. It should be treated as a normal sitting day that allows us to do the normal business of this place. That includes consideration of documents and clerks documents; authorisations for committees to sit; question time, which is about the only thing that the original motion of the government allows us to do; petitions; taking note of answers; postponements; rearrangements; formal motions; and any matters of public urgency.

If we are successful in amending the motion to vary hours, the amended motion will provide the government with plenty of time to deal with the bills that it specifically wants to deal with. Of course, we know that the bills that are listed in the government's motion are the Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015, which is about the ABCC; the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Amendment Bill 2015; and the Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014. The government has plenty of time to debate these bills. We have already extended hours.

I acknowledge that Mr Fraser's death and the adjourning of this place as a matter of respect of course needed to be taken into consideration. We sat late last night; we are sitting late tonight, which we very rarely do on a Wednesday night; and we will be sitting late into the night, potentially, tomorrow until adjournment to consider the bills that the government has asked the Senate to consider. There is extra time to make up there. If the government's motion on sitting hours is amended, there will be plenty of time for the government to consider its business. Of course, if the government was not so intent on ramming through the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 this week, it would have had more opportunity to deal with the other bills that it claims are urgent.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

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

Yes, we met with the government as part of the leaders and whips process. We indicated our position there. As Senator Moore just articulated, the government said they wanted to sit on Monday. Of course, we would expect that to be a normal Monday. There was no further communication beyond that until we saw the motion, which shows quite clearly that they just want to use the time to ram through these additional bills, without proper consideration of what the Senate does. The Senate has other important work to do. The government seeks through this motion to not allow the Senate to carry out its functions. We do not support the government's coming in here and making us deal with their agenda without full transparency and the ability for us to prosecute the other things that need to be dealt with in this chamber. It is unreasonable for the government to try to not allow us to have full consideration of, for example, take note of petitions and of the clerks documents and transact the normal business of this place. It should be treated as a normal Monday if we are required to sit. The government has had ample time through the extended hours we have already sat this week.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion has been moved as part of a suite of motions by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate with the intention of ensuring that there is adequate government time to deal with a number of time critical bills and other major pieces of legislation that it has been agreed by various members of this place should pass in a timely manner.

The opposition tell us they have denied leave to move this motion on the basis that they have not been properly consulted or that consultation has been insufficient. The fact is that, Senator Fifield tells me, immediately following the meeting where the possibility of the Senate sitting on the Monday of budget week was raised, Senator Fifield, as I understand it, telephoned Senator Moore to advise her that this was something we would like to do. I think it is probably slightly misleading to say that a letter was the first notification that the opposition received that this was happening, because at the first opportunity that was available to us that advice was made.

There is more than one view about how this chamber can be managed from time to time. I acknowledge that this government does not have a majority in this place. We do not have the ability to set the agenda. We do not have the ability to set the hours that this place sits, but neither does the opposition. I might just note for the record that last week we invited all members of this place to be represented at a leaders and whips meeting that was held earlier this week to discuss how we could manage the issue of hours. So we started the process last week, and I believe that even before then there had been some discussions between the opposition and the government as to how we might manage that. In order to do it in a consultative manner that involved everybody we invited everybody to a meeting that occurred at the beginning of this week. At that meeting, the opposition presented us with a take it or leave it option on extended hours. That was not acceptable to us and we thought that, given that there are a number of other senators in this place, it would be advisable that the government speak to them and discuss other options. That is how this place should work. There are major parties, minor parties and Independents in this place. Everybody has the ability to have input into how this place is run. That occurred.

The idea of sitting on Monday was a proposal put forward by one of the crossbenchers, which was then discussed by the rest of them. Discussion occurred between the government and the crossbenchers as to how sitting on Monday could work. In the end, the motion that was put forward reflects the discussion, the toing and froing, that occurred with the crossbenchers. The crossbenchers certainly were not putting forward things to the government as a take it or leave it option. They were prepared to discuss, be consultative and negotiate. It was a very fruitful discussion. As I say, the idea of sitting on Monday came from one of the crossbenchers, and this motion reflects the discussion that we had.

The end result is that the Senate should be entitled to make a decision on that motion. Formality should not be denied. There are 76 people who make up this place and those 76 people should be entitled to make a decision on this motion. It is up to them whether they actually accept or reject it, but denying formality on the motion is not the appropriate way to deal with this. Doing that would deny the Senate the opportunity to make a decision that it should be entitled to make, not to mention the fact that it also denies the opportunity for the opposition to move the amendment that it has circulated and clearly intends to move. It is a nonsensical thing to deny formality on a motion about which you have circulated notice of your intention to amend. On that basis, I believe that we should suspend standing orders to allow this motion to be voted on.

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

Just so we are very clear, the government was offered by the opposition a full sitting day on the Monday before budget. As long as it was a normal Monday sitting day they would have had full agreement from the alternative government and the majority of the chamber. But Senator Abetz does not want to accept that. He does not want to accept an agreement by the opposition to facilitate debate on some controversial bills which are opposed by a number of parties in this chamber, because he does not want a normal sitting day on the Monday. He wants one that is only about government business with the addition of question time, but nothing else, none of the other aspects of a sitting day. That is what we are arguing about.

We are having a suspension of standing orders, because the government has turned down the opposition's agreement to a normal sitting day on the Monday. That is how unbelievably unreasonable we have been. We have actually suggested that the parliament sits. We should have a normal sitting day. I emphasise, as someone who has been on that side of the chamber, Monday is a very good day for government business. On a normal sitting day on a Monday you are looking at around seven hours of government business. You would have had that by agreement. But no, instead they decide they do not like how unreasonable we are being—for daring to suggest that if the parliament sits, we should have a normal parliamentary day with seven hours of government business! And instead, they want to try and ram through this motion, notice of motion No. 5, on the basis that they have got agreement with members of the crossbench. If the crossbenchers choose to vote for it, that is a matter for them; we do not agree. We think that if we have a full sitting day with that many hours, it is only reasonable that the Senate have a normal sitting day. But behind the argument—actually, explicitly part of this argument—is the government's suggestion that we have been somehow unreasonable.

I want to make it very clear what we as an opposition have done which has agreed to facilitate debate on the metadata bill. I wrote and requested—via the Manager of Opposition Business and directly—of the government their request for additional hours in this sitting week. We kept getting only a Tuesday variation. We kept being told, 'oh, we only need to sit on Tuesdays; that is all we will take'. Now we do not agree with Senator Ludlam on the metadata bill. But I was not going to agree to only have it only debated on Tuesday. So I said to them, 'we want a full proposal about what would happen during the sitting week'. Did I get that? No. I acknowledge that in the intervening period between those discussions and the first discussion this week, we had the passing of Mr Fraser, which obviously affected the Senate. At the meeting, what we indicated to the government is essentially what they have got agreement to, with the exception of Wednesday.

We indicated that the opposition was prepared to give up the MPI on both Tuesday and Wednesday and private senators' business on Thursday, and to sit additional hours on Tuesday and Thursday. Can I just repeat that so everyone understands: for government business, the opposition was prepared to give up the MPI on Tuesday, the MPI on Wednesday, and private senators' business on Thursday, and to sit additional hours on Tuesday and Thursday in order to debate the metadata bill. That is the unreasonable position that Senator Abetz is now going to try and complain about. Well, Mr President, that was not an unreasonable offer. The opposition's position on this is not unreasonable. And if the government choose to try and run the Senate this way, well, they are going to get these sorts of responses. They are going to get the opposition saying, quite rightly, 'well, we are not just going to agree to this motion', and, 'we are going to do deny formality', and, 'we are going to move amendments'—because that is what we believe. That is what we believe: that the Senate ought to be run with a little more consultation; frankly, with a little more organisation than the chaos that we appear to be seeing from those opposite.

I repeat: we are prepared to facilitate debate on the metadata bill, which is why we are prepared to give up time. We are prepared to sit on the Monday before budget week—not something that those opposite ever gave us in government. But we are prepared to do it. We just want a sitting day with seven hours of government business. And instead, the tactical decision by the geniuses on the other side is that they now want a debate and a suspension of standing orders, instead of taking what was a very reasonable offer—a very reasonable offer—from the opposition about additional sitting time on the Monday of the budget week. So I say to the crossbenchers: I would encourage you to consider supporting the opposition on this. We will be moving an amendment to ensure a full sitting day. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, what we have just witnessed is a regrettable attempt at rewriting history. I will not seek to justify what the coalition has done or not done. All I would do is appeal to the crossbenchers, who were in my office—and their staff—when we were seeking to come to a reasonable landing in relation to this matter—

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

You don't listen!

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

And whilst I am talking in the fashion I am, we have the ongoing interjecting by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who cannot help herself. As a result of there being no decision able to be achieved in the meeting in my office, another suggestion was proposed to us: that there be a sitting of the Senate on Monday 11 May, and that that be devoted to government business, other than for question time. That is now the proposal.

Might I say, Mr President, that people can put their spin what did or did not occur in the communications, but I think the crossbenchers were able to see firsthand what occurred, and they can make up their minds; they can make their determinations as to who was being reasonable and who was being unreasonable. Mr President, we had the situation, very regrettably, of the passing of a former Prime Minister. It is the tradition and proper that we adjourn as a mark of respect for that situation; as a result, Monday of this week was denied to us. Further, if we were to have thought of sitting on Friday of this week—which normally would have been a possibility—that also has been denied to us, because Mr Fraser's funeral service will be held this coming Friday. Therefore, we have had to seek extra time for government business, and the proposal was put that the Monday before the budget session would be the appropriate time, and that it be devoted to government legislation. Indeed, the motion indicates, I think, the three bills that we have nominated which have particular time constraints in them which do require the urgent consideration of the Senate.

The Labor Party have, regrettably, continued with their course of action. I know that the crossbenchers were not able to witness the first nine months of this government because they were not here in the Senate, but for the first nine months, when Labor and the Greens had the majority, it was objection, objection, delay, and negativing everything possible—including Labor's own policies which they took to the last election. Since 1 July, when the new Senate came about, and Labor and the Greens lost their majority, we have in fact been passing things through the Senate, and there has been some substantial and reasonable progress with legislation. And so I say to the crossbenchers that the sitting on Monday is something that should be supported; and that the fact that Labor now—all of a sudden—say: 'Monday, what a good idea; we would have been supportive of that, but for—', is a rewriting of history that is disingenuous in the extreme. And I would—

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

Senator Wong, on a point of order.

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

Mr President, the Minister is misleading the Senate. If he does not talk to the Manager of Government Business then that is not our problem.

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

Senator Wong, that is not a point of order. That is debating the topic.

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

Just that intervention yet again by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate indicates the attitude she has taken ever since the people of Australia made the decision to remove her and her colleagues from government.

Senator Wong interjecting—

We have non-stop interjections from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, so one can imagine, without the glare of cameras and microphones, how tolerant Senator Wong is when trying to discuss these matters and come to a reasonable landing. So I simply plead with the crossbenchers. That which was determined the other day is a reasonable way forward, and I would encourage the Senate to support the motion that is before them.

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

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate be agreed to.

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

I move:

That government business notice of motion No. 5 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

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

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

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

I move:

That the Senate meet on Monday, 11 May 2015, and that:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

(b) the routine of business shall be:

(i) government business,

(ii) at 2 pm, questions, and

(iii) from 3 pm, government business only;

(c) the following government business orders of the day shall have precedence over all other government business:

(i) Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015,

(ii) Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Amendment Bill 2015, and

(iii) Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014; and

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

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

by leave—I move:

After paragraph (b)(ii), insert the following new paragraph:

(b)(iia) motions to take note of answers.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Senator Xenophon, we appreciate your efforts to extend the hours and we do acknowledge the work you have done. However, we believe strongly in the principle that we want a full standard day of operations on that day. That was the process on which we operated—

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

How many times didn’t you do that when you were in government?

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

Order on my right!

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

In terms of the process, we believe it is important—

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

How many times when you were in government?

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

Senator Macdonald!

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

that the Senate actually has that opportunity. We also believe that, in the discussions we have had with the government over this process, there was no clarity about the process they were following. We did not get full detail about the changes they were proposing.

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

You rammed all these through all the time when you were in government, with the help of the Greens.

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

Senator Macdonald!

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

And, in terms of the process, we truly believe that the best way that this Senate can continue to operate effectively is to have open discussions about process—

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

You never did that!

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

Senator Macdonald, I am prepared, under standing order 203, to name you. Please be quiet.

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

Whilst we appreciate the efforts of Senator Xenophon, it is really important for the people on the crossbench to understand that this is not a frivolous process we are following. It is an important point of principle; it is also a matter of integrity of communication and of having a full understanding of what is going on. We acknowledge the amendment, but we will not be supporting it.

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

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave granted.

Very briefly, Mr President, if I may address the crossbench. The homily that we just heard is from a senator who voted time and time again to ram through 52 bills without a single word of discussion in this place, and with the support of the Greens. She is now trying to say: 'Proper process demands this.' That is hypocrisy writ large. What has normally been the case, Mr President, is that, when extra days are set aside, they are set aside for the purposes of government business, standard practice, including question time and take note of answers. I commend the amendment and the motion to the Senate.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Xenophon to Senator Fifield's motion be agreed to.

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

On a point of order, Mr President. This is Senator Xenophon's amendment.

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

Correct.

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

I do not think Labor are wanting to vote against that.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Senator Abetz often does not listen to me; he often does not listen to people in the chamber. That is why he did not understand what I was offering up on Monday. He may have misunderstood Senator Moore's contribution. She indicated that we are not going to agree to Senator Xenophon's amendment, because our position is that we want a proper full sitting day with seven hours of government business on the Monday. I appreciate Senator Xenophon's—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

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

Order, Senator Macdonald.

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

Senator Xenophon's amendment may ameliorate the deal that he has done with the government, but not to the extent we think is appropriate. So we are going to hold to our position, which is that there should be a full sitting day on Monday. We will be seeking to move an amendment after this one, if it fails.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Xenophon to Senator Fifield's motion be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "that" and substitute:

(a) The hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30pm and 7.30pm to 10.30pm;

(b) The routine of business shall be:

(i) Documents

(ii) Clerk's documents

(iii) Committees - authorisation to meet

(iv) Government business only,

(v) At 2pm, questions,

(vi) Motions to take note of answers

(vii) Petitions

(viii) Postponement and rearrangement of business

(ix) Formal motions – discovery of formal business

(x) Any proposal to debate a matter of public importance or urgency

(xi) Consideration of documents under standing order 61 for up to 30 minutes

(xii) Government business

(xiii) At 9.50pm, adjournment proposed.

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

Everyone knows what the amendment is; you have had a good chance to read it. But I do want to respond briefly to comments made by Senator Abetz about the hypocrisy on this side of the chamber in looking to put forward a process which allows debate in this place. If we go back through history over a series of governments since the time this parliament first met, there has been poor practice and best practice. The fact that we could make an argument that we could not come here today to talk about having a more transparent way of how we operate and seeking a full day of debate in this Senate in a standard day would be able to be dismissed because people said that it would not operate beforehand. That is not the way this place operates. We are not going back to argue about different places in the past.

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

What did you do when you were in government?

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

Senator Macdonald.

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

No matter how many times Senator Macdonald raises his voice in this debate, it will not move the chance that we have to make a vote on having a standard day of debate in this place next Monday. (Time expired)

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Moore to Senator Fifield's motion be agreed to.

The question now is that the substantive motion, as amended by Senator Xenophon's motion, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.