Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

(Quorum formed)

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I seek leave to move a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order.

Leave not granted.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You get nothing!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the moving of a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order.

What is happening here is one massive filibuster. This is not even in relation to a piece of legislation that Labor has any concerns about. What Labor is doing in this chamber today—we heard Senator Dastyari yell across the chamber, 'You get nothing!'—is playing games. This is Labor not making judgements about what is in the public interest. This is a bill that I suspect Labor might even end up not opposing. I think everyone across Australia well understands what is happening here. We have the union politics and student politics brought back into the chamber by some very juvenile people on the Labor side. I commend to the Senate to support this suspension.

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

I think that is the most pathetic argument—if you could even call it an argument—as to why the proper process in this place should not go ahead. This is a government that is an absolute chaos. They are an absolute rabble. Really, they should not bring the rabble that is their party room into this place, because that is what this is. They as a government just do not what is going on from day to day.

To say that we should not follow process on this, and get up and give us 30 seconds about why we should not follow process, is totally unacceptable. We have a position where there are issues that have to be dealt with appropriately and effectively through the processes of the Senate. Just because those opposite do a dirty, rotten deal with the Greens they think they can come in here and disrupt everything about process and procedure. We are not going to cop this. You need to convince us why this should be done. You stood up and you failed to do that. It is totally unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable.

The minister has been here long enough to understand that there are issues that we can deal with. There are issues that he can sit down and talk to the opposition about. This is not one of them, when you run this line, when you simply stand up and try and breach the proper processes of the parliament.

We are not unattracted to looking at how we can make things work better in this place. But I will tell you what we are not prepared to do. We are not prepared to cop the chaos of your party room coming back in here because you cannot make up your mind about how you get a tax policy in this country. When you have a Prime Minister who is so weak and so jellybacked that he cannot stand up to the right wing of the party on economic issues then this is unacceptable. The reason you are in such chaos about your procedures in this parliament is that you are not cohesive in what you do in relation to your policy and your party.

We see the minister, Senator Cormann, is now talking to Senator Di Natale to try and stitch up another deal. Senator Di Natale is going to make the Australian Democrats look as if they were strong. All that Senator Cormann has to do is go down and eyeball Senator Di Natale and Senator Di Natale goes into the foetal position. He just curls up. He just gives in: 'Don't give me any more arguments! I give in.' That is the Greens in this place. They roll over as soon as any pressure is put on them

The position that is being put forward by the minister is not consistent with the standing orders. He simply wants to try and bring things on and get the debate curtailed. This is the place where you have to have debate. The sooner the Greens understand that there is a proper process, the sooner the Greens understand that they should not just give in every time that Senator Cormann wanders down and pulls their chain—here is the chain getting pulled again! Senator Cormann and Senator Di Natale are in deep, deep discussion about how they can get this through, how they can overcome the proper processes in this place. It is really pathetic.

I was saying that the Prime Minister should grow a backbone. Senator Di Natale, you should grow one. You should stand up to the intimidation of the National Party and the Liberal Party. When the National Party are congratulating the Greens day in, day out we have a problem. Grow a backbone. Stand up to the intimidation. Be the party that says, 'You should be …,' not what you are at the moment, a grovelling party not doing— (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a display. Dummy spits! I have been hearing them whizz straight past my ears here all day and in the committee room. You must have a gross of dummies around there. Everyone is getting four or five every morning in the party room to go in their pocket. I have never seen anything like it. The hypocrisy is as thick as a shearer's gravy—you could not cut it with a chainsaw. The minute someone tweaks the dummy in your mouth off you go. It would all be funny—it would be a tonne of fun—if you were not interfering in the due democratic process of the Senate.

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

How many houses have you got negatively geared?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to have a talk about negative gearing? I will have a talk about negative gearing every day of the week with you, but the fact of the matter is that I have seen another side to the Labor Party.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Penny should be down here. I am watching the two of you. It is only a matter of time now. I can smell the axle grease on the rails. It truly is only a matter of time and she will be gone. We do not have to worry about the changes to Senate reform. She will be gone, you will see to it. I already know when there is trouble in the camp. When you, Senator Conroy, and Senator Carr and one or two others start turning up in committee rooms we know that the democratic process of this Senate and its functions will be disrupted.

This is outrageous. We have a situation here where a non-controversial bill is related and you are going to do anything in your power to frustrate every single step in the operation of this Senate and the government going about its business—a government mandated by the people of Australia. They hunted your mob. Never give another regard to it—you were gone. They were sick and tired of you changing the revolving chairs—Rudd, Gillard, Rudd—and had you stayed there a bit longer there would have been one or two others. Everyone gets a turn in the Labor Party. But the fact of the matter is some of the key people in your party—the likes of Gray, Faulkner and others—respected members who participated for some 2½ years in relation to the development of some transparent measures for this place, have been displaced.

Gary Gray is around there trying to get his head stitched back on. That is how Gary Gray gets rewarded from the Labor movement after all of his years of service.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, Senator Dastyari.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was one of the most respected members of the Labor Party. He is up to about stitch 760 to get his noggin back on his shoulders. But the problem was that it was an ugly cut. It was not a clean-cut. It was a cut where there were about eight scalpels at him at the one time.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator O'Neill.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he did not even see coming, because had he seen it coming he would have behaved differently in the last three years. This is a Labor man. Had he believed truly that the position of the Australian Labor Party was different to his own position he would have been the true soldier that he is to the Labor movement and he would have remained faithful to the script. But what happened? Here is one setting: he goes to bed, and when he wakes up he throws his leg over the side of the bed and sits up and his head is still on the pillow. You people have no rules. When it comes down to getting serious about issues you have no rules.

Here we are implementing an innocuous bill here. We are simply presenting it to the Senate so it can get on with the business of its work.

Opposition senators interjecting—

We knew there was trouble. When this mob gets together, when the three of them are in the chamber together, we know that democracy is about to suffer.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Joe, I am surprised you have hung out with them mate. You should go and sit back with the others who are not prepared to sit in the benches with them. I expect far more from you. But, of course, when we talk about democracy, one thing we do know about the Labor Party is that there is no democracy inside the Australian Labor Party. We know that the minute that you disagree or have another view, off comes the noggin. It is gone—blunt chainsaw, one big swipe, ugly scars right across your shoulders. And here we are, the mandated government, the government that the people of Australia put into this place, endeavouring to do an ordinary, innocuous piece of business, and what do you do? Don't any of you breath the words 'democracy' or 'transparency' again in this place. (Time expired)

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

Can I thank the Liberal-National Party of Queensland for coming to the protection of the Greens yet again. It is quite sad to watch. They cannot even manage to stand on their own feet to defend their position. They must think they are actually in a Greens conference where you lock the media out and no-one will notice what goes on inside. Everyone has noticed that you are in bed with the Liberal-National Party—and worse, the Queensland Liberal-National Party. They are your protectors. They cheer you when you speak now. You are going to have to have a shower each time you leave the chamber at this rate. What we have here is a government in a mess, a government that is a shambles.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I was sitting in the committee with you, Senator, and I was reading live texts from your party room as Tony Abbott congratulated Mr Turnbull on his communication skills, and I know that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, were chuckling out loud in that party room as it was happening because we all knew what was really going on—speaking of knives and chainsaws. Mr Abbott was sowing his head back on and he decided that he was going to have a bit of an outing. He was on a bit of a tear this morning. I was reading it live. I was sitting in a joint parliamentary committee and I was reading texts from the Liberal Party live as it went on. We had Senator Abetz get up and back in his good mate. Where were you this morning, Senator Macdonald? Were you defending the Prime Minister from the attack from the Abbott-Abetz forces? I did not read your name in any texts that were coming out of party room.

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

I was in the committee with you!

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

You were in and out of there.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

You could have gone down there and defended the Prime Minister.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator O'Sullivan.

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

You could have been down there defending him. I should ignore the interjections, Mr Acting Deputy President, I know.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you should, Senator Conroy.

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

This is a government that has been unable to make the case today about the urgency of these bills, the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016 and the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016. This is a government that just wants any distraction. Please just give us a distraction from the shambolic performance of Senator Cormann cutting loose the Treasurer seven or eight times on national television. He says, 'No, it's nothing to do with me. Go and ask Mr Morrison. I don't know about any excesses in negative gearing. Mr Morrison said that. I don't talk to the Treasurer about things like that. That's not my portfolio.' I thought they worked on budgetary matters together. So it is no wonder that Mr Morrison has been calling Senator Cormann the chief bed-wetter, because he has cut him off at the knees in public. The finance minister—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock. Senator O'Sullivan, do you have a point of order?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All things aside, this is a robust chamber, but those sorts of reflections are not helpful. I would urge you to ask the Senator to withdraw that remark. We have already had discussions in this place about how to conduct ourselves this week.

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

But that is what the Liberal Party are calling each other! I am quoting the Liberal Party!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy. You should refer to senators by their correct title, and so I will ask you to refer to senators by their correct title.

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

I accept your admonishment. So what we have is the finance minister cutting loose the Treasurer. This is while they are weeks away from putting a budget to bed. Senator Cormann tells the country on national television, 'I do not talk to Mr Morrison about those issues.' I mean, really, talk about pushing him out the door into the snow, talk about stealing the paddle and pushing him off up the creek. Senator Cormann is paying back Mr Morrison for betraying Tony Abbott.

I admire your ability to stick with Mr Abbott but, seriously, there is a bit of a rule when you are on the front bench, when you are part of the economic team, when you are the Treasurer and the finance minister—you defend each other publicly. Perhaps Mr Morrison does not actually smoke cigars. Perhaps that is the problem—he has not accepted a cigar from Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann has not even attempted to make a case. He arrogantly thinks, 'I can stroll down to the other end of the chamber, I will tickle senator Di Natale on the tummy and I will tell him that he should do this.' It is all part of this filibuster. It is all part of the Labor Party picking on those nice Greens because they are supporting the government to wipe out and purge this chamber of anyone they do not like, to take revenge. How long do we have to put up with a couple of people who did not get elected to parliament dictating party policy? Because they did not win, they want revenge on Senator Leyonhjelm. Goodness me, grow up.

Senator Cormann wanders down there, tickles Senator Di Natale—(Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, let me make an apology. I want to apologise to all the people who are listening on broadcast right now who have had to endure 20 minutes of vitriol, of nonsense from the Labor Party. The Labor Party are intent on frustrating the business of this parliament. We get that we have a Labor Party who are torn and divided over the issue of electoral reform. We understand that. We understand there is a big tussle going on at the moment within the Labor Party—there are those people who support electoral reform and those people who do not. That is a legitimate position to take. There are arguments on both sides.

Unfortunately what we have seen is the backroom boys prevail over the likes of the more sensible views of people like Gary Gray, who made an explicit commitment and called those positions held by the likes of Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari 'dumb'. 'Dumb' is one word you could use. You could use many others. Unfortunately that is not the topic what we are debating right now.

What we are debating is whether the Labor Party will frustrate the passage of legislation that will help vulnerable people through a specific assessment tool. It is a piece of noncontroversial legislation that I think we all support. Yet here we have the Labor Party trying to frustrate the passage of that legislation. They continue to delay and obfuscate because they have a bitterly divided Labor Party. What they are trying to do is garner support from their own side for tactics that many on their own side actually rightly do not support. I will make a prediction that you will see this nonsense over the next couple of days and it will just melt away. It will disappear. What we will see then is a return to sanity.

Let me say on behalf of those people who are listening, what you are seeing and hearing is the parliament operating at its worst. You are seeing a parliament trying to frustrate the important business of the passage of legislation that is not particularly controversial using a set of parliamentary tactics in an effort to do that. It has got nothing to do with the issue that has occupied much of the Senate's time over the past few days—that is, the issue of putting power back into the hands of voters rather than leaving it within the hands of the backroom dealers.

There are those people within the Labor Party who like the status quo because, let's be frank, Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari are not here because of their soaring intellect or their capacity to be able to grasp complex policy decisions. They are not here because of that; they are here because they are wheelers and dealers. Their power resides within the fact that they exercise brute power in the back rooms of the Labor Party. Right here what you have is an example of everything that is wrong with that modern day Labor Party, completely lacking in substance, completely lacking in integrity.

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Dastyari.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have got a piece of legislation supported by the Labor Party, who are now doing an about face, doing everything they can to frustrate the parliament from doing its job. We are letting them have their fun at the moment. We figured it is important that they get this stuff off their chest. We know that Senator Conroy and Senator Dastyari have fought a long battle inside the Labor Party. It appears, sadly, that their position has prevailed and the likes of Alan Griffin, the likes of Gary Gray and the likes of many others inside the Labor Party have lost the day on the issue of optional preferential voting reform.

That is a shame because it was a reform that they supported back in 2014. It was a reform that up until last year they supported wholeheartedly but not now because of the simple reason that they are worried about losing an election. We are more optimistic about the Australian people. We are much more optimistic about the Australian community. We think that ultimately the outcome of an election should be decided by voters, not by the backroom deals, not by the likes of Senator Dastyari and Senator Conroy. We think ultimately it is voters who should decide the outcome of an election and it is politicians who should get on with the job of governing. (Time expired)

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

It is not very often that I agree with Senator Di Natale, but I agree with every word he just spoke. He has actually brought some sense and rationality to this debate. Can I just explain to people who might be listening what exactly we are debating at the moment. It is not Mr Turnbull's economic credentials and not the electoral system but a bill to do a Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme. That is the bill that is before the discussion now. What we are doing is getting a message from the House of Representatives, where this bill has been debated and has passed. It has been brought in here and we are debating whether it should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Can I just urge upon the Labor Party to remember—and explain to those who might be listening to this debate—that this bill is about providing money to people working in disability services and enterprises. I repeat that: this bill that we are debating is about making more money available to people with disabilities working in disability enterprises.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order of relevance. We are not in fact debating a bill at all. If Senator Macdonald thinks we are debating a bill, he is clearly not addressing the question before the chair.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Marshall. I will rule on the point of order. I have allowed Senator Conroy to go well beyond—

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

I never mentioned the bill!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, I understand that.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has no idea!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One at a time! I am ruling on the point of order—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy just said he had no idea what the actual bill was, yet he is raising points of order. You should call him to order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cormann, but there is no point of order there. I am ruling on the point of order. Senator Marshall, I allowed a fairly wide-ranging discussion when Senator Conroy and others were speaking.

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

I never mentioned the bill!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is how the Labor Party—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann! I accept that it was wide-ranging. I will allow Senator Macdonald to continue.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That point of order does not behove our Acting Deputy President, I have to say. We are here debating reasons for urgency—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I should not have to accept that. I am entitled to raise points of order. I was in fact seeking the call and thought I was entitled to the call, because it should go across the chamber. I wanted to address the actual question and the process and procedure, and not some of the politics that is being talked about.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Marshall. Senator Macdonald has the call.

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

I always know I am making an accurate point that people listening to this would be interested in when the Labor Party keep taking points of order on me. That was confirmed just now. This debate is about the urgency of the message from the House of Representatives to deal with the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. It is a debate on why this is urgent. Why is this urgent? Because it deals with providing money to people with intellectual disabilities affected by the representative proceedings to claim and receive agreed payments increases.

I would assume that the Labor Party will agree with the bill, but it is important that it is dealt with now so that payments can start. That is why the bill is important. That is why it is a matter of urgency. For the previous speaker who took the point of order, that is why the bill is a matter of urgency. That is why we should deal with the message from the House of Representatives as a matter of urgency, so that we can get on to the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme that will provide more money for people working in disability enterprises. Why would the Labor Party be filibustering so we cannot start the debate on that bill to provide more money for people with disability enterprises? Why would you want to delay this, Senator Conroy? This is for money for people with a disability.

The Labor Party are using filibuster tactics to prevent the Senate from moving on and dealing with this bill. They do it because they spat the dummy over some other bill that we heard Senator Conroy talk about for five minutes without a word of a point of order from those in the Labor Party, who always find reasons to take points of order on me. The Labor Party are defending the indefensible on the electoral matters bill. As Senator Conroy spoke for five minutes on that, I feel I should just answer that for 30 seconds or so. Senator Conroy, and I ask Labor senators generally: what is wrong with allowing the Australian public to actually determine the preferences that they choose when they go to the next ballot for a Senate? The Labor Party want the bovver boys—the factional heads of the Labor Party—to determine who they will vote for in their preferences. We want the people of Australia to determine their own preferences.

I come back to the reason for the urgency with which we should accept and deal with the message from the House of Representatives: so that we can deal with a bill which will provide money to people with intellectual disabilities working in disability enterprises. It is a wonderful idea. I am sure the bill will receive unanimous support when it comes before us. Why is the Labor Party delaying debate on that essential bill? We should be debating it now.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not often speak on a political nature in the Senate, or I rarely do anymore, but, given some of the contributions made about the actual process, I do want to lend my views to the processes we are dealing with here. What we are actually debating is whether the bills should be exempt from the cut-off. It is easy for people to say—and people have said—that to exempt a bill from the cut-off is the normal process of events and procedure in the Senate. Of course, it is not. The cut-off is actually there because it has been developed over a long period of time through the Senate and is part of the Senate practice to stop bills being brought in towards the end of the session in order to ensure that they get less scrutiny and have less debate upon them. This was something first identified and complained about by Greens senators. Greens senators actually initiated the early cut-off processes in this chamber, and it was for very good reason. Many senators, particularly senators who were not government senators, had problems with bills being introduced and not being given the appropriate scrutiny.

It is true that from time to time bills need to be given an exemption from the cut-off, but that is more unusual than it is the norm. The norm is that bills that are subject to the cut-off do not get debated until the following session. Now, if there is an urgent requirement for a bill to be debated, one would assume that discussions are had around the chamber and agreement is reached about why the urgency is needed, and those matters are then put before the chamber. If it is agreed that they are urgent, there is agreement on that. I have been in this chamber many, many times where agreement has been reached, and it is simply a process motion for the bills to be exempted from the cut-off because the argument has been made and it has been accepted that bills should be exempted from the cut-off.

But to simply bring things in without discussion—and I am advised that, at least in terms of the opposition, there was no discussion whatsoever about why these bills needed to be exempt from the cut-off; they were simply introduced into the chamber to be exempted from the cut-off, which is against the practice of the Senate. The normal practice of the Senate, established over many, many years and, as I said, initiated by the Greens senators, is that, if bills are introduced late, they should be dealt with in the next session unless there is an urgent reason. Again, all I can say is that a lot of people are assigning different motives to why leave was not given to move a motion to exempt these bills from the cut-off, but I just want to put on the record that the normal process is that bills that are subject to the cut-off should not be dealt with until the next session.

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

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Cormann, be agreed to.

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

I move:

That a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.

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

The rabble that this government have descended into has again been demonstrated right here. We have a government that are in paralysis in their own party room. They cannot even make the case—

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

What have you got against disabled people?

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

You do not even know the start date for these bills. The government have got no idea so they are desperate for a distraction right now. Unfortunately, to cover their embarrassment they can now call on their new besties the Greens. The government have failed to make the case on these bills. It is a simple fact that not one government member who spoke in this debate in this chamber made the case for why these need to go through the cut-off.

We do know that, due to the filthy deal that has been done between the Greens and this government, we are going to a double-D on 2 July, because what we have had is the turkeys vote for an early Christmas. Senator Cormann is smooth. He has actually talked them into voting for their own execution. That is good. Paul Keating once said: in politics always back self-interest. These guys have voted for their own execution. It did take some special expertise by Senator Cormann on this.

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if you or Senator Conroy could explain how what Senator Conroy has said so far has anything to do with the subject of the motion. All he has talked about is the Greens and deals. This, as I understand it, is a very formal motion. I would like you to rule on whether Senator Conroy is being relevant to the motion.

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

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Macdonald is deludedly sitting over there ignoring the fact that this debate and what I have been saying go to the heart of why we oppose this motion—because they have not made the case for this to be brought on. They have not made the case because they are a rabble and they have not made the case because they—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard enough on the point of order. I can rule. There is no point of order. You have the call, Senator Conroy.

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

Thank you very much. So try not to get up and distract from the rabble that is sitting in front of you, Senator Macdonald. If you had got more votes than Senator Bernardi, you would have been off to New York and not had to worry about this. Let me be very clear. This is a government that is using its numbers with the Greens to pass this—

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

Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order in that I am quite sure that the speaker is mad. I have no idea why he is talking about New York. It is not something I have ever sought.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald. There is a provision against frivolous points of order too, I add in passing. Senator Conroy, you have the call.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, do your fly up.

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

Now we have Senator Heffernan adding his usual earthy contribution to the debate. Let us try to stay focussed on the bills at hand. The government are masquerading that the bills are urgent when we all know that, because of a filthy deal that the government have done with the Greens, we are going to a double-D. Because of a filthy deal that they have done to sell out their values, to sell out, we are going to a double-D. Any pretence whatsoever that these are urgent bills needs to be tossed out the window. Any pretence that these are urgent bills does not stand up to scrutiny. It does not actually pass the smell test.

These bills are being brought in here to distract from the rabble that this government has become. We have a finance minister who cut the Treasurer loose today on national television. We have a Prime Minister who has taken control of the tax debate off the Treasurer—

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

How can this possibly be relevant?

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

and put his own head of the Public Service in charge of it. It is relevant, Senator Macdonald, because your government is trying to hide the fact that it is calling a double-D. This is not an urgent bill, and it is not an urgent bill because of all the other things that have been going on in this chamber, which you are party to. You are the party that has gone to the Greens and stitched up a deal to do Senate reform and purge all crossbench senators. Tragically, they did not work out that you are actually going to call a double-D on them and they are actually going to purge themselves. Senator Siewert, it was nice. I have had a lot of fun with you in the chamber, but you are not coming back after a double-D, and there are a couple more of you to go as well.

What we saw today in a joint parliamentary committee hearing about Senate electoral reform, which goes to the heart of this debate, is that Mr Antony Green, the great advocate on behalf of Senator Rhiannon, actually confessed for the first time that the Liberals will get 38 senators in a double-D.

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

Oh, he didn't.

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

Yes, he did.

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

He didn't.

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

He said it. It is in the transcript. You should read it. I have already put a press release out with the transcript in it. That is what he said. Then he said, 'Oh, and they'll also get three senators out of six in a half-Senate election.' I can count. That gets you to 38 as well. So the great supporter of the Greens, who has been—oh, my goodness!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you resume your seat, Senator Conroy. Senator Macdonald, on a point of order?

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

I raise the same point of order again, on relevance. Mr Deputy President, if you are ruling as you did before, could you explain to me how what happened in a committee this morning and what Anthony Green said—

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

Antony.

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

has any relevance to the motion before the chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So your point of order is on relevance?

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

Yes.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening to the whole debate, going through its process, and I have also heard the ruling of the previous chair in relation to a very similar point of order. It has been a wide-ranging debate, and on that basis, being consistent—

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

But someone took a point of order on me.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, and the ruling was made, and that is the ruling I will be following. So there is no point of order. Senator Conroy, you have the call.

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

I would just make the case that Senator Macdonald is correct, but his points of order were not upheld, because it has been a free-ranging debate—you are right—and Senator Macdonald is a beneficiary of the free-ranging debates.

But what we have is a government that is going to a double-D, and the cat was belled this morning when Antony Green told the joint parliamentary committee that in a double-D the government will get 38 senators, and in a half-Senate election they will get three out of six. That is what he said. Did they not explain that to you? When you did the deal, did they not explain that to you?

So this is a government that has pulled the wool over the eyes of this chamber already once today by how it voted. It is a government that has no policy agenda. It is pretending bills are urgent when they are not. But the greatest con on disabled people in this chamber is coming from those opposite, because they have no intention of trying to pass this bill before they call the double-D—no intention whatsoever of passing this bill, because you are calling a double-D.

It is a double-D that will have terrible ramifications in this country. It will mean there is no chance to save and rescue the National Broadband Network from the indolent minister, the indolent board and the indolent management, whose stock in trade is to consistently mislead the Australian public about what is really going on. There will be no chance to save the Clean Energy Finance Corporation when the double-D sitting is held and those opposite use their numbers in both chambers, if they are lucky enough to win, to wipe it out. There is no way to protect Australian workers from the penalty rate cutting that will take place by those opposite. There is no way, when they get back to it, that the GST will not be increased, because, just as John Howard said in the last few days, you are going to have to go back and increase the GST. It is in their DNA.

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

How can this possibly be relevant?

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

Why this is relevant is that those opposite cannot make the case for a positive vote in this chamber on this issue, because they are conning everybody who is listening. They are conning the disabled people in this country. You are calling a double-D. You have no intention of passing this bill before you call the double-D—no intention whatsoever of passing this bill. Don't you sit here and try and pretend that you are doing something for disabled people. Your plan is to use this bill to disguise the fact you have no agenda left and you have pulled the best con—I take my hat off to you, Senator Cormann, as I said earlier. You really have taken the Greens for a ride. Paul Keating said, 'Always back self-interest.' Well, those mugs down there did not understand what their own self-interest was. They were bent on revenge, and you have played them on a break. You have sucked them in, and this country will be far the worse for it because of this double-D that you are planning—the double-D that makes this bill not urgent, Senator Macdonald.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

You can sit there and talk and talk and talk, but this bill is not urgent.

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

You should take a pill. You are going madder.

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

Hanging around with you too much, Senator Macdonald, has that effect on people. You should start by looking in the mirror if you want to talk about madness.

But let me repeat: the government, after five speakers or so, have yet to make the case for why this was urgent. After five speakers, they have not made the case for why this bill should proceed in the manner that it is being put forward. They have not made the case for why the Senate should be turned upside down, other than the fact that we all know their party room meeting was a shambles this morning. We all know that, sitting in the joint parliamentary committee on electoral reform, I was reading live tweets telling me what Mr Abbott said and what Senator Cormann said. Senator Cormann, in fact, tweeted out of the room. So everyone was paying attention in there. There was sledging backwards and forward. We all knew what was going on. There were Senator Bernardi, Senator Abetz and all of those who wanted to get behind Senator Cormann's undermining of the Treasurer of this country. We all know what this debate is about. You are afraid to bring your real agenda on. You are afraid to reveal your tax policy to the Australian public. You do not want there to be a budget. You do not want to try to govern this country. You do not want to explain what the excesses of negative gearing are—identified on a number of occasions—because you want to hide behind the pretence that this bill is urgent. All of those issues will catch up with you over the coming months. For those in the Greens corner, when that double-D is called on 11 May and held on 2 July, all of the consequences of the filthy deal to sell out their policies and what they believe in will be seen. But the good news is that they will not all be here to realise it. They will be sitting in their homes because they will not be returned.

We know that your attempt today to upturn the Senate procedures to bring on bills that you have not told anyone you are going to bring on and to try to force the Senate to debate something else is not serious. You could prove me a liar. All you have to do is stand up here and say, 'I guarantee you there's no double-D happening. There'll be no election called before or on 11 May.' That is all you have to do to prove me wrong. Those opposite simply have to say, 'Senator Conroy, you're a fool. There's no double-D.' Then the attempt to bring this bill on becomes legitimate. Until you can stand up and promise this chamber and the people of Australia that there is no double-D, you have zero credibility in pretending you are interested in disabled people, good governance in this chamber or even good governance of this country. You are an absolute shambles. Your cabinet leaks. Your finance minister dumps on the Treasurer in public on national television. The Prime Minister, egged on by Senator Cormann, strips him of his portfolio responsibilities. This is a full-scale mugging of the second Treasurer that you have had! You have already tossed one Treasurer overboard!

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

How can this possibly be relevant?

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

It is relevant, Senator Macdonald, because this is about the scam you are attempting on this chamber. There is no urgency. The two people who could make this case are sitting right there. They could stand up and say, 'Senator Conroy, every word you have said is wrong, because we will not be calling a double-D on 11 May, the day after the budget.' This is the highest-taxing and highest-spending government in Australian history, but you claim to be the party of low tax. John Howard hit new records, and you are running second at the moment. You do not want to try to bring down a budget. You are terrified of the budget because your DNA is about cutting people's wages, cutting people's penalty rates, increasing the GST, cutting pensions and introducing $100,000 university degrees. That is what you want to introduce to this country. It is still your official policy. You still want to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

All of those things are part of the agenda that those opposite are trying to hide from us today with this weak attempt to pretend they are interested in disabled people. This chamber should see through it. You have tickled the tummy of a leader who is looking for friends. If you read his Facebook page—he is very popular on his Facebook page today—I think you should send him a like. Senator Ludlam, send Senator Di Natale a few likes on his Facebook page because he really needs them today. Send him a few likes. He is feeling a little bit tender because Greens supporters have woken up to another filthy deal to help this government. I say to the Greens: you protected tax avoiders with the government last time. Now you are giving them the loaded gun to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, introduce $100,000 university educations, put in place pension cuts, put in place cuts to penalty rates and increase the GST. That is what the Greens have signed up to. So just tickle their tummy again, Senator Cormann, and get them to vote with you on this. Senator Macdonald, I thought you were getting up again; I am quite disappointed.

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

There is not much point in it, I have to say.

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

There is not much point in anything you say, but you still do it a lot! I have to admire it. This is a government that is bereft. Remember when Mr Turnbull became the Prime Minister? He could have said, 'Good governance starts today.' But, no—he actually started off with, 'Isn't it a wonderful time to be alive? Australians are governed by me.' It is heart-warming to see. This is a government that is completely and utterly cannibalising itself from the inside. There is no greater demonstration of that than when the finance minister of this country, on national television, dumps on the Treasurer and will not back him up. Senator Cormann, that is your job. Your job is to back up the Treasurer. Your job is to support him. It sort of comes with the territory of being the finance minister and the Treasurer. The simple fact that you cut him loose today says everything about the shambolic government that you are involved in.

Net debt went over $1 trillion today—congratulations! You like to mock Senator Wong. You have more debt than anybody else in history, Senator Cormann. You are the high-debt finance minister. You are never going to deliver a budget surplus while you are finance minister. That is the badge of honour that you will wear. You are never going to do it while you are the finance minister. You will never deliver it, and Senator Morrison will never deliver a surplus in this country either—it is Mr Morrison; we do not want to promote him.

Let's be clear: this is a government that has lost the plot.

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

You have you gone quite mad.

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

I am having my 20th anniversary dinner tonight.

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

You should lie down and take a Bex.

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

There will probably be a few Bexes in the morning!

This is a government that is attacking itself in its own party room. The former Prime Minister got up and, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, extolled the virtues of Mr Turnbull's communication skills. Mr Turnbull did not make it two months barracking for a GST, and Mr Abbott was openly laughing in his face in the party room. He was mocking him in the party room. The former Prime Minister was mocking the current Prime Minister in the party room. That is what it has descended to. That is why you, those opposite, are in here right now trying to pretend that this is an urgent bill. You all know that you are going to a double-D in July.

I will repeat again in my last few moments speaking that you can prove me wrong. The first words out of the mouths of Senator Fifield or Senator Cormann can be, 'Senator Conroy, you couldn't be more wrong. We're not going to a double-D. We're going to serve our full term.' But you are not going to say that. So do not stand up next and try to pretend that you care about disability. Do not stand up and claim that a trade bill is urgent because you do not have the courage to govern to the end of your term.

You have mugged those in that corner. You have absolutely taken them for gooses, and their gooses will be cooked. You will be okay, Senator Ludlam. We know you are the most popular politician in Western Australia. It is Senator Siewert I am a bit worried about. I am. I want to see Senator Siewert back here. I want to see her come back here.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

No, we should be fair and think of the alternatives! You, the government, have mugged the Greens. All you have to do is stand up next and say, 'There'll be no double-D. Senator Conroy's wrong. This is urgent because we do want— (Time expired)

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

The government will outline the reason why it thinks that these bills are urgent, but I will tell you why I think these bills— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Siewert. I am very interested to hear you speak. I am just wondering what happened to the normal order of calling the opposition, the government and then the crossbench. You clearly saw me, Mr Deputy President. I saw you looking at me. You have again made the ruling that the crossbenchers take preference and precedence over a member of the government side.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not made any such ruling, but I have given Senator Siewert the call.

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

The call does usually go around the chamber. I will tell you why I think the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016 is urgent. It is the same reason I thought it was urgent every time we have been discussing this issue. While I disagreed the first time the government brought in the bill in 2014 because they were not being fair to people with disability, the reason I wanted to make sure this issue was dealt with is that it has been on the agenda for years. People with intellectual disability have been short-changed.

Shame on you, the opposition, for using this particular bill to try to frustrate the government's agenda. I, for one, will not stand by silently while you use people with disability to hold up this bill. You ticked and flicked this bill through the House of Representatives because you knew how important it was for people with disability. You also ticked and flicked the trade bill through the House of Representatives. But I particularly want to talk about the bill that—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I waited to see whether or not the senator's language would change. Could the speaker address her remarks to the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, rather than using the word 'you' constantly; it is becoming aggravating.

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

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order, would you also consider the fact that every time members of the opposition have been speaking today in their attempts to frustrate this Senate they have been looking at the Greens. So maybe instead of directing their speeches to us they should be doing the same thing.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert. I have been watching this debate since prior to being in the chair and I think you are right. I remind senators that they should direct their comments through the chair. There has been leeway given in this particular debate.

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

In that case, Mr Deputy President, I will make sure that I am looking at you and the general direction of the front of the chamber! However, I will get back to the point because I am sure the opposition are trying to distract me from the point I am trying to make. They should hang their heads in shame that they are using this particular bill to try to frustrate the work of this chamber.

We will have ongoing discussions in the future about election reform, but this particular bill is about people with disability, particularly intellectual disability, who have been working in ADEs and other locations who have been short-changed. They have been waiting for years for compensation. The reason I think this bill should be exempt from the cut-off order is that the sooner this issue is dealt with the sooner the Federal Court can settle some of the cases that are currently before it. I, for one, would urge the government to make this noncontro. In fact, I thought it probably would end up as non-contro legislation so it could be dealt with. I thought that everybody in this parliament was now agreed that we should in fact be acting to end the discrimination against people with disability who have been caught up on substandard wages.

In the past in my numerous contributions on this particular matter, I have pointed out to the chamber and those listening that, if people had had access to the money that they have been denied because they were given substandard, inadequate wages, it would have made a substantial difference to their life's progress. In the same way, people getting access to compensation as soon as possible will make a substantial difference. You have picked on the wrong bill to make your point, at the expense of people with disability who deserve compensation. That is not up for argument here. I believe these bills should be exempt from the cut-off order, which is why I think this motion should be brought on.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then sit down and stop talking!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators that they ought not interject at all if they are not sitting in their seats and that, even when they are in their seats, interjections are disorderly.

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

I was in fact winding up, but, talking about winding up, perhaps the opposition is trying to wind up the speakers. These bills should be exempt from the cut-off order. Under any other circumstances, I am sure the opposition—who I know have also been very keen to help people with disability who have been caught up under this flawed approach in the past—would have let this through. I urge them to address this issue so that it does not get held up in this chamber for no other reason than the opposition trying to turn this into a chaotic place and frustrate the process. They have picked on the wrong bill. They should change their minds, support this through and let us get on with making sure that people with disability who have been waiting for so long actually get their compensation.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.