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

On behalf of Senator Fifield, I move:

That—

(1) The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 have precedence over all government business until determined.

(2) On Tuesday, 15 March 2016:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 7 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and

(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.

(3) On Wednesday, 16 March 2016:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 7 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm;

(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and

(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.

(4) If by adjournment of the Senate on Wednesday, 16 March 2016, the following bills have not been finally considered:

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016

Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016

Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Amendment Bill 2016

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016

Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016

Law and Justice Amendment (Northern Territory Local Court) Bill 2016

Migration Legislation Amendment (Cessation of Visa Labels) Bill 2015

Tax Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island CGT Exemption) Bill 2016

Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016

Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016,

(a) on Thursday, 17 March 2016:

  (i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment,

  (ii) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with,

  (iii) the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only, and

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

(b) the Senate shall adjourn after it has finally considered the bills listed above in paragraph (4) only, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.

I also move:

That the question be now put without amendment or debate.

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

The question is that the question be now put.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I am obliged under the standing orders to put the question. The question is that the question now be put. Division required; ring the bells.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

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

Senator Wong, I can only take a point of order in relation to the division. Do you have a point of order?

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

My point of order is that this is the parliament of Australia, not a dictatorship, and those opposite will not even allow a debate.

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

That is not a point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Wong. There is no point of order.

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

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

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move my two amendments together.

Leave not granted.

I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for consideration—

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

There is no question before the chair to amend. The matter has been dealt with in the previous motion, so there is nothing to amend. You are in order to seek leave to do anything, but you cannot do what you want to do in that regard, because there is nothing to amend. You will have to rephrase it in a different matter. For clarity: there is a motion to be moved by leave circulated. Is this the motion that you wish to move?

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I believe so.

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

So you want to rephrase. You are seeking leave to move a motion in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Can I suspend standing orders now?

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

You can move a contingent motion to suspend standing orders.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

So much of 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 a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business today.

The government has been very vocal about not being able to pass the ABCC legislation through the Senate, yet, when given an opportunity on a silver platter, they reject it. There is an opportunity now to debate this legislation, putting it in front of all other government business, but, together with a deal you made with the Greens, you are ignoring something that you claim to be some of the most important legislation you need to put to the Senate. To quote the Prime Minister, 'We would not be having this debate had the Senate actually voted for these amendments.' We are now standing with the opportunity to have this debate, and the government is rejecting it and the Greens are allowing it to happen to put self-interest ahead of the people of Australia. It is an absolute disgrace.

The amendments you have rushed through the parliament for a bill we are all going to discuss very soon and which had a very poor committee stage, are not what you or the government claim it to be. The bill has only recently come out of the committee stage. I even supported the government in an attempt to avoid the bill being referred to the committee in the first place when it had the reporting date of 15 March, which was pulled back to the end of last week so it could be debated in the committee of the whole, so the government cannot claim that the crossbench was not being proactive in trying to assist them in at least debating this in the Senate. There were amendments which were worthwhile to discuss and which should be put ahead of electoral reform which you are putting forward in your own interest. There is no secret that I was trying to work with the government. I even went and visited the Minister for Employment in her office in Perth. I was more than happy at least to sit down, have this conversation and be proactive.

The government is claiming that electoral reform needs to come through to rid it of the crossbenchers in the Senate to stop an unorderly Senate. Only a handful of bills have actually been knocked back. There has been some terrible policy. The Greens have agreed to that, yet they are trying to give you the majority in the Senate for the future to come. It is an absolute disgrace. The problem is not the crossbench. We are here trying to work with you, all having a diverse amount of views, something the Greens should be sticking up for. But we are not discussing innovation, progress or tax; we are discussing self-interest ahead of what the government claims to be their most important legislation.

Only a handful of bills have been rejected. The government is blaming the crossbench rather than looking in their own backyard to see that the ministerial changes all the time are part of their problem. By getting rid of the diverse Senate and wedging the Greens into a position of power—have fun. Oh my god, you're going to have some fun! But the people of Australia are going to see through this.

I look forward to more debate in relation to electoral reform, but the ABCC, going off your own rhetoric, should be coming first.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

For senators' benefit, it is the substantive motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Muir. So those that agree with that proposition move to the right of the chair; those that do not move to the left of the chair.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion regarding the resolution regarding the hours of meeting and routine of business considered earlier in the day.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That the resolution agreed to earlier today relating to hours and routine of business for this week be amended as follows:

(1) Paragraph (4) add the following bill:

"Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013"

(2) Omit paragrapf (4)(b) and substitute the following:

"(b) the Senate shall adjourn either:

(i) After it has cosidererd the bills listed above in paragraph (4) only.

or

(ii) A motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister only after the Senate has finally considered the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013.

(3) Add the following new paragraph "(4)(c) for the purposes of this order, the consideration the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 be listed and considered as a Government Business Order of the Day.

The government's motion states that if certain bills have not been finally considered by adjournment on Wednesday then on Thursday we will have special arrangements and we will not adjourn until either these bills are finally considered or a minister moves a motion for the adjournment.

My motion—my amendment—adds the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 to the list of bills that trigger special arrangements on Thursday, and it prevents a minister from moving a motion for Thursday's adjournment until at least this bill has been finally considered. My amendment does not limit the government's ability to require the final consideration of the bills on its list; it just requires that there also be consideration of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013.

The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 was introduced in December 2013, was debated extensively in November 2015, and largely replicates a bill debated in the previous parliament in August 2012. The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 is a Greens' bill. I support this bill—even though it differs from the Liberal Democrats' own bill on this issue, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014—because I support allowing same-sex marriage, irrespective of which party's bill finally makes this a reality. I propose that the Greens' bill be the one we add to this motion, because the Greens are the swing vote on this motion. I do not want to see an opportunity to allow same-sex marriage squandered, just because the Greens did not like a detail of someone else's same-sex marriage bill.

The Greens have said that parliament should deal with same-sex marriage and that there is no cause for delay. They have repeated this position recently at Mardi Gras and in the wake of the Safe Schools debate, which foreshadows the kind of debate we would see in the lead-up to a plebiscite. I do not look forward to an expensive and divisive plebiscite where people would be asked to vote on other people's rights. The potential for coalition parliamentarians to vote as a block against allowing same-sex marriage is not a reason to put off a parliamentary vote. It is a reason to proceed. Each voter should know before an election whether their coalition parliamentarian is committed to allowing same-sex marriage. It would be perverse and undemocratic for the Greens to avoid parliamentary consideration of their own bill just to provide coalition parliamentarians with cover on this issue.

I call on all senators to support this amendment—including senators who do not support change to the Marriage Act. Supporting this amendment simply means that you do not fear voting on the issue of same-sex marriage and you accept that it is part of your job.

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

There is no greater supporter of marriage equality in the Australian Parliament than the Australian Greens. Long before it became a popular cause, it was the Australian Greens that were leading the charge on marriage equality—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

long before 'we' sniffed the political breeze and thought, 'Yeah, we can support this,' we supported it when we knew it was right. And that is why every single MP, every time, in any state parliament, and in every federal parliament, of the Australian Greens have voted for marriage equality.

We are so committed to this issue—as, clearly, is the Australian Labor Party—that we are proposing to the Australian Labor Party that we, on Thursday, during private senators' time, back in this reform. If this is just crocodile tears, if this is some political tactic, if this is simply some opportunity to play wedge politics with an issue as serious as ending prejudice in marriage once and for all, then the Australian Labor Party will support ensuring that we bring in this debate on Thursday during private senators' time—during their private senators' time. If this is not just some political tactic in an effort to overturn a democratic reform—incidentally a reform that they have supported for many years, and, in fact, that many of their own side continue to support—then we will support any endeavour from the Australian Labor Party to bring this on for a vote.

In fact, we will go further. You have our unconditional support right now, this afternoon, to ensure that, when we vote for the piece of legislation that we will be debating on Thursday, marriage equality takes precedence over everything else. The decision is now yours, Senator Wong, Senator Dastyari and Senator Cameron—

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

Through the chair, Senator Di Natale.

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

to ensure that on Thursday we have the opportunity to ensure that we get marriage equality legislation through the Senate. It can be done this Thursday.

The question is now for you, Senator Wong. Will you ensure that we get legislation through this parliament on Thursday in the time that you have allotted on an issue that we have all collectively as a community fought so long and hard for? Will you ensure it sees passage through this parliament? Will you, through your action, fuel a vote on Thursday to ensure that we end discrimination on marriage once and for all? The question now is: is this just some sneaky political tactic in an effort to overturn a democratic reform that you, yourself, are on the record as supporting? Is that what this is about? Are you playing wedge politics with an issue? Because, if you are not, let us do it on Thursday. Let us ensure the passage of legislation this week. We can get it done.

I think the saddest thing—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order on my left!

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to listen to this debate and I seriously cannot hear Senator Di Natale because there are not only Labor people on that side but also Labor people on this side not in their seats who are yelling and stopping me from hearing this discussion.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: I acknowledge Senator Macdonald's interjection. Those of us who keep being gagged are trying to make our voices heard. What I would say is that, given Senator Di Natale is speaking to me, I hope you will allow me the opportunity to respond.

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

That is not a point of order. Before I call Senator Di Natale—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Senator Dastyari, that is disorderly. Before I call Senator Di Natale, I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly. I know it is a tense moment, but we need to just have a bit of decorum and a bit of order and allow the speakers to be heard. Senator Di Natale, you have the call.

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

I think the saddest thing that could happen with the issue of marriage equality is that a wedge be driven between those advocates who support marriage equality. It does not have to be that way. What we can have now is a commitment from the Labor Party to ensure that on Thursday in private senators' time this legislation will be brought on for debate. If they are not prepared to do that, these are crocodile tears. It is cynical wedge politics. This is too important an issue to be used as a political football. Those people who have supported this reform now for decades would be disgusted if this was simply some cheap political tactic. (Time expired)

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis that the question now be put be agreed to.

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