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

by leave—I move the motion standing in my name, the terms of which have been circulated in the chamber:

(1) That the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of 2016 be as follows:

(a) Tuesday, 19 April and, if required:

  (i) Wednesday, 20 April and Thursday, 21 April, and

  (ii) Tuesday, 26 April to Thursday, 28 April;

(b) Monday, 2 May to Thursday, 5 May;

(c) Monday, 9 May to Thursday, 12 May; and

(d) Monday, 20 June to Thursday, 23 June

Monday, 27 June to Thursday, 30 June

Tuesday, 23 August to Thursday, 25 August

Monday, 29 August to Thursday, 1 September

Monday, 19 September to Thursday, 22 September

Monday, 10 October to Thursday, 13 October

Monday, 7 November to Thursday, 10 November

Monday, 21 November to Thursday, 24 November

Monday, 28 November to Thursday, 1 December.

(2) A day of meeting specified in paragraph (1) (a) shall be taken to be required if the Senate has not finally dealt with the following bills:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 3]

Road Safety Remuneration Repeal Bill 2016

Road Safety Remuneration Amendment (Protecting Owner Drivers) Bill 2016.

(3) That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 3 May 2016 be from 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 5 May 2016 be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:

(a) the routine of business from 8.30 pm on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 shall be:

  (i) Budget statement and documents 2016-17, and

  (ii) adjournment; and

(b) the routine of business from 8 pm on Thursday, 5 May 2016 shall be:

  (i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and

  (ii) adjournment.

I will just make some brief remarks. I do not think there could have been a clearer or more public indication of the government's intent and reasons to have the Senate sit for additional weeks. That was outlined by the Prime Minister a number of weeks ago. The purpose of these additional weeks, as you know, Mr Deputy President, is to deal with the Australian Building and Construction Commission package of bills, the registered organisations legislation and an issue that has really come to the fore over recent weeks, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. They are the matters that the government seeks to have addressed in these additional weeks. It has been made clear through the publication, a number of weeks ago, of a draft sitting schedule for the balance of the year to indicate the weeks that we would seek to move a motion for in this place.

We have taken a practical approach to the wording of the motion. We outline, obviously, the necessity to sit for the balance of this week. We outline the sitting pattern from the budget week on through the rest of the year. We also in the motion provide for the Senate to sit next week. But, in relation to the sittings of the Senate next week and indeed for the balance of this week, we make it clear in the motion that those days are required 'if the Senate has not finally dealt with the following bills'. So, if the Senate manages to address the bills that we are seeking to have resolved and does that in short order over the next day or two or three, then there would not be the necessity for the Senate to sit next week. That is the practical approach that we are taking.

I understand that there may be others in this chamber who want to 'reverse engineer' the motion to remove next week and, should it prove necessary to sit next week, then enter discussions to move a subsequent motion to have sitting days next week. I think it is more practical if we take the approach that is in the motion here—that being that we provide for next week but that it is only required if we have not addressed the legislation that the government would like to see resolved. I think it is a practical approach and I commend it to my colleagues.

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

I am the 'reverse engineer', and I am putting before the Senate that, in terms of clarity, we believe it is more clear for the Senate to have on record that we are sitting this week, with a clear indication, as in the minister's motion, about the range of bills the government wish to bring forward and the sitting times on Wednesday and Thursday if required. We believe that it is actually an easier way for the Senate to handle our business to see how we are going with our debate in terms of the process and then, should there be a requirement to come back next week, we would be able to take that decision as a Senate later in this week. Our amendment is that the motion before the Senate should clearly say that the days will be (1)(a)(i), that (1)(a)(ii) be deleted and then the days continue as set out.

I actually take the point that the minister has made that the media was quite clear that the intention of people coming back for this sitting was to look at the particular pieces of legislation. The focus was always coming back to the Senate to look at the pieces of legislation that are listed on the days of meeting motion. We do not agree with that, but that is the process that has been put forward.

For the rest of the days of meeting of the Senate, Labor will make every effort to ensure that the pieces of legislation are completed this week. Should there be a need towards the end of this week, Wednesday or Thursday, we would be open to the Senate considering whether it is required to come back next week. We do not consider that is reverse engineering. We consider that the Senate should own the process for its hours of sitting and be able to look at how the debate can continue over this period of time. Labor are making the small amendment to remove (1)(a)(ii), referring to the sittings for next week, and then we want to see how the process continues and, should it be required, we will consider whether there is a need to come back next week.

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

The question is the amendment moved by Senator Moore be agreed to.

The question now is that Senator Fifield's amended motion be agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.