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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the hours of meeting for today.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

Mr President, while the division bells have been ringing, I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The government is prepared to have a 30-minute debate on the suspension motion—to call off this division, proceed to the debate and then put the motion.

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

If it is the will of the Senate. Is leave granted for the division to be cancelled?

Leave granted.

There being no objection, we will cancel the division.

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

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. The purpose of this motion is to enable proper consideration, without further delay, of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. Those of us who have been listening to the second reading debate on this bill throughout the course of the day know that the Australian Labor Party will do whatever they can to stop this bill being passed and to stop this bill being put, because what this bill seeks to achieve is to restore accountability, transparency and integrity to registered organisations, both trade unions and defined industrial organisations, and that is something that the Labor Party is determined to resist.

We have had a long second-reading debate. All of the arguments for or against this bill have been canvassed from both points of view, and the crossbench have had their opportunity to make their contribution as well. It is time now, frankly, that the Senate got on with it.

This is one of the bills that, as we all know, were a double dissolution trigger. It is one of the bills that we took to the people, and we were re-elected. We undertook at the election that, if we were to be re-elected, we would re-present this bill to the parliament, and that is what we are doing. If the bill is carried, as the government hopes that it will be, that will be a very, very significant reform for the Australian industrial relations landscape.

We have heard for years now the mounting evidence of unlawfulness and illegality by trade union officials—not all, not most, but enough to be of concern. It was one of the themes of the Gillard government in particular that scandal after scandal within the trade union movement—in trade unions such as the Health Services Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union and of course, infamously, the CFMEU—was exposed. What did the former, Labor government do to address those abuses of power, those decisions by crooked union officials to enrich themselves at the expense of their members? The sad truth is they did nothing—nothing.

So, when the coalition were elected, we established a royal commission, the Heydon royal commission, whose findings were absolutely damning and made the case in language too powerful to admit of argument that the need to reform industrial relations in Australia was both urgent and significant.

We introduced this bill. We also introduced other legislation to reform the construction industry, but that is a matter for another debate. All the registered organisations bill will do is ensure that officers of registered organisations are subject to the accountability, transparency and integrity standards of officers and directors of public companies, and yet that is too much for the Australian Labor Party to swallow. When you have legislation that merely seeks to ensure that some important entities with power in the economy are subject to the same transparency, accountability and integrity regime as other powerful elements in the economy, and one side of politics resists it tooth and nail, it cannot be because they have a policy based argument. It cannot be because they have a principled argument or an intellectual argument against what the government is seeking to do—and they do not. This is an absolutely shameless attempt by the Labor Party, led by Senator Wong and the CFMEU, to prevent reform, because every man and woman of them—every single one of them—owes their place in this chamber to the patronage of a trade union movement that has decided to do everything it can to prevent reform.

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

Senator Brandis described us as shameless, and what he has done is rocked up in here on the bill that has been on their agenda for years. It was the double disillusion trigger. All of a sudden, they come in and say, 'Bang, we want to get this voted on tonight because we've got the numbers.' It is pretty clear what has happened. The government believe they have got the numbers. They want to get this through tonight, so they are coming in here, without notice, to move a motion to require that the Senate sit until this bill is dealt with.

You would have thought that, given how long this matter has been on the agenda, the government might have been able to get themselves into order to actually work out how it is that they are going to resolve the debate on this bill and how they are going to manage it. But, no, yet again what we have is disarray—the same sort of disarray we saw in the vote before. I do not know if others noticed, but the Nationals voted against the government. The Turnbull government split on the floor of the Senate. The Nationals voted with Senator Leyonhjelm.

Where were the Nationals ministers? Where were the Nationals cabinet ministers? Were they here? I have to say—

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

It was a mick.

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

It was a mick he says. That was very, very mediocre, Senator Brandis. We will have a bit more to say about mediocrity, I am sure, in the days ahead, as will your colleagues, but that is a different point.

We saw the disarray from this government—the disarray which was government senators voting against the government's position, against the Prime Minister's position, in the few minutes before this motion came on. Nationals cabinet ministers were not even here to back in the Prime Minister's position. Now the Leader of the Government in the Senate walks in here, put down the motion and says: 'Guess what? We're going to be here all night if that's what it takes, because we've got the numbers.'

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

I did not say that.

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

He says, 'I didn't say that.' What does this mean: 'The hours of meeting shall be 10 to adjournment and government business order of the day No. 1'—which is the registered organisations bill—'will be called on immediately and have precedence. The Senate shall adjourn after it has finally considered the bill listed above'? In order words, we have got the numbers, so we want to sit here until it is done. You could just own it, George. It is the exercise of numbers. But do not come in here at a later stage and tell the Australian Labor Party, when we want to resolve something—we want to bring something to a vote—that somehow that is an unreasonable thing. The government wants to finish the debate on this bill. It wants to ram it through tonight. It wants to get this bill resolved and it is clear that it does not want to have to deal with the set of amendments that Labor, and potentially the crossbench, are seeking to move. We are very clear about this. We do not believe the Senate ought be treated like this. We do not believe that the Senate ought be in the position where the Leader of the Government in the Senate comes in without notice and slaps down a—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

You really are talking a lot. There is a quite a lot on Twitter about you at the moment, Senator Brandis. We could say some of the things that Liberal MPs are currently talking about. Quite privately, LNP MPs were fuming over the comments. 'George has been such a shining example of good government,' said one, on the condition of anonymity, but I digress.

The point here is this: we had an orderly process for dealing with this piece of legislation—orderly to the point, I suppose, because the government finally actually listed it. But what we have is the Leader of the Government in the Senate coming in and slapping down a motion to enable this to be voted on tonight. This bill has been an example of this government's inability to manage its legislative program. This bill has been an example of a Prime Minister who goes out and demands a double disillusion, partly to clean out the crossbench—remember that was one of the reasons he used: to clean all the crossbench out. He said, 'This bill is so important, we are going to go to a double disillusion on it.' He gets a crossbench that he is not sure he can get the numbers on for this legislation. Then he refuses to list the legislation, despite the fact that this was the great fight that Malcolm Turnbull was going to have. This was the great economic reform—this legislation. He refuses to list it and now, finally, what we have is the government coming in and saying, 'We have to have the debate. We have to finalise it tonight, because we do not want the Senate to have tomorrow to debate it,' as would be normal. 'We want to finish it tonight, even if it takes all night.' That is no way to run a legislative agenda. (Time expired)

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

What was it? Five months ago or so that we went to a double dissolution election on these two bills: the registered organisations bill and the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill. It was so critical that these two bills passed that the Prime Minister decided that he would call a double dissolution on the back of them. These are the pieces of legislation that dare not speak their name. We cannot talk about these pieces of legislation, because we did not talk about them right throughout the election campaign. People had no idea on what basis this government took us to a double dissolution. And then in the subsequent months after the election there has been not a peep, not a word. We could not bring on these bills because the government clearly did not have the support.

Now here we are at the start of a two-week sitting period. It is the first Monday of a two-week sitting period and suddenly we have the government trying to railroad this piece of legislation through the parliament. We had the preceding period during the election campaign when no-one dared mention the words 'building commission' or 'registered organisations'. For the subsequent period after the election, for months afterwards, there was not a peep. And now it is so critical that at the start of a two-week period we have to pass these bills gone midnight! I just do not get it.

This is not the calm, methodical, grown-up government that we were promised, firstly, by Tony Abbott, who apparently lost his way because he had poor polling numbers. We were promised more mature, grown-up government by Malcolm Turnbull. But this is what we get? We have two weeks. We could be back here tomorrow to have a sensible, mature debate with the scrutiny of the Senate, as is warranted. Instead, we are going to be here gone midnight debating what are such critical pieces of legislation that no-one has mentioned them for over five months!

Let's also remember that the only reason that we are here—and we accept that it appears that the government has the numbers—is that the government has managed to secure the support of the crossbench. I have a special word of thanks for some of my colleagues on the crossbench. Senator Xenophon stood here during the last period of government when the Labor Party were in office and was so critical of how often these sorts of tactics were pulled. Yet here he is supporting precisely the sort of tactic that he was critical of during the last Labor parliament.

I do not get what is so critical that we have to be here until—who knows?—11 pm, 12 am, 1 am or 2 am when we could be here tomorrow and giving this the scrutiny that it deserves. Senator Xenophon, the government clearly think they have you where they want you. They have their foot on your throat, and you are giving it to them without us doing our job. You have been in this chamber telling us how critical it is that the Senate scrutinises important pieces of legislation. Senator Xenophon, you—through you, Mr President—have consistently said that it is our job to scrutinise all legislation for us to do our job and you are now giving the government what they want. Why is it that you are denying this Senate the opportunity to ensure that we do what we are supposed to do, and that is ensure that every amendment receives scrutiny. I am just looking at the amendments that are proposed here. There is a wad of amendments here, and you are asking us at one in the morning to give them the scrutiny that they deserve. Sorry, but I just think that is unconscionable.

What we have now is a piece of legislation that will probably get through. There might be some amendments passed. We could all have an opportunity to understand what they mean and do our job. But, instead, here we are with this government's dirty deal with some crossbenchers. I do not expect anything more of some of our colleagues on the crossbench but, Senator Xenophon, I expected more of you.

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

I have enormous regard for Senator Di Natale. I want to put this in context: I will not support a gag motion on the substantive merits of a bill—that is, the debate of a bill and the committee stages of a bill. I have been absolutely consistent on that in the eight years that I have been here. I have been consistent in relation to that. It allows the Senate to scrutinise legislation. This motion, which is a procedural motion, will in effect allow for all senators to contribute to the debate on this bill. It is not satisfactory, Senator Di Natale—through you, Mr President—but it would be less satisfactory not to deal with a number of amendments—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

There will be a second reading stage. There will be a committee stage. I have worked very hard in good faith with the government in relation to amendments that deal with whistleblower protections in this country and a commitment to extend them to the corporate and public sectors. They have been circulated online.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Just a moment, Senator Xenophon. Senator Di Natale, you were heard in relative silence. I think you should extend the same courtesy to Senator Xenophon. I remind all senators not to interject.

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

This is not satisfactory, but it would be less satisfactory to lose an opportunity to make the most sweeping changes to whistleblower protection laws that this country has ever seen. It will become apparent in the course of this, and I make no apology for that. It would be less satisfactory to lose this opportunity in relation to sweeping whistleblower protection laws that will extend to the corporate and public sectors.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong. What a surprise it is tonight to see the government has finally managed to secure a deal with the crossbench. We are yet to see what the results of that deal are. We have just heard some assurances from Senator Xenophon that it will all be very positive, but we simply will not have the time tonight to work that out.

This procedural motion in response to Senator Brandis's motion tells us a few things about this government. Firstly, it is that they have failed to manage their legislation program effectively. That is clear. We have been seeing that ever since the election. Secondly, it is that they have failed to manage their speakers. We have seen this today. For a government that supposedly is in such a hurry to get this bill dealt with, we have seen government speakers added to speaking lists. We have had Senator Macdonald speak at length, I think, a number of times today, giving full 20-minute speeches on things with the government supposedly wanting to prioritise this bill.

We have also seen signs of a government that fails to engage with parties and representatives of parties they are not doing a deal with. We had no idea this was coming on tonight. We had no notice. It has been made clear to me that, for the smooth functioning of this chamber, it requires the parties in this place to work together, to provide notice where they can and to let people know what is going on. You hear rumours in this building, but it was not until Senator Brandis walked in tonight and tabled this motion that we were afforded the courtesy of finding out how this government is intending to deal with this bill—and that is that we are going to sit here until it is done, without the opportunity to go through any amendments that have been agreed to between the crossbench and the government. We will sit through the night—working on our feet to work out what these amendments mean. We have our own amendments to work through. Over the last year we have heard about how important this bill is. It has been before this chamber twice and been rejected, and it has been the subject of a double dissolution election, after which it mysteriously went missing. It has been in the missing persons unit, or the missing legislation unit, for the last six months. Then it appears, gets listed and we are told that it will be dealt with all in one day—despite us trying to engage. We know that our shadow minister has been trying to engage proactively with the government, saying that we wanted to work with them on the amendments we put. We can see that there was no interest at all in that approach. We have a government that has done some dirty deals, and this is a dirty deal—we do not know what it is about, we will not have the time to scrutinise it, and we are not prepared to take Senator Xenophon's word that it will be a great outcome.

It just shows again how the government are prepared to treat this place once it locks in the numbers—once the numbers are there, the rest of you can go and get stuffed—chuck out good procedure, chuck out communication, chuck out good process and chuck out the collaboration that, for the most part, works in this place on a day-to-day basis; instead, we are going to ram this through and make legislation in the early hours of the morning when people have not been given the right time or afforded the courtesy or the opportunity to work through the detail of the deal that has been locked in over the last couple of days. That is not how good legislation is made. That is not how important bills that come to this place should be dealt with.

Today, when I moved an amendment to the disallowance motion, I had all these comments across the chamber about, 'We didn't know about this; we didn't get advice.' I understood that the way it worked here was that you provide people with the opportunity and the information on what you are doing. I did that before question time today. Unfortunately, the same courtesy has not been provided to the opposition. There has been no engagement on this. Senator Brandis walking in and slapping down a motion as soon as they have locked in the numbers is not good enough. This is an important bill, there are political differences around it and it has been highly contentious. It is thoroughly inappropriate that the handling of this bill should be dealt with in the way that the government intends to, just because they have done a deal that none of us are party to. That is why we will be opposing this motion when it is put substantively.

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

I always understood that the Senate was the house of review, and the house of review was about actually scrutinising the legislation that comes before it.

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

Coming from you!

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

Senator Brandis, never mind 'coming from me' at all. What we have seen here tonight is another example of the coalition trying to trash democracy—absolutely trash democracy. There is no foresight with your legislative approach—you have been struggling all year, you have been struggling under this new Prime Minister, you continue to struggle today, and we know that the divisions—

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

This is the third time this bill has been debated.

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

Senator Brandis, we know what you think about a lot of things. We know what you think about your colleagues in Queensland from the LNP. We know that when a mike is near you in future you will need to check that the mike is off. But this is simply about a coalition in disarray. They are at odds with each other. You talk about accountability and integrity, but the only accountability and integrity that you guys want is accountability and integrity in the trade union movement, not accountability and integrity within the Liberal Party—absolutely none within the Liberal Party.

As I said, we are the house of review. I just had a quick look at the amendments being put forward by Senator Xenophon. They are extensive amendments. I do not think too many senators have actually had an opportunity to look at those amendments. When you add those amendments to the amendments from Labor, which are also extensive amendments on this bill, then this is something that you should not be debating, something that you should not be considering, way into the small hours of the night just because the coalition cannot get their act together. You talk about wasting time. Who did we have today? We had Senator Macdonald, we had Senator Reynolds, we had Senator Back and we had Senator Paterson up and engaging in the debate. How dare the coalition accuse us of filibustering when they have their own people up on their feet talking for 20 minutes each in the debate. If we were wasting time, what were they doing?

This is a matter of complex and very important amendments. I say to the coalition that we are interested in accountability and integrity. We are not just interested in accountability and integrity for the trade union movement, even though that is important. We need to start looking at accountability and integrity for the Liberal Party—even for the mediocre LNP in Queensland. Maybe we should be looking at how good they are—that mediocre mob of LNP senators and members up in Queensland who your leader says are so bad that he cannot control himself and gives a character reference in front of the whole country. I do not often agree with Senator Brandis, but he has got it right on this. What a mediocre mob up in Queensland. What a mediocre bunch of LNP members up there. Your own leader has absolutely no time for you. Your own leader does not have any concern for your feelings, because he just said you are mediocre. You are absolutely mediocre. It looks like we have all night now, if this gets passed, to deal with complex legislative issues, issues that we should not be dealing with in a rush. I like what the Greens say, that Senator Xenophon, bringing this on and supporting this, is actually doing everything that he had lectured us for years in this place not to do. But I suppose that once you get into a position of power, like Senator Xenophon, your morals and values can slip a little if it suits you. This should not go ahead. We should do our job. (Time expired)

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

The motion that was moved by Senator Brandis, for which leave was denied, seeks to give this chamber the opportunity to deal with legislation that has been extremely well ventilated in this place, in the other place, this side of the election and the other side of the election. This has been very well-ventilated legislation. It was taken to the election. It was one of the triggers for the double dissolution election. It is legislation for which this government has a mandate. What Senator Brandis's motion was seeking to do was to enable this chamber to have the opportunity to sit for as long as it takes to deal with this legislation conclusively, once and for all.

The reason that Senator Brandis sought to move the motion is that we know that those opposite will use each opportunity that they can, procedurally and using the other mechanisms of this place, to delay the inevitable, which is this chamber having the opportunity to address this legislation. Senator Brandis's motion did not seek to curtail the opportunity of colleagues to make contributions. The debate will go for as long as it needs to. The second reading speeches will go for as long as colleagues wish to contribute. The committee stage will go for as long as colleagues wish to ask questions, contribute and move amendments. There is no attempt to curtail the capacity of colleagues to make contributions.

It is unfortunate that leave was denied, but it has been denied. Nevertheless, that gives the opportunity for me and colleagues such as Senator Xenophon to give their views as to why the suspension should be granted to enable Senator Brandis to move his motion. This is a very reasonable approach in the circumstances that we are in here. It is important that this chamber transact the people's business. It is not a case where there is opportunity after opportunity looked for to deny that to happen. The granting of suspension of standing orders will allow Senator Brandis to move that we can get on and debate this important legislation immediately.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to suspend standing orders to vary the hours of business be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the motion relating to the hours of meeting for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment and that the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to give precedence to the variation of hours of business be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [21:23]

(The President—Senator Parry)

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

I move:

That—

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to adjournment;

(b) government business order of the day no. 1 (Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014) be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined;

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

(d) the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question be now put.

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to vary the routine of business be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [21:30]

(The President—Senator Parry)

Question agreed to.