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

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

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

The purpose of this hours motion, as it is commonly called, is to enable the Senate to progress the business which has detained us until midnight last night and until after midnight on Monday night or early Tuesday morning, in particular the package of legislation described colloquially as the ABCC bills—the government's bills to bring the rule of law to the construction industry.

Here we are on the second-last day of the parliamentary year, and the Australian Labor Party, in cahoots with the Greens, have resisted, every step of the way, the government's attempts to pass this legislation, whose only purpose is to bring legality and the rule of law to the building industry—an industry which is the third-largest employer in Australia, an industry which is absolutely at the heart of our economy, an industry which has been bedevilled and disgraced by the behaviour of one union in particular, the CFMEU, and those who govern it.

Why is it, you might ask, that the Labor Party and the Greens are so determined to fight to the very last breath any attempt to reform the Australian building industry? It is pretty transparent, and it must be transparent to all who have followed this debate. It is because the Labor Party and the Greens are owned lock, stock and barrel by the trade union movement and by militant unions in particular, including the CFMEU. The opposition, of course, has been led by Senator Penny Wong, who was herself an official of the CFMEU, who owes her place in this chamber and her position in the Labor caucus to the patronage of the CFMEU. So, we know why the Labor Party is fighting so fiercely to resist this reform.

But the one thing, I am sorry to say, that never ever features in the Labor Party's thinking is the national interest. How can you mount a credible, intellectually-honest argument against the proposition that the rule of law should govern the construction industry?

And how can you deny for a moment, without turning a blind eye to the damning findings of the Heydon royal commission, the fact that a culture of unlawfulness, a culture of bullying and thuggery and sexism and homophobia and every other form of socially unacceptable and violent behaviour is a feature of that industry?

We have heard in question time after question time through the course of this year my colleague Senator Michaelia Cash—who has done an heroic job in reforming the Australian workplace during the course of the year in so many ways—citing chapter and verse the instances of unacceptable conduct by union officials to which the Australian Labor Party and the surrogates whom the union movement places into this Senate as place men turn a blind eye. They even make excuses and apologies for the sort of behaviour that is manifest in the workplace, particularly in the construction industry.

But we are going to persist, and we hope to persuade the crossbench to come with us to make an historic and long-needed reform to industrial law in this country by passing the ABCC bills and getting on with other business of the Senate as well. The Australian people elect us to this chamber to get on to do the people's business, to legislate, not to obfuscate, and to pass laws, not to filibuster debate. That is what the government has been trying to do—to legislate the bills that we took to a double dissolution election on 2 July, to secure their passage through the Senate, as we undertook to the Australian people to do, and they backed us. The last remaining redoubt of resistance to what the government is trying to do, with the support of the Australian people behind us, is the place men and surrogates and puppets and slaves on the Labor and Greens benches who are defending an interest that not only ought not to be defended but ought to be exposed.

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

Well, that was a fulminating and passionate—somewhat pompous, as always—speech, but let us just get onto some facts. It is a pity that Senator Brandis seems unable to make many contributions without going for the personal attack. I am happy to respond, because—what was I? I was some puppet and owed my position only to a job I once had years ago, because I had nothing else to offer, I am sure. But Senator Brandis might want to know that the division of the CFMEU of which I was an official was the timber workers—forestry workers—and I remember actually being at demonstrations with a whole bunch of coalition members and senators. I know that some of my own colleagues might not like that story, but we were actually arguing against some of the decisions that the then Labor government made. I remember standing up with a whole bunch of coalition senators and members as an official of that union, as I was required to do and as I was proud to do, because I was representing their interests as an official, many years ago, when I was much younger and much less grey—interesting times.

But let us focus on the issue at hand, which is this government walking in and seeking to suspend standing orders because they did not give notice of a requirement to again sit extended sitting hours. I would say to the crossbenchers: just because you agree with a bill does not mean you have to do what Senator Cormann or Senator Brandis asks you to in terms of additional sitting hours. We have been very reasonable with the government in terms of hours. Last week the Labor Party gave up general business. We were willing to give up the MPI yesterday. I understand that did not accord with the wishes of the Greens party. We have indicated again that we would be prepared to give up the MPI. We are prepared to have a discussion about giving up some of our time tomorrow. So, there are cooperative ways to deal with this rather than walking into the chamber again and seeking to crunch, with the support of the crossbench, additional hours at short notice to senators.

It is unusual to sit on Wednesday nights. People often recognise that it is a night on which they can arrange other matters, because generally we have not sat on Wednesday nights. Well, I had a work function on, but that is fine. I am not known for my partying, either, I regret to say! I was once described by one of my colleagues as one of the most boring people in the parliament. That was harsh, I thought.

I make this point too: the government has moved extended hours because this is so important. We have made it clear we believe it has the numbers on this bill. It will pass before 12.45. There is no intention from the Labor side to extend debate on it. I have made that clear but, nevertheless, Senator Brandis wants to suspend standing orders and extend the hours.

I would make this point also: this is not the only legislation the Senate has to deal with. There is national security legislation, which has bipartisan support but which is not on this hours motion, which the government is happy to push off because its political priority is the ABCC. So the war crimes bill and the high-risk terrorist offenders bill, which we worked very hard on in a bipartisan way and which I would have thought would be a priority, which in fact, as I recall some of Senator Brandis's previous fulminating, was a priority: 'it was the most important thing to get through'—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Well, you have not put it in your motion, George. If you want to interject and stand up and change your motion, you go right ahead. Do you want to do that?

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

You have the call, Senator Wong.

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

There you go. I guess he is not going to do that. Let us be clear about it. National security legislation is not urgent but beating up on the CFMEU is, because it is a political imperative. I mean, really.

What I would say is that we, I think, have been very reasonable in terms of giving up time, and we would have been willing to give up more time tomorrow, including private senators business in the morning. But what we have instead is the government seeking to use its numbers on the crossbench to require additional hours sitting without notice. I would say to the crossbench: you are entitled to support the government on this legislation. We disagree with your view. There is a better way to manage this chamber in a somewhat more cooperative and courteous fashion, to give people notice of additional hours rather than turning up at 9.30 each day, suspending standing orders and crunching through additional hours of sitting. I put that to the crossbench. For that reason—not because we are going to delay this bill—as I have indicated quite clearly, we are—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Would you like to get up and speak, George? As I have indicated quite clearly, we are not intending to delay this. This motion was unnecessary. Really, I would ask the crossbench to perhaps consider continuing to go along with the government on this. (Time expired)

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

I do want to acknowledge, at the outset, that over the past couple of weeks there has been cooperation from the different groupings in this chamber at different times. I acknowledge that the Manager of Opposition Business facilitated the passage of some non-controversial legislation in the last week by forgoing general business time. I put that on the record and acknowledge that. As I often say in this place, in a chamber where the government of the day does not have a majority in its own right, management of the chamber and of legislation is a shared responsibility of all groupings in this place. On different occasions different groupings in this place accept that responsibility and assist the government. That is something that we very much appreciate.

What we sought to do earlier this week, and were successful in doing, was provide for additional hours that gave colleagues the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Again, through seeking a suspension of standing orders, if successful, the motion that Senator Brandis would move would facilitate contributions from colleagues. We are not seeking to curtail debate, as previous governments have done, by seeking to guillotine legislation. There was a very famous occasion under the previous government when 54 bills were guillotined in rapid succession with no provision for debate on bills. We are not seeking to guillotine. We are merely seeking to ensure that we do have the capacity is a chamber to deal with the legislation that I think we would all agree we need to resolve one way or another before the Senate rises for the year.

The proposition that Senator Brandis would move is that if we have not dealt with the ABCC legislation and also the backpacker legislation and the passenger movement charge legislation by 12.45 we would sit tonight until they are dealt with. This really is a contingency in the event that we have not dealt with that legislation by 12.45. I think there are reasonable prospects that the ABCC legislation could be dealt with by 12.45, and possibly even the backpacker package of legislation. We are not seeking to sit into the wee small hours tonight. I do not think that will be necessary, but this is a contingency should we need additional time. I should also point out—because I know Senator Birmingham would be extremely disappointed if I did not—that this will also mean that we can get to the VET student loan legislation perhaps a little more quickly.

We have, as a government, endeavoured to really focus in this last sitting period on legislation that is essential to deal with, and all of it is listed on the red today. That is the totality of what we are seeking to do. We are not seeking an opportunity to in any way force things through this place; we are trying to limit ourselves to that which really needs to be done. Senator Wong, in her contribution, asked why we had not listed other legislation in the motion that Senator Brandis would like to move. The reason for that is we did not want to build into this motion more than we thought was necessary. I am confident that if we deal with the ABCC legislation and the backpacker's package today we will, through cooperation tomorrow, be able to deal with what remains on the legislative program. I encourage my colleagues to agree to the suspension of standing orders so that Senator Brandis can move his substantive motion, which, as I say, is a contingency in the event that we need a bit more time to conclude these two important packages of legislation.

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

Senator Fifield opened his comments with remarks about the shared responsibility of managing this chamber. Usually at the beginning of the last fortnight we have a leaders and whips meeting, where we all sit down—the whips and the leaders of the parties and the crossbenches—and look at what the government want to get through in the two weeks, and we talk about it. That has not happened. It has been day-by-day chaos in this place. We had extended hours last week with no notice, extended hours on Monday with little notice and extended hours yesterday with little notice. Then we got a phone call—at least Senator Fifield gave us a heads-up—at about quarter past eight this morning saying that this was in the offing. So, instead of the normal way we do business in the last two weeks, what we are seeing is this day-to-day chaos while the government try to get whoever they can to agree to whatever they need to get the ABCC up, because they just want to be able to go out and say: 'Look: we've achieved this!'

That was what was happening last night. There were amendments going everywhere. They obviously had not got all their ducks in a row and were not able to do what they wanted to do, so they were holding on by their fingertips, flying by the seat of their pants, because they did not know what was going on. They have not been able to manage the agenda, either last week or this week, to the point we have got to here with this motion about Wednesday night.

Just so people are clear, on a Thursday we do not have much government business time. When they say, 'Look at the bills that are on here; this is what we want to achieve,' there are a significant number of bills there. If they have not already done it, they are going to be asking for private members' time and for general business time. We did not think the ALP should have given up some of their very important, hard-won general business time to help the government get through their non-controversial bills, but they did. The government will be coming and asking for that time tomorrow, or we will be sitting late again tomorrow.

Minister Fifield says, 'We've got a manageable agenda for tomorrow.' I do not think so, and I expect to be sitting late tomorrow. Even if the opposition benches do give up their private members' time and their general business time, the government will still be asking for more. They have not been able to manage the agenda. Where was the leaders and whips meeting? What we usually do, folks—for those who have not had the pleasure of going to a leaders and whips meeting—is sit down and work out how much time each bill is going to take: what is achievable, what is not and what is the top of the government's priority list. It did not happen, and this is the result.

When you talk about shared responsibility, talk to the hand, because you made no effort to involve the whole of the chamber in the discussions, as is normal in the last two weeks before we rise in June and, particularly, when we rise at the end of the year. It did not happen; chaos is the result.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are 20 minutes into our time—20 minutes that could have been used on the ABCC debate. We have the Leader of the Government in the Senate—he who must be obeyed—coming in here and again mismanaging things. We should have got into the debate. All through this management of the ABCC debate, there has been cooperation. Although we have huge differences on the actual substance, there has been clear cooperation in getting on with the debate. So what should have happened today, if somebody had actually been reasonable, is to come in here, get on with the debate and then, if we run out of time, negotiate with the whips and then work out more time. That is what we should have been doing. We should have been well into the debate by now.

But the attitude that comes through, to my mind, in many ways encapsulates all the problems that the coalition is running into now because of its failure to have a clear message and the elitism of the ABCC—which is essentially what that bill is about. It is saying, 'There are some people in Australia who are less than we are, and we're going to treat them badly so we can get our agenda up.' To my mind, it is not that different from this waste of time that is going on here. Seriously! It is Wednesday morning. We have all had a late night. We came in here expecting we could get our teeth into the ABCC. As soon as we come, they decide to waste half an hour with an hours motion, totally doing it back to front. It is a really irresponsible and, I have to say, arrogant way to treat people. Yes, we have our sharp differences. Yes, we will have very big fights about the substance. But we do not need to have the arguments on this sort of thing; we really do not.

Why do they do it? I think in some ways it is quite an interesting psychological study of what goes on with the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Right now, you would have to see that it is just elitism. He just wants to sort it out. He is not mindful of even getting it working for the government. This is not working for the government—starting off the day in this time-wasting way. It is really just tragic, actually, because we are all a bit tired and we want to get on with it, and here is the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, with no clear explanation of why it is done back to front.

We should be having the hours motion—if it has to come in to manage the Senate's time—only if we run out of time. I reckon there would have been a good chance that we could finish this this morning, before lunchtime. We were well down the track.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take the interjection: somebody tells me to sit down. But the point needs to be made about the mismanagement that is going on here—the arrogance that is occurring in how the government tries to manage this place. It does not make for a cooperative set-up in how we run the debate on this bill, because there are complexities. We are now into a heap of amendments that we need time for, but the starting point for the Attorney-General is to put people at loggerheads, not showing any cooperation or a willingness to just follow the informal practices that occur in this place—which I always find quite fascinating, actually. While there are all the rigid rules that go down, there is that flexibility and cooperation. There is so much that is done by leave in quite a civil way so we can keep this place moving and we all get our cut of the action to some degree. But this heavy-handed approach that we have seen from the Leader of the Government in the Senate is a really bad start to the day.

I look forward to getting to the debate. I think what would be wise for Senator Brandis is just to withdraw this motion. Let's get on with it right now. That is what we should be doing: getting back to the committee on the ABCC.

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

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

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

I move:

That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

I also move:

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 Senate divided. [10:02]

(The President—Senator Parry)

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to grant precedence for him to move a motion relating to the routine of business today be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That—

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment; and

(b) if by 12.45 pm the following bills have not been finally considered:

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013

Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2)

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016,

  (i) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be government business only, and

  (ii) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.

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

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