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 this week to provide for the consideration of two bills: the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating 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 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Once again we see the Australian Labor Party trying to get in the way of the orderly dispatch by this Senate of its business. What the government seeks to do today is to ensure that the childcare package, which will be of benefit to a million Australian families, is able to be debated and disposed of. The most sensible thing for the Labor Party to do would have been to cooperate with the government, but of course the one thing that we know the Labor Party is determined to do is to obstruct at every turn every attempt that the Turnbull government makes to try and get the budget in order while, at the same time, providing for social benefits in a way that is targeted to the most needy Australian families—which is precisely what the childcare package does.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Senator Simon Birmingham. When he inherited the portfolio which he now has, he inherited the mess, the wreckage that had been left over from the Rudd and Gillard governments' arrangements for child care. After long negotiations with the sector and after the extremely careful development of a package, he has arrived at a package which focuses the government provided benefits in the childcare system upon the families who need it most. But, of course, as those of us on our side of the parliament know, you cannot have these beneficial social programs without them being paid for, so they are going to be paid for, and we have found elsewhere the savings to enable us to pay for them.

The bill secures savings of over $2.4 billion over the forward estimates. The childcare package contains three measures: maintaining income-free areas and means-test thresholds for certain payments and allowances at their current levels for three years; automating the income stream review process, which will lead to improvements in the accuracy of income support payments and reductions in consumer debt; and extending and simplifying ordinary waiting periods for the parenting payment and the youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice. These are all provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what you call the dispatch of orderly business—going after children and young people?

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

Senator O'Neill, I would have thought that somebody who professes to believe in social justice as you and the Labor Party profess to believe would be supporting a measure that targets the assistance provided by government to those who need it most. That is what this package of legislation does. That is what the childcare package does, so that families who need the support will get the support, and, meanwhile, we have found savings elsewhere in the budget to enable that to be paid for. As a result of what the government is seeking to do, seeking the passage to the chamber today—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Young aboriginal children in the bush won't get an education. That's who you are taking the money away from!

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

Senator O'Neill, please, you keep interjecting. I know I have touched a raw nerve with you, because you claim to believe in social justice—your leader does not, of course—and yet at every turn you try and get in the way of measures to focus the government's welfare measures on those at the bottom end of the income spectrum. That is what Senator Simon Birmingham, the minister, has been able to achieve with this legislation, but of course the Labor Party will vote against it. The Labor Party will vote against this legislation just as the Labor Party will vote against every measure that this government introduces in order to deal with the task of budget repair—a task that we inherited 3½ years ago when we inherited from them the most catastrophic set of financial accounts that any incoming government had inherited in Australian history. For 3½ years you have been standing in the way of budget repair, for 3½ years you have been standing in the way of social justice and you are going to try and do it again today.

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

The Leader of the Government in the Senate commences that spray with a suggestion that the Labor Party are opposing the orderly dispatch of business in the Senate. Let us be clear what he is doing. He is bringing in a motion that requires debate on legislation that we have not seen. That is what this hours motion does. He comes into the Senate and up-ends standing orders, up-ends the Order of Business and says to the Labor Party, 'We want you to agree to debate a bill that you have not even seen.' That is not orderly dispatch of the business of the Senate. That is a secret deal to take money off Australian families, and the government is not even prepared to demonstrate it to the Senate. We still have not even seen the bill that the crossbenchers have agreed to bring on for debate. That is no way to run the Senate.

I am not going to descend into the sort of personal innuendo that this Leader of the Government uses as his stock-in-trade. I will just say this: in that speech we saw again why no-one in this place likes him—because he is unable to have a political debate that does not offend or impugn—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

the personal motivations of other senators. He cannot debate the issues.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Are you going to pick him up, Mr President?

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Order on my right! 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

So let us be clear: this is an hours motion to rush through a secret deal, to come in here to the Senate, up-end the Order of Business and suspend standing orders because we have to rush through and immediately debate other cuts to social security and other cuts to what families get, which we have not even seen. It is an extraordinary proposition, and it is a deal that has been done in secret.

I have to say to the crossbench, as I have said previously to Senator Hanson and to others in this place: I may disagree with what your policy position is, but you are entitled to negotiate with the government on policy. But I fundamentally disagree with the way you are walking over the way this Senate should operate. To come in here and say, 'We want to have a bill debated now that you have not seen—because you have not been in the negotiations; you have not had it disclosed—sit till midnight tonight, sit till midnight tomorrow night and sit on Friday, with no other notice to senators' is an extraordinary way to run this chamber. This government is a government that is lurching from crisis to crisis and it is now again turning its sights to families. It is the old tried and true.

We all remember that this is a government first elected on a promise that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education. Well, here is a government that is cutting assistance to families in a new, secret way that we do not even know about. We have record low wages, we have penalty rates being smashed and now we have cuts to payments that low-income families rely on, to fund a childcare package that will make life harder for many Australians. And they want to smash it through the Senate in a deal with the crossbench in the next three days, requiring us to sit additional hours at short notice on a bill we have not seen. When are you going to tell the Australian people what your deal is?

We know this government wants to cut the take-home pay of Australian workers to fund a $50 billion tax cut for big business. That is what this government's values are. We anticipate, whilst we have not seen the bill, that those values will continue to be reflected in this legislation. I say again to the crossbench: you are entitled to deal with the government on policy, but what an extraordinary way to make this Senate operate—to come in here and support an hours motion that you have got the numbers on. The Nick Xenophon Team have obviously signed up to this. Where are you? You believe in the proper process of the chamber and in democracy. You have got the numbers. You have given them the numbers on up-ending this place in order to get your deal through in the next two and a bit days to suit their agenda. Which cuts to families have you agreed to? Let us remember the childcare package leaves a third of families worse off. You cannot trust this government when it comes to take-home pay for workers, you cannot trust this government on health and education, and you cannot trust this government when it comes to family payments.

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

Following on from the contribution of Senator Wong, I think it is really important that people who are not familiar with the somewhat arcane processes employed here in the Senate understand what is actually happening. What is happening here is that we have two pieces of legislation which in fact we have not seen; we are not aware of what is in the legislation. We have not had the opportunity to examine and interrogate that legislation. It is now being rushed through the Senate. The hours motion says that it will be debated through until midnight tonight, midnight tomorrow night and then in an open-ended debate on Friday.

To those people who may be listening and wondering what is unusual about that, the whole point of this chamber is for us to be given the opportunity to interrogate the details of specific legislation through a committee process. For those people who are not familiar with that, we have legislation presented through a committee process, we take evidence, we take submissions and we look for unintended consequences. We look to amend the legislation through that process so that what is ultimately passed through the Senate, even if it is not supported, at least has the scrutiny that it needs to avoid unintended consequences through its passage. None of that is going to happen right now. We have got legislation which will be railroaded through this parliament, in a deal struck behind closed doors, which no-one has had the opportunity to see, let alone examine, interrogate and give it the due scrutiny it deserves.

Again, people might say, 'Well, how is that possible—the house of review, the Senate, not being given the opportunity to look at legislation in the way that this House was designed to do?' It happens when the government gets together with members of the crossbench—with One Nation, with the Nick Xenophon Team and other crossbenchers—and says, 'Let's stitch this thing up. Let's get it through this week so that we can avoid the attacks and criticism that will come as a result of this legislation getting the due scrutiny it needs.'

We know that one of those pieces of legislation involves significant cuts to the most vulnerable Australians. We know that, because that is what the government's savings measure entails. We know that what we are talking about here are cuts to family tax payments and cuts to households that are some of the poorest, most vulnerable households in the country. We are talking about cuts to people at the moment who cannot afford to pay their rent, who cannot afford to put food on the table, and yet we have got this government, with One Nation and with the Nick Xenophon Team, getting together to strike a deal to say, 'Let's ram this thing through before we get too much heat on us, because we know that these are unpopular, unfair cuts and we need to get them through this parliament as quickly as we can.'

I say to the crossbench, and I say, firstly, to One Nation, the party that says to the Australian community: 'We're the party that represents battlers. We look after the vulnerable, the marginalised. We look after the people who are not being looked after by the major parties.' Yet, what we see is One Nation joining with the Liberal Party more than almost any other member of parliament in the Senate. One Nation has fast become the far-right faction of the Liberal Party. It does not look after battlers; it looks after its mates at the big end of town. That is what One Nation is doing right now—showing the Australian community its true colours: 'We don't look after battlers; what we are doing are secret deals with the coalition to screw battlers, to do them over.'

Of course how many lectures have we had from Nick Xenophon and his colleagues about due process? How many lectures have we had from the Xenophon team saying to us, 'We haven't been given time. There's no Senate committee process'? Yet Senator Xenophon is joining with the coalition to ram this legislation through the parliament.

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

The first thing I would say is that any suggestion that these measures come as a surprise and out of nowhere is completely false. In fact, the Labor Party has got to think about their narrative. In the lead-up to the last election, they called these measures zombies that had been around for so long that they were barely alive. Of course the government has always said that we were committed to securing the passage of the savings measures that have been reflected in the budget, and indeed we are continuing to make progress. We passed about $6.3 billion worth of savings in the first omnibus savings bill through the Senate in September last year with the general support of the Labor Party. Today we are seeking to secure the next instalment of remaining unlegislated savings from previous budgets through the Senate.

What I am pleased to share with the chamber is that three of the schedules that will be in this bill are in fact directly out of the social services omnibus savings bill, which has been in front of the Senate for some time and has been well and truly ventilated. It includes maintaining the income-free areas and means test thresholds for certain payments and allowances at their current levels for three years. It includes automating the income stream review process, which will lead to improvements in the accuracy of income support payments and reductions in customer debts. It also includes the extending and simplifying of ordinary waiting periods for the parenting payment and for youth allowance for a person who is not undertaking full-time study and is not a new apprentice.

On top of that, what we are proposing to do is pause the indexation of family tax benefit payments for two years from 1 July 2017—again, this is not a new concept and this is not something that is very difficult to understand. What it means is that no family that receives payments today will lose payments. Every single family that receives payments today will at least receive the same payments moving forward. There will not be indexation for two years. Though, because of the continuing indexation in particular in relation to lower-income thresholds and the like, it is likely that many families will still continue to see some increases in payments, but there will not be any indexation in the base rate and maximum payment rates.

At the same time they are saying, 'Oh, you want to ram this through'—which of course we will not; it will be an open-ended debate—and 'We haven't seen any of this before,' which of course everybody has. This has been well ventilated since the 2014-15 budget. In fact Senator Whish-Wilson was quoting proverbs in question time the other day, talking about dogs returning to their vomit. He said: 'These measures have been around for so long—why are you persisting with them?' But the government is persisting with them. The government is continuing to seek to legislate, and it is true that we have worked with crossbench senators because Labor and the Greens in relation to these measures were not prepared to pursue further budget repair, even though it was necessary, given the mess Labor left behind.

Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Senate will be prepared to go on this occasion, and that is what we are putting forward.

Senator Di Natale, at the same time as saying he does not know what we are doing, then proceeds to criticise all of the things that supposedly he does not know we are doing: 'I don't know what you are doing, but this is what it is and I'm against it.' The truth is: we could be arguing in this Senate about these measures for as long as it takes to walk from Canberra to Perth and back, and the Labor Party and the Greens would still be opposed to them.

The Australian people want us to make progress. The Australian people want the Senate to make progress on budget repair. The Australian people want the Senate to deal with the government's important childcare reforms to make access to child care more affordable and more flexible for families. We are very grateful to the support from crossbenchers like Senator Hinch, Senator Xenophon and his team, and the One Nation team, for having worked constructively with the government to help facilitate further budget repair and also help facilitate the successful passage of very important childcare reforms. We certainly commend to the Senate that this motion, which was moved by our leader, Senator Brandis, should be supported, so that we can proceed with giving effect to the government's budget measures contained in the legislation on childcare reforms.

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

What an extraordinary contribution from Senator Cormann. We had Senator Cormann actually reading out and trying to explain what is in legislation that has not even been presented to this chamber. He was on his feet during a suspension of standing orders trying to inform senators what detail is in the bill because none of us have seen it. That is the ridiculous position that the Senate is placed in this morning. The other comment from Senator Cormann I would pick up on was when he congratulated himself on the cuts to families that are coming, which we have been fighting to several years now, and then warning that there is more to come—warning those families that there is more to come. Watch out; we are coming after you!

We have seen these attacks on the most vulnerable families in Australia before. This is something that has been attempted for the last few years by this government, and we have stood and prevented these changes every step of the way. Now we are seeing this dirty little arrangement—yet another one—where every time this government fails it is straight off to the crossbench to try and stitch up some deal to deliver its agenda: an agenda that hits the poorest, the most vulnerable citizens in this community. The crossbench are the enablers in this. The crossbench are the enablers of this agenda, and we will not let them forget it.

We will stand up and fight against these changes. We will stand up for those families that rely on income support. We will stand up for unemployed people who rely on the community to help them support themselves in finding new jobs. We will look after the young people. We will support new families to spend valuable time with their new babies to allow them to get the best start in life. That is what guides us. They are our values. That is our commitment. We see this government and, in this situation, this crossbench enabling an agenda that attacks every one of those members of our community. We will not allow that to happen, and that is why we will oppose this suspension of standing orders.

We find ourselves standing up here, arguing in the interests of these vulnerable members of our community, while this government supports cuts to penalty rates, while it is pushing forward with its $50 billion cuts to company tax, including $7 billion to the biggest banks in this country. We are meant to cop that kind of economic policy, while, at the same time, we are being asked to have this kind of debate today, without us having seen the legislation, without being given the courtesy, as the house of review, as the chamber that is required and that was formed to be a check on executive power, to scrutinise, to interrogate, to question in depth the policy decisions that lead to legislation that comes to this chamber—all of that is being thrown away.

The Senate will not be allowed to perform its role. It will not be able to do that today because the legislation that we have not even seen will not be able to be reviewed in depth. It will not be able to be examined. Public servants will not be able to be questioned about the underpinnings, the reasons behind those decisions. We will simply sit here and be forced to suffer and accept the deal that has been done by this crossbench, enabling this government's regressive agenda. We will not let the crossbench forget this this abuse of the Senate's role and, more importantly, the abuse of families, low-income Australians that rely on us to stand up for them and ensure that they get a good deal and to ensure that the they are supported.

We are seeing families that will lose $750 a year. I often wonder whether anyone on that side of politics, or even on the crossbench, actually knows what it is like to need this kind of support to get on your feet. I doubt it very much, because, if you did know—if you did have to live week by week, hand to mouth and you were told you had to cop a $750 cut this year—I do not think you would be sitting here smirking about the ramming through of this legislation today.

It will not only be these cuts; it will be the cuts to penalty rates. We will then have to cop the company tax cuts to allow big business to pay less tax, at a time we are telling low-income Australians, 'You've got to tighten your belts and suck it up.' Well, Labor is not going to agree to that, and we will not support this suspension today.

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

The suspension of standing orders that Senator Brandis has moved is to enable a substantive motion that would see the orderly attention brought to bear on important legislation.

I must, at this point, touch on something that Senator Cormann raised—that is, the concept of zombie measures. We know that those opposite have been saying that there are certain measures that never had a prospect of passage and, therefore, they were zombie measures. They know those so-called zombies well; they know them intimately. That is why it is more than a little surprising when colleagues on the opposite side of the chamber are saying: 'Oh, we have never met these measures before. These are actually newborns. These are newborn measures. No, no, we know we said they were zombies before, but they have transmogrified into newborns.' So, that is a little unusual.

Those opposite say they do not know what the measures are in the legislation that is coming to us. They have no idea what the elements are of the measures that are coming to this place. But, despite the fact that they supposedly have no idea about them, they say they will oppose them. In fact, Senator Gallagher, the Manager of Opposition Business, said, 'We have prevented these changes every step of the way.' How do you prevent changes if you do not know what they are?

I am having a little bit of difficulty finding the line through the arguments of those opposite, but, anyway, there we have it. I should also note that those opposite—in fact, I think the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Gallagher said that we have run off to the crossbench. We are meant to fold up our tent every time the Australian Labor Party say that they are opposed to a proposition. We are meant to say: 'Look, there is the possibility of getting it through the Senate. There is the possibility of talking to other colleagues.' But, no, we should not do that, because we do not want to hurt the feelings of those opposite! We see a bit of that: hurt feelings in this place. Whenever the government combines with another grouping in this place there is always another grouping that acts a little hurt and spurned, feeling, 'What is wrong with us?' On this occasion it is the Labor Party who are saying, 'What about me?'—to quote that great Australian song. Those opposite have counted themselves out. One of the reasons we talk to the crossbench is that first and foremost they have been duly elected by the Australian people. They are here as representatives, so it is appropriate that we deal with them. But the other reason we talk with the crossbench is that they are willing to talk, they are willing to engage and they are willing to be constructive. That is why we are very happy to talk with and to work with the Senate crossbench.

I think it was Senator Wong in her opening contribution who suggested that somehow what we are seeking to do is anything other than orderly. What we are wanting to do is enable an open-ended debate that will sit till midnight—Senate willing—until this is dealt with. If it is not dealt with by midnight then we will do the same on Thursday and we will come back on Friday. There is no guillotine here. There is no curtailment of debate. We are seeking to provide the opportunity to have a debate so that these measures, which are so well known by those opposite, can be aired and debated. Despite the fact that they are already well known, we want to provide as much opportunity as the Senate wants in order to address these issues. We think that is orderly, we think that is appropriate and we think that is a very good thing.

I hope the Senate will agree to support the suspension of standing orders so that Senator Brandis can move his substantive motion so that Senator Cormann will then have the opportunity to introduce this important legislation. This Senate is working constructively, and we are very hopeful that today will be yet another example of how the Australian Senate is working and doing the peoples' business. (Time expired)

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 may be moved immediately, and determined without amendment or debate.

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

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

I move:

(1) That the following bill may be introduced immediately and considered in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this resolution:

Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017.

(2) That the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 be considered after the bill mentioned in paragraph (1), in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this resolution.

(3) If by 7.20 pm today, the bills listed above have not been finally considered then:

(a) the hours of meeting for today shall be 9.30 am to not later than midnight;

(b) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be consideration of the bills listed above; and

(c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills or at midnight, whichever is the earlier.

(4) If by 2 pm on Thursday, 23 March 2017, the bills listed above have not been finally considered then:

(a) the hours of meeting for that day shall be 9.30 am to not later than midnight;

(b) the routine of business from not later than 6 pm shall be consideration of the bills listed above;

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

(d) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills listed above or at midnight, whichever is the earlier.

(5) If by midnight on Thursday, 23 March 2017 the bills listed above have not been finally considered then the Senate shall meet on Friday, 24 March 2017, and:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to adjournment;

(b) the routine of business shall be consideration of the bills listed above; and

(c) 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.

(6) Once the bills listed above have been finally considered, the order of the day relating to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017 shall be discharged from the Notice Paper.

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

Senator Wong, a point of clarification?

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

My point of clarification is whether or not the motion before the chair can be amended?

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

No. It cannot be amended or debated.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

I seek leave to move a motion to enable the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 to be called on immediately, and have precedence over all other business for debate.

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

Leave is not granted.

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

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to enable the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 to be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business for debate. On the suspension of standing orders—

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

Senator Wong, there has been a point of order called. Senator Brandis, a point of order.

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

The precedence motion that was passed by the Senate before provided for a substantive motion to be moved and carried that the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill and the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill be considered in a particular manner. The Senate has just agreed to consider the business in that order. Senator Wong may seek leave to move a motion. That has been denied. Now, by moving the contingent motion she is moving, she is moving a motion at variance with the resolution the Senate has just passed, and for that reason she is out of order.

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

Senator Wong is in order. She has sought leave. Leave was denied and she has moved a contingent motion. The contingent motion and the subject material are relevant to the bill that is before the Senate. Senator Wong, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Senate for their consideration. This is a chance for the crossbench to show who they really are, to show whether they stand up for low-paid workers, whether they stand up for working families or whether they are just going to jump into bed with the government, who has had low-paid Australians in its sights ever since it was elected. This is the chance for One Nation and Senator Xenophon and his team to show us whether they really are prepared to stand up for low-paid workers in this country or whether they are 'Liberal lite'. Let me tell you what we have seen from the Nick Xenophon Team and the One Nation team.

In relation to the Nick Xenophon Team, we certainly see what their values are by their preparedness to ditch process in this place for a set of secret deals around cuts to family payments, which we saw at 10.15. Let's understand that they signed up to a motion that went to debate at 10.15. So we know what Senator Xenophon's team thinks when it comes to democratic processes: they like them when it suits them.

On One Nation, well, do you know what they are? They are Liberal patsies. That is what they are. They are just Liberal patsies; they really are. Every time George Brandis says, 'Jump', Senator Pauline Hanson says, 'How high?' Senator Hanson's team says, 'How high?' You have an opportunity now, Senator Hanson and your team. You have an opportunity now, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, Senator Griff and Senator Xenophon. Do you stand up for working people and their penalty rates or not? Do you—through you, Madam Deputy President—stand up for working people and their penalty rates?

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

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

Senator Macdonald, wait for the call, please. Yes, Senator Macdonald?

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

Point of order. Could you ask the senator to refer through the chair and not directly to individual senators.

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

Comments are always made through the chair. Thank you, Senator Macdonald.

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

I accept that. Through you, Madam Deputy President—this is an opportunity for senators from the NXT, the Nick Xenophon Team, to show whether or not they really care about hospitality workers, retail workers, workers in this country who rely on penalty rates in their take-home pay or not. Are they going to prioritise a secret deal with the government to take money off working families over a bill that will protect the take-home pay of vulnerable workers in this country?

Let me turn now to the PHON, the Pauline Hanson One Nation team. The Senator Hanson and her team say they stand up for battlers. Well you have an opportunity now in the vote that will come up. You have an opportunity to stand up for battlers, because the bill that will be debated, should you support this motion, is the bill that Senator Cameron introduced this week which will protect penalty rates. Let me tell you, despite the fact that Senator Brandis does not understand what penalty rates mean to the take-home pay of workers, Australian workers do and Australian families do. They understand the impact of a decision that removes penalty rates, without any other equivalent compensation, for low-paid workers. They understand what it means to their take-home pay. We on this side—and, to their credit, the Greens—on this issue have been very clear about why this decision by the Fair Work Commission is wrong.

A government senator interjecting—

And it is true—I will take the interjection from the lawyer. Yes, we did establish it, and it is only in the most extreme of circumstances that you would see the Labor Party walking away from a decision by the Fair Work Commission. But this is one of those decisions, because this is about vulnerable workers—many of them young people, many of them women—who rely on penalty rates for their take-home pay. I am always astonished by those on the other side who seem to forget—or maybe have never known—what it is like to actually struggle to pay the bills at the end of the week. I remember when I was an industrial officer and a lawyer acting for women and migrant workers who relied on penalty rates; let me tell you those workers depended on penalty rates to make ends meet. I will never forget that, but those opposite have never known that. You have never known that. You have never cared about low-paid workers, and your attitude today and the sneering laughing from the Leader of the Government in the Senate is a disgrace. He has never cared about low-paid workers, just as he has never cared— (Time expired)

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

Senator Brandis.

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 be now put be agreed to.

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

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