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 the sitting week commencing Monday, 4 December 2017 to provide for the consideration of bills.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis 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 the sitting week—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senator Brandis has the call.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! Let us conclude the beginning of this before we commence debate.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Let me start again. Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis 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 the sitting week commencing on Monday, 4 December 2017 may be moved immediately.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis, please continue.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senators Carr and Collins, I have just asked for order. I haven't heard a word from Senator Brandis. I'm having trouble hearing the motion being moved.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thank you. There will be an opportunity to participate in this debate, but we must get to the point where it has commenced.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left. There will be a chance to participate in this debate, but it must commence first, so I urge those on my left who wish to speak to allow it to commence. Senator Brandis.

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

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. The purpose of the motion I sought leave to move is to set out the order of business for the Senate next week, the week commencing Monday, 4 December. The motion I sought leave to move orders the business in the manner which I will read into the record when I move the motion. As we all know, it is for the government to determine the order of business of the chamber. That, of course, is subject to the chamber, but the convention is that it is the government that pre-eminently sets the order of business of the chamber.

There was a motion, notice of which was given, in the name of Senator Cameron, which appears on today's Notice Papergeneral business notice of motion No. 625—which purports to vary the order of business for today and next week, and I understand that another motion has been circulated in the chamber this morning by Senator Cameron which—

Senator Wong interjecting—

I'm sorry, Senator Wong, I was told it was in Senator Cameron's name, but it also purports to order the business of the chamber next week. That is not the way the Senate conducts its business. We all know that particularly in the last sitting week of the year, which next week will be, there is a great degree of busyness in getting through the government's legislative program. It is, frankly, preposterous for the opposition to attempt, as Senator Cameron's foreshadowed motion and now Senator Wong's foreshadowed motion would seek to do, basically to seize control of the business of the chamber in the last sitting week of the year. The government very seldom has a majority in this chamber. In the 17½ years I've been here, it's only had a majority for three of those years. During periods of Labor government and during periods of coalition government, it has always been accepted that the role of the government is to order the business. On occasions, that is subject to variation. We acknowledge that but, as a general proposition, it is true that it is for the government, not the opposition or other political interests represented in the chamber, to order the business. The idea, particularly in the last week of the year, that the order of business in the chamber should be taken entirely out of the government's hands is unprecedented. It is unconventional. Frankly, as I said a moment ago, it is preposterous.

If Senator Wong's motion or Senator Cameron's motion is reached, we will, of course, be opposing them. But, in the meantime, the government moves its own hours and routine of business motion for the last week of the year. There is a lot of business to get through next week. There are a lot of time-sensitive measures to get through next week. There are a lot of measures that are, of course, very beneficial to the Australian people to get through next week. Were this motion not to be passed, those beneficial, time-sensitive measures would not be able to be reached, or at least there would be a significant risk that they will not be reached.

So I commend the motion to the chamber. All it seeks is to reinstate the orthodox practice of the government ordering the business of the chamber, something that is orthodox in any Senate sitting week but is even more orthodox and indeed, from a pragmatic point of view, necessary in the busy final week of the year.

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

We have today a very clear demonstration of the political priorities of Malcolm Turnbull in the Senate chamber: stop the Senate protecting penalty rates. That's what this has all been about, Senator Cormann and Senator Brandis. If you were wondering why, in the debate in relation to Senator Dastyari, there was one opposition senator—me—who did not speak for the full time, it is because we understood where the numbers were in the chamber. If you wonder why they roll out Senator Macdonald and Senator Reynolds, it's because they wanted to delay debate for as long as possible to prevent this Senate from protecting penalty rates.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Senator Reynolds says that's not true. Well, have the debate. The majority in the Senate chamber want to debate the four-yearly review bill that Senator Cash is summing up, which has had many hours of debate. There will be an amendment moved to that to protect Australian workers' penalty rates. The government knows that. So the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the Minister for Finance of the Commonwealth and the Manager of Government Business all come in here and run as many procedural arguments and delaying tactics as possible. They make sure the Leader of the Government in the Senate is here so he gets the call over me. They make sure he's here, because he's not off doing important things but he's got to come in here and stop workers getting their penalty rates.

Well, I tell you what: you might win in here today, but Australian workers know what your priorities are. They will know that Malcolm Turnbull's priority today in the Senate chamber is to ensure that this chamber is not able to vote on the protection of Australian workers' penalty rates. Isn't it amazing? What a government, hey? What a government. They've had to backflip on the royal commission—oh, here's the relevance deprivation himself!

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

Mr President, on a point of order, Senator Watt is shouting, I assume at Senator Hanson, and calling her or her colleagues 'frauds', which is unparliamentary. Not only is it unparliamentary but it is quite unfair, seeing that One Nation delivered the Labor Party government in Queensland.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, I did not hear you say something unparliamentary, and I've generally taken the view that interjections from behind a speaker aren't as problematic as those coming from opposite a speaker. But if you did say something unparliamentary, I'd ask you to withdraw.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[inaudible]

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think imputing a motive reflecting on someone personally as opposed to behaviour—it may well be.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Watt, for facilitating the operation of the chamber.

Senator Burston interjecting—

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

I'll do it on the record, Senator Burston, while you're here. If One Nation continues to vote with the government on these procedural tactics to try to avoid bringing protection of penalty rates on, every Australian worker will know that One Nation saying that they're for the battler is just not true.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only protection order is the one protecting Senator Dastyari.

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

Senator Reynolds, you can scream as much as you like. I know you're all in bed with One Nation politically. What I am saying is this: One Nation prides itself on standing up for the battler but comes in here and votes with the Tories to ensure that this Senate cannot debate and vote to protect workers' penalty rates. That is what is occurring.

I will be moving an amendment to this motion to ensure that we bring on the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill, first to ensure that this chamber can debate and protect penalty rates. And if the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeks to move the motion without amendment or debate, his motives will be clear for everybody to see. He doesn't even want it debated. If he seeks to gag debate, his motives will be clear. The political priority of the senior members of the Turnbull government and of Mr Turnbull himself are to ensure that this Senate can't protect the penalty rates of low-paid workers. What a pathetic government.

I will respond to one point in the short period I've got left—the pontification from Senator Brandis that somehow the government gets to control everything. I gave notice of a motion, which as a matter of courtesy I sent some time ago to the government and to the crossbench, which made clear that the only day we would be seeking for government business to deal with a particular matter is Monday. We just said: 'On Monday we want to debate penalty rates until it finishes. You get to do whatever you want on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.'

So, regarding all of this pontification from Senator Brandis that somehow it's unprecedented for a government to have its legislative agenda taken over, I make two points. (1) It's your bill. It's the bill that you wanted—I won't point at you Senator Cash; she's not there. It's the bill the government brought into the chamber that is summing up and that they haven't brought back because they're scared of the numbers. (2) We wanted to debate it only for the Monday. That is the great taking over of government business! You can do what you want on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but that's not enough, is it, because you're worried that you don't have the numbers on the penalty rates bill, and this government's priority, as always, is not to look after the interests of working people. That's who you've walked away from, and every Australian at the next election will know it.

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

Mr Shorten doesn't care about workers. If he cared about workers he wouldn't have sold them out in deal after deal, as he did as a union leader. He sold workers out, including the trading away of their penalty rates again and again, and that is of course a matter of public record. This motion that the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has moved is about the very orthodox proposition that it is the government that determines the prioritisation of government business during government business time. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate about that.

Senator Wong indicates that all she's proposing to do is have a debate on Monday in relation to a government piece of legislation—as if this was quarantined and contained to a debate on Monday. She knows that that's not true. The way the motion that she has circulated is worded means the debate could go from Monday to Tuesday to Wednesday to Thursday—all the way to Saturday. It doesn't say anywhere in the motion that the debate on the government bill, which Senator Wong is trying to bring on, would finish on Monday. It doesn't say that anywhere at all in the motion she has circulated. She knows that that is true. This is actually all about the Labor Party running a protection racket for union-dominated industry super funds. They have quite a cosy arrangement—we keep reading in the newspapers about how there's money going to the Labor Party from union-dominated industry super funds.

There is legislation before the Senate that is a high priority for the government, a high priority for the Senate and, we believe, a high priority for a majority of senators in the Senate, but the Labor Party is prepared to do anything to protect the racket of union-dominated industry union funds and unions channelling money to the Labor Party. We've got legislation here to improve corporate governance, improve trustee arrangements and improve integrity. Why? It is because we want to protect the retirement savings of Australian workers. The Australian Labor Party never cares about workers. The Australian Labor Party cares about the unions. It cares about the vested interests of the unions. It cares about protecting its own vested commercial interest.

Look how sanctimonious they are about the fact that we moved a motion asking Senator Dastyari to properly explain himself. Clearly Senator Carr has forgotten when, together with Senator Xenophon at the time, he moved a motion to summons the Minister for Defence into this chamber, asking the Minister for Defence to provide an explanation in relation to naval shipbuilding matters—of which the Senate took note. All the government has proposed to do in this chamber is entirely consistent with that. What we have here in front of us is essentially the government saying, 'Here is a list of bills that represents the government priorities for government business time.' I shared the list with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate earlier today. I would argue that the reason the motion that was initially circulated by Senator Cameron, and which is on the Notice Paper,was adjusted to become the motion that Senator Wong circulated in the chamber somewhat later was a direct result of me sharing the government priorities with the opposition, which we, of course, would want to see reflected in any motion of ours for next week.

Senator Wong said, 'They don't want to have any amendments or debate.' That was precisely what Senator Wong was about to do. Senator Wong was about to move a motion on government business, in relation to government business time, without letting the government amend it to add government business items. We accepted that there would, most likely, be a majority in this chamber to deal with Senator Cash's Fair Work bill. All we had asked for, which was entirely reasonable, was to be able to add the government list of bills to that particular motion. Labor is not prepared to support and improve corporate governance for superannuation and they're not prepared to increase the level of integrity and accountability for industry super funds, and that is the only reason they're not prepared to entertain an amendment from the government to an opposition motion on government business. It is absolutely unprecedented that not only would an opposition move an hours of meeting motion seeking to order government business, but they would actually seek to prevent the government from amending the motion—not to remove anything but to add items for government business for consideration by the Senate next week.

The proposition that somehow the Labor Party should be able to stop the government from dealing with government business next week is absolutely preposterous. It is arrogant. It is a complete and utter overreach. That is the reason the Leader of the Government in the Senate has moved the motion we have before us. It is entirely up to the government to move a motion on government business. If the opposition wants to seek to amend it, go for it.

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

The absolute hypocrisy of the coalition, along with One Nation, in trying to avoid debate on workers getting protection for their penalty rates shows exactly what a rabble this government is. To talk about looking after workers and superannuation—they have never done it.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, on a point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr President, I thought this motion was about debating the hours of the Senate for next week. It has nothing to do with penalty rates. I'm not sure that Senator Cameron screaming into the microphone about things that are not relevant to this debate is in any way helpful now that we are going to enter into question time.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Bernardi: a number of matters were raised in prior debate, and I do consider Senator Cameron to be relevant to the suspension motion that was before the Senate. But it being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.