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

I understand that the government, having now finished what was not a particularly controversial piece of legislation, is proposing to move to the address-in-reply. Can I indicate to the crossbench that the reason the government has no legislation to present to us is that it is engaged in a political stoush in the House of Representatives because it wants to bring on the abolition of the Building Australia Fund. In these circumstances we don't think the Senate should be hanging around, so I seek leave to move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Leave not granted.

We can either have a short—

Senator Ruston interjecting—

I'll take that interjection by Senator Ruston. I'm not proposing to discuss with you when your Prime Minister, so-called, is in the House of Representatives negating the adjournment because he wants a political wedge, and therefore you have no legislation in the Senate. It's ridiculous. I can either move to suspend standing orders, or we can seek leave to have a number of short statements to deal with this issue. What would you like to do, Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I denied leave, so do whatever you want.

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

On that basis, pursuant to contingent notice of motion, 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 give precedence to a motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

Speaking to the suspension of standing orders motion, and to enable a discussion with the crossbench—I know that Centre Alliance, for possibly quite principled reasons, always say that the government ought to be able to run their own legislative agenda. I just say this: the government doesn't have a legislative agenda in the Senate. It's the Monday of this sitting week, and we have the government saying, 'Guess what? We have run out of legislation in the Senate. We want to go to the address-in-reply.' It's the same old tried and true delaying tactic that governments use when they have to fill Senate chamber time. They've already gone to that at 8.25 pm on the Monday night of the sitting week. What is the government's agenda? Where is the government's agenda? The government doesn't have an agenda for the Senate. Do you know why? Because you've just spent the day in the House of Representatives trying to gain a wedge on the Labor Party to abolish the Building Australia Fund, because you want to talk about drought. You've had a situation where the Prime Minister is so focused on playing politics that he hasn't even wanted to allow the shadow cabinet to meet to determine a position. He hasn't wanted to allow the caucus to meet to determine a position. He's so desperate to make sure he gets a political wedge up, and you come in here and, so embarrassingly, don't have any legislation for the Senate that you have to go to the address-in-reply at 8.25 pm on the Monday night of a sitting week. What are we all doing? We're all sitting here waiting for Mr Morrison to get the votes through the House of Representatives, which he hasn't got as yet, on legislation to abolish the Building Australia Fund because he wants to try and wedge the Labor Party on drought.

If you ever wanted an example of a government that doesn't have an agenda, you have it now. You have it with Senator Ruston sitting here saying: 'You do what you want, Senator Wong, because we don't have any legislation. I've got an address-in-reply I want to get in. That's what I want to do because I want delay tactics, as the government manager, as long as possible.' Here is Senator Cormann. He's coming in to make up an agenda. You're on to the address-in-reply at 8.25 on a Monday night because you haven't got any legislation. I say the Senate should adjourn until you've got an agenda to debate. The reason you haven't got an agenda today is because you've been so focused on playing politics in the lower house and you haven't got any legislation through. You could have put legislation through the lower house today. But you haven't. Instead you've chosen to delay because you want a political debate on the Building Australia Fund abolition. That is entirely what is occurring.

So I say to the crossbench—I don't know where Senator Patrick is; hopefully, he is somewhere in this building. Senator Griff is here. Senator Griff, I shouldn't address you in a partisan way, but I would ask that the Centre Alliance party consider this. You have, on a principled basis, asserted that the government has the right to its legislative agenda. I understand that. At times I haven't agreed with it, but as a principle I recognise it, and we have generally recognised a similar convention, frankly. They haven't got one. They want to go to the address-in-reply because they don't have any more legislation for this chamber.

It's another example of the fact that this government has nothing positive to say. All they are interested in is trying to wedge the Australian Labor Party. Well, they won the election and the time for simply engaging in partisan politics, I would have thought, is over. The time for governing is here. That's not governing. It's Monday night and they want us all to sit around debating the address-in-reply because they don't have any legislation. Well, I say that the Senate should be provided with legislation. I say that if they can't give us legislation to debate on the Monday night—it's not like it's Wednesday or Thursday; if you can't give us legislation to debate on a Wednesday or Thursday night then let's adjourn the Senate. Everybody knows that moving to the address-in-reply is simply a concession that you have nothing to say.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

It's simply a concession that you have nothing to say! The fact is that the government is saying this on a Monday night, and if anybody wanted an example of the Morrison government not having a political agenda then, ladies and gentlemen, you have it here in the Australian Senate tonight! Monday night, 8:25 pm, and they're are already onto the address-in-reply. They've got no legislation—(Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The arrogance of the Labor Party is breathtaking! The disrespect of the Australian Labor Party for the Australian people is breathtaking. The Labor Party clearly still does not respect the verdict of the Australian people at the election.

They are so arrogant that they think that somehow the Australian people got it wrong. They are so arrogant that they can't get used to the fact that they are still sitting on the opposition benches. Here they are! We want to ensure that we can look after farmers in drought-stricken communities. We want to ensure that we can provide additional support for regional communities in drought affected areas in a fiscally sustainable fashion. And what are they doing? They are playing political games! They are hurting so much about the fact that the Australian people denied them their God-given right to govern! They still can't believe the fact that the Australian people made such a terrible misjudgement—in their view—that they chose our plan for a stronger economy and for more jobs, and our agenda for lower taxes for aspiration and for opportunity against their agenda of higher taxes and the politics of envy and of class warfare, which the Australian people know would have made our country weaker, would have made the economy weaker and would have left every Australian worse off.

In the last sitting week they had more positions on tax than in the Kama Sutra. I'll say it again! They went to the election campaigning for $387 billion in higher taxes, which would have harmed our country, which would have harmed working families around Australia and which would have left every Australian worse off.

They should be ashamed of themselves for the stance they are trying to pull in the Senate here tonight. They should be absolutely ashamed! The Australian people will rightly condemn them for the stance they're pulling tonight because this is only about one thing: this is about the Labor Party trying to prevent the Australian parliament from dealing with another important coalition reform, which is to provide additional support for farmers and for rural communities in a way that is affordable and sustainable in the budget.

They are so arrogant and so disrespectful of the Australian people; it is breathtaking. Guess what? The Australian people made a considered judgement. The Australian people looked at their agenda of higher taxes, of sneering at the top end of town, of the politics of envy and turning Australian against Australian, and they decided they didn't want it. Get used to it! They decided that they didn't want it, so get used to it. They voted for our agenda to support aspiration and to support hardworking families wanting to get ahead. That is why they appreciate the fact that the Australian Senate in the last sitting week voted for our plan for lower income taxes in full.

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

Where's your legislation, Mathias?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we've got Senator Wong complaining, very disrespectfully and very arrogantly, about the fact that we are suggesting that we also deal with the address-in-reply. Well, do you know what? Again, it's more positions than in the Kama Sutra. In the last parliament, Senator Wong complained about the fact that it took us so long to deal with the address-in-reply, so here we are. We're from the government. We're here to help. We're here to be accommodating. We say: Senator Wong is keen for us to deal swiftly with the address-in-reply, so we are accommodating that by bringing it on and making appropriate time available.

It is actually arrogant and disrespectful to suggest that it is somehow a bad sign that the government has respect for our constitutional arrangement, for the Governor-General and for, of course, the importance of the address-in-reply in our constitutional arrangement. For you to come in here and suggest that that somehow is a sign of not having an agenda is incredibly disrespectful and a new low from the Australian Labor Party. Anybody who listened to the Governor-General's address to this chamber and to the parliament would have heard very clearly about the extensive agenda that this government has in this parliament—an extensive agenda to build a stronger economy, to create more jobs, to ensure that the Australian people have the best possible opportunity to get ahead and to ensure that the Australian people are safe and secure.

The Australian Labor Party need to decide whose side they're on. Whose side are you on in the Australian Labor Party? I mean, here you are suggesting that you're going to stand up for foreign terrorist fighters. Here you are suggesting that you're going to stop working families around Australia from getting more of their own money into their pockets. What are the priorities of the Labor Party under Mr Albanese? I thought it was bad when Mr Shorten was the leader of the Labor Party. Let me tell you: I never thought it could get worse. Well, it has. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my children sometimes say: 'How embarrassment.' How embarrassment that we can't even make it to the end of the second sitting day of this new term before this government runs out of an agenda. They've got not one piece of legislation ready to go. You can just imagine Senator Cormann's office this afternoon. They've worked out that they're going to run out of legislation by about 8.30 tonight—two hours before we're actually supposed to wind up on the second sitting day of the entire term. They've thought, 'Oh, jeez, we better get something organised—we better send out an email.' So they've got an email out to Senator Paterson, Senator Stoker, Senator McKenzie and the others saying: 'Jeez, guys, can you write up a speech? We've run out of legislation to talk about. We need you to get up and blabber on for 20 minutes each just to filibuster until we can get through to tomorrow.' What's going to happen tomorrow? You know what: tomorrow you haven't got to fill two hours—you've got to fill an entire day! You won't have a hope! Should we just call off parliament by about, what, two o'clock tomorrow afternoon? You will have completely run out of stuff.

If you haven't got legislation ready to debate here tonight, what gives us any confidence that we should remain here for the rest of the week? I've travelled here from Queensland and Senator Wong's come from South Australia. Senator Pratt and Senator Dodson are here. It takes Senator Dodson three days to get here! He's ready to debate legislation. You guys can't get your act together to have more than a couple of bills that everyone agrees with. What this shows, once and for all, is that this government did not expect to win the last election and has no agenda whatsoever for this third term. They are a tired, third-term government out of ideas and without an agenda. They had one idea that they took to the election—tax cuts. They got that done last week, and now they're out of things to do.

You know what? There are actually a lot of issues that the Australian public would like to see this government deal with. Let's start with wages. Wages under this government are barely rising. How about you introduce some legislation to reverse your penalty rate cuts? That might be a good start. How about you give a few more powers to the regulator to stop all the rampant wage theft we're seeing around the place? I'll give you a whole batch of private members' bills that I'm happy to stay back and debate. In fact, I'll move to extend hours if you want to!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Done!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's a theoretic possibility. I'm saying, hypothetically—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know what I'm saying!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Watt, I have a point of order from Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann, on a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I use my contingent motion to move a motion to suspend standing orders in order to facilitate a motion to give effect to what Senator Watt just indicated. Oh, you're now running for the hills, are you?

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

On the point of order: I know that Senator Cormann is embarrassed because they are seeking to move to the address-in-reply on a Monday night because they've got no legislation, but he knows he can't move a contingent notice whilst there is a substantive debate before the chair.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We must discharge the business currently before the chamber before anyone else may move a motion.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure Senator Cormann that I am not running for the hills. I'm going to be here for the next two minutes and thirty-eight seconds rubbing your nose in the fact that you've got no agenda! The Australian public, for very good reasons in their own minds, decided to bring you back so you can have another crack for your third term. We know that Senator Cormann—

Government senators interjecting—

No, I said for their very good reasons they decided to bring you back for your third term. Go back and look at what I said. What I said is that for their very good reasons—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Cormann, why don't you spend a little bit of time working out what you actually want to do? You've got nearly three more years to run this parliament, and you've got nothing that you want to do.

I've already talked about wage growth. The bill immediately prior to this motion was about housing. We know that under this government housing affordability is the worst we have seen in decades. How about you introduce some legislation on that so that we can actually debate doing something about that? We've talked about Newstart today. There might be something you can do on Newstart. There might be something you can do to assist all sorts of Australians with all sorts of issues, but you are so bereft of ideas. You'd given up on the Australian public before the last election. You don't know what you want to do.

We are all intrigued about what on earth we're going to be debating for the rest of this week, let alone next week, let alone the remainder of the term. What you clearly need to do is to send a few of your staff away to work out what you are actually going to do for an agenda? You've now got Senator McKenzie out there cooking up legislation on all sorts of things that no-one in regional Australia is talking about. This is the most embarrassing thing I have seen in three years.

Senator Colbeck has just walked in. Perhaps Senator Colbeck might like to do something about the aged care crisis that we're seeing in this country. It was revealed in question time today that the aged care regulator is completely asleep at the wheel when it comes to a nursing home that shut down a bit over a week ago on the Gold Coast. Maybe we should think about strengthening aged care legislation? Maybe we should think about strengthening Medicare? There are any number of issues that this government, if it actually was committed to serving the Australian people, could bring forward legislation for right now, but it is so out of ideas that it has no choice but to get its senators up giving address-in-reply speeches.

I remember that in the previous parliament it took the best part of an entire term to get through the address-in-replies because this government had legislation that it actually wanted to put forward. Maybe that's what you got under Prime Minister Turnbull? Maybe you actually had an agenda under Prime Minister Turnbull? Now you've got Prime Minister Morrison. Senator Cormann didn't want him leading the government, and half the people over there didn't either, and now I can see why—because you actually don't know what he wants to do. He doesn't know what he wants to do. He's the one who is stuck in the Canberra bubble, and is setting up these senators— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to look for the definition of 'sore losers'? Do you want to find the definition of 'sore losers'? There they all sit on the other side: sore, sad and sorry losers of the Australian Labor Party. The arrogance they had because they believed they were dead certs to win the last election, and they cannot cope with the fact that they don't run the parliament, they don't run the government, and the Australian people gave them a hiding—an absolute hiding—at the last election. The lowest primary vote in more than 100 years. Whatever happened to the proud old Australian Labor Party? The proud old Australian Labor Party copped the lowest primary vote in more than 100 years.

They've come into this chamber with performances like that from Senator Watt and Senator Wong, trying to convince us to believe that somehow they ought to be running the agenda, that they have better plans. Well, what we see from the Labor Party is a cheap and pathetic stunt tonight. Senator Watt just spoke about the fact that he remembers how the responses to the address-in-reply speech ran into the final year of the last parliament. Do you know what the Australian Labor Party had to say about that at that time? They criticised the government for what they claimed was mismanaging the Senate chamber at the time. They said the address-in-reply should have been dealt with earlier. Now the hypocrites come in here and say we're dealing with the address-in-reply too soon. That's right; there's a bunch of hypocrites sitting over there. They're sore losers. They're hypocrites who just come in and change their argument to suit the cause.

Today, the Senate has passed legislation. The Senate has dealt with multiple bills. The Senate's been getting on with its work. And now the Senate has an opportunity to progress the very first address-in-reply speeches. I saw Senator Carr was in the chamber here before—Senator Carr's still in the chamber. Do you know why Senator Carr is in the chamber? Because he's listed at No. 2 on the speakers list for the address-in-reply. Labor's Senator Carr is so keen to speak. He wants to be here speaking on the address-in-reply.

Senator Wong wants to talk about the government's agenda. Senator Wong, I would have thought, given the chaos and confusion raining from the Labor Party as to their position, that you would be breathing a sigh of relief for the hour or so respite from having to decide how you're going to vote on government legislation. Because, do you know what? When you've been tested, you've been found wanting time and time again. In the first sitting week, when we brought the government's tax relief agenda to the parliament, what was the Labor Party's position on tax relief? It was 'we don't know'. When it came to tax relief, you weren't sure whether you were for it or against it, and it wasn't until the final hour or so of that debate that you changed your mind and said you would vote for it.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong just mentioned the drought fund. Can anybody tell us what the Labor Party's final position on the drought fund will be? Will they vote for it? Will they vote against it? What are you going to do? That bill will come to this chamber this week, and you will have a chance to vote on it. But you could remove, Senator Wong, all uncertainty around the drought fund bill by saying you will let it through the Senate. But you won't do that, will you? You won't do that, Senator Wong.

When it comes to temporary exclusion orders, does the Labor Party have a clear position on temporary exclusion orders? The answer, again, is no. Those opposite have no clear position on any of the substantive issues, as they keep trying to have a bob each way. Why are those on the other side having a bob each way? Because we know that, internally, as a result of having lost the election that none of them could accept they might lose, they are so deeply divided and pointing the finger, blaming one another that they have to keep coming up with all of these policy positions where they say, 'We will sort of try to amend what the government's proposal is and we won't say whether we will vote for it or against it, and we will sit on this barbed wire fence right until the very end.'

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gets very uncomfortable.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gets very uncomfortable indeed, Senator McKenzie. We can see that from those opposite right now. What all the proud old Australian Labor Party have left, with their lowest primary vote in more than 100 years, is cheap, pathetic, hypocritical stunts such as this that they bring to the chamber. We would encourage you to get on with debating the address-in-reply; it's your chance to respond to the comprehensive agenda that the Governor-General set out. And what you'll find is that each day when you come back here there will be new bills that are listed but, right now, you can go away and think about how you're going to vote on those bills, because you don't even know at this point in time how you intend to vote on our drought fund, on temporary exclusion orders, just as you didn't— (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has invited us to make a couple of observations. He, in fact, referred to me being on the speakers list for the address-in-reply, and he's quite right—I am more than happy to pursue that matter at whatever point the government chooses. But on this matter—and I'm sure the government will be delighted to hear what I've got to say—it needs to be appreciated that the motion that we have before the chamber is to actually deal with the fundamental problem that the Leader of the Opposition has put before us—that this is a government that's run out of steam. It's run out of steam already.

So the minister invited us to look at the Notice Paper, which I have done. On pages 4 and 5, it lists the government business. And what does that tell us? The government has no business! The point is that items listed here in orders of the day we've dealt with, and most of those were essentially non-controversial bills. Why is that the case? It is because the government never anticipated that it, in fact, would be in government. So what has it done to develop a forward program? Nothing. What it sought to do, in bringing these parliamentary sitting periods forward, was to essentially bring forward a number of pieces of legislation aimed at wedging the Labor Party.

Look at the agenda that the government now claims to be its main nation-building program—smash the trade unions, seek to smash the infrastructure fund on some alleged commitment to farming, having already had a commitment from the Labor Party that we would spend the equivalent amount of money from a properly funded source in support for drought relief. When in doubt, wrap yourself in the flag. That's the constant refrain with this mob over there, because they've got nothing else to say. This is a government that was elected on a lie. This is a government that's fundamentally illegitimate. I'll ask a simple question.

This is a Prime Minister that secured one more seat than his predecessor. His predecessor was a dud and a dunce and a dope who had to go because of his result. This Prime Minister gets one more seat: 'Oh, he's an expert. He's a genius. He's there forever.' This is a new framework, of course, aided and abetted by a highly sympathetic News Ltd that, of course, won the election. It was News Ltd that won the election, not this government, because you had nothing to say to the Australian people about the future of this country. All you had to say was that you were opposed to the Labor Party.

And, of course, you've won the unwinnable election, you said. And so what do you do when you come back into this building? You've got nothing to say, so you have to come forward with a series of wedge measures aimed at dividing, aimed at ultra-ultra-partisanship while at the same time getting the violin out, claiming, of course, that this is the new era in which we all seek to be one big, happy family.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, please resume your seat. I have Senator Cormann on a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to move a 10-minute extension of time for the senator from the great state of Victoria.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll let Senator Carr continue.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are, of course, a divided government that is not able to reconcile your own internal problems, and so what you have to do is seek to project onto the Labor Party these divisions, because your real claim, of course, is to try to undermine the trade union movement, so you can't deal with those great issues that are, in fact, affecting this country.

So what are we about? We're about trying to humiliate senior public servants. We're about trying to get the Reserve Bank governor in a position of ultimate humiliation where the independence of the Reserve Bank is brought into question. We're about trying to present a position to this country none of which was presented to the electorate. None of these matters came up through the election campaign. This was not the proposition you put to the Australian people. You, in fact, had nothing to say on the sorts of matters that you're presenting to this parliament, you allege, this week. These, of course, are devices you have sought to bring on because you've got nothing to say about the future of this country. The agenda that you claim to represent now is, of course, cobbled together in a desperate attempt to actually try to get through this parliamentary session, and that's why you've brought on this address-in-reply.

I anticipated that I would be speaking on Thursday. I'm more than happy to go whenever required, because I'm sure you'll deeply regret whatever I've got to say. The fact remains you have brought this on now because you have nothing to say to the Australian people about the future of this country. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things that I'm somewhat confused about here is that I was of the impression that the address-in-reply actually outlined the government's agenda. So I would think that there would be nothing more important for this place to be doing than actually replying to the Governor—

Senator Wong interjecting—

It's interesting that Senator Wong is interjecting here about it taking three years to reply last time, and I remember the other side being highly critical of the length of time that it took for us to get the address-in-reply responded to and back to the Governor. Standing here, I can remember when I first came into this place. I was lucky enough to be the person who led off on the address-in-reply, and I remember thinking that that was something that was tremendously important for me to do. And I must admit that I was actually quite looking forward to hearing Senator Carr's contribution this afternoon on his address-in-reply and what he thought of the government's agenda—the one that he says that we don't actually have.

The other thing that I thought was quite extraordinary in the comments from Senator Carr was when he said the government was elected on a lie. I just wonder whether, Senator Carr, you're suggesting the Australian public is stupid for electing this government. This government was elected because we went to the people. We listened to the people. We didn't stay here in Canberra and listen to what was going on inside the Canberra bubble. We actually went out there and we talked to the people out there and asked them what it was they wanted. And one of the very, very important groups of people that we spoke to were the farmers.

I'd just like to point out that the matter of this debate tonight is because of what's going on in the other house in relation to our drought fund. Can I tell you that one of the greatest priorities of the Morrison government is to look after our famers. They are doing it really, really tough at the moment. I come from rural and regional South Australia. I don't know how many of you come from rural and regional areas in the states that you represent, but can I tell you that our farmers are absolutely at their wits' end at the moment. To think that this place is holding up making a decision on providing the kind of support and surety that they need to feel comfortable that their government is responding!

You might talk about two years. Let's talk about everything that's happened to date. This government—the Morrison government—has a fantastic track record in responding to the issues that our farmers have been suffering in drought. Drought and floods—you may muck around here and pretend they don't matter, but I can assure you that to every single person who lives outside the capital cities and finds themselves in trouble the response of the Morrison government is something that they really, really appreciate.

The simple question to those opposite is: are you going to support our farmers? Are you going to let this piece of legislation through, or are we going to continue to talk about the excuses for why you're not prepared to support our farmers in the Drought Future Fund? You need to get out there and you need to go and tell the farmers of Australia that you are mucking around in here with their futures, with their livelihoods, with their sanity, with their mental health. You're okay doing that. Mucking around in here doing that on some sort of spurious thing, and then suggesting that the government's agenda and the address-in-reply is somehow not an important thing for this place to be debating tonight, is really quite an interesting concept.

The arrogance of those over there who think that this is an okay thing to be playing around with tonight is an absolute shame. This Drought Future Fund is absolutely important to give our farmers the tools that they need and the confidence and the strength to know that their government actually cares about the absolutely harrowing time that they're going through at the moment. I'd like to know tonight, before we finish this debate, are those opposite going to guarantee that this bill is going to turn up into this place this week? I've got to tell you, I don't want to go home and tell my farming friends that this place mucked around this week and didn't do what it needed to do to help them and to build resilience into the rural and regional economies.

The value of rural and regional communities is tremendously important. For us to be sitting here is just another example of you on the other side living in the Canberra bubble and not listening to the people who are on the other side.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong to suspend standing orders be agreed to.