Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Birmingham. On 18 June 2020 the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party supported a temporary order restricting each senator's ability to move a general business motion. This rule change means that Independent senators can move only one motion per week. When you and the Labor Party decided to team up to cut the number of motions that smaller parties were able to move, you argued that it was because we were wasting too much of your time. In the six months since that temporary order, your government has spent 102 hours considering 111 bills. Over the same amount of time one year before, you spent 111 hours considering 136 bills. You spent less time on legislation after you gagged us than you did before you gagged us. This is over the number of sitting weeks too. My question is: what are you doing with all that time you've saved?

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

I can say as Leader of the Government in the Senate and having also held Senator Ruston's role as Manager of Government Business in the Senate that it is indeed often one of the deep frustrations for governments—and I suspect it was even the case during the years of Labor governments—that the finite amount of time that exists for government business and government legislation to be considered in this chamber can be eroded by all manner of things. Certainly the use of general business motions had become a very substantial point of erosion in relation to the time that it took in the chamber. But the chamber provides for senators to do many things by leave, for senators to pursue suspending the standing orders and for senators to use urgency motions and other things. That all adds up frequently to an erosion of the amount of time available to consider government legislation.

There are a number of factors at play in terms of the consideration of general business motions, not the least of which being the concern felt that increasingly there was complexity coming into those motions—and there not being an opportunity for individual senators to debate the content of those motions was a problem—and that was inconsistent with the original intent of the way that those motions were expected to be handled. There are still ample opportunities for all senators to have their say—be it through the take note of answers debate that will ensue shortly, the urgency motion that will happen this afternoon, the adjournment debate that will happen this evening, the matters of public importance debate that happens at other times in the Senate schedule, or the debate of legislation.

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

Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said that the temporary gag order was needed to get rid of needless motions designed to make a political statement. On 4 February, 10 coalition senators moved a motion noting that the Queen has been in power for 69 years. If I agree to only move motions asking the Senate to note the length of the reign of foreign monarchs, can I please have my cap lifted?

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

I do actually suspect, Senator Lambie, that if the Senate had used that process in ways consistent with the original intent—that the motions be put without any debate or opportunity for individual senators to make a contribution—the motions would ordinarily have been largely noncontroversial by their nature. If you go back through the past practice of this chamber, you will see that that is indeed what the original intent of that process was.

Senator Lambie, if senators had simply done that throughout history, we probably would never have got to the point that the Procedure Committee and the chamber got to in relation to the consideration of this. There are probably many other points of congratulations and noting that could have been achieved without us reaching that point where the chamber made the decision that it did in relation to the management of motions.

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

Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've spoken to Senator Patrick and I know that he has made representations and asked for a reconsideration of this unfair rule change. You have provided no response. Do you think you could use some of that time you've saved to actually get back to him?

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

The Senate still sits the same hours per day, and indeed my time is often used in a range of ways. I've discussed this issue with a number of senators, including Senator Patrick, in that regard. I could equally point out, Senator Lambie, that you have just used one of the questions allocated to you in question time to pursue this matter of Senate process and procedure. You could have used it to raise any number of issues that you might have wished to in a motion instead, and that is one of the avenues available to all senators in this place to pursue their issues. There are countless avenues available to senators to pursue different issues in this parliament—it doesn't have to be through a general business notice of motion—and I would encourage you and other senators to avail yourselves of those different procedures in the standing orders, as is appropriate, to have your say on behalf of your state or territory.