Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of government business as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as to prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of government business.

This motion concerns the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department and a piece of legislation that is before the chamber. The now Attorney-General, when he had the title shadow Attorney-General of Australia, stated, 'Labor is of course always concerned when legislation is rushed through the parliament without the usual process of scrutiny and debate'—it gets better, colleagues; it gets better—'which are the cornerstones for a healthy parliamentary democracy'. Well, I will stop quoting there and throw in my comment: a very unhealthy parliamentary democracy is going to be on display this afternoon when the government moves its own motion to gag debate, to put in place a guillotine on a piece of legislation that is possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. And why do I say that? Because family law touches each and every Australian. If you are not involved in the family law system yourself, you can almost guarantee that you will know someone, whether it is a family member or whether it is a close friend, who is going through the family law system. Major changes to a system of law that touches every single Australian are not going to be properly scrutinised in this place. Why? Because it was pretty obvious yesterday, in the short time in committee that we had, when we put the questions to the government that they were unable to answer them.

Now, what did Mr Dreyfus say in relation to legislation that is not properly scrutinised? He had a lot to say when he was in opposition. He has next to nothing to say now that he is in government. In fact, as someone said to me, 'Hypocrisy is thy name.' If you look up the word 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary it now states 'Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus'!

Mr Dreyfus said when you do not have proper scrutiny of legislation, 'Problems can be overlooked and mistakes can be made.' Well, guess what? There are plenty of problems in the legislation that is before the Australian Senate and, I can assure you, we are not going to have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Now, why is that a problem? This legislation, as I said, touches almost every Australian family. Thousands of Australian families will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation and, in some of those cases, will actually end up the Family Court system.

This Senate is not going to have the opportunity, as Mr Dreyfus always said when they were in opposition, to properly scrutinise this legislation. That is, quite frankly, an absolute disgrace. This is a bill that goes to the heart of our nation, the cohesion of the family unit, and that is why it needs scrutiny. That is why we need clarity about the changes that are being proposed.

However, why are Labor doing this? Well, in the first instance, this is an Attorney-General Dreyfus special. Mr Dreyfus, when in opposition, for goodness sake, gave speech after speech after speech—he loved to lecture; he loved to preach—about transparency. I only wish there was a journalist out there who would collate what Mr Dreyfus said in relation to transparency, responsibility and accountability and how he would be the person to give this to Australia when he got into government. But, when he dropped the title 'shadow' and became Attorney-General, 'hypocrisy' became Mr Dreyfus's name. He was a good preacher—he was the best preacher up there on the pulpit—but, when it comes to actually practising, putting in place, what he preached while in opposition, Mr Dreyfus is left seriously wanting.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a stunt, and it's not a very well-thought-through or capable stunt. There is, of course, going to be an opportunity later in the day, through the hours motion that is on the Notice Paper in the proper way, for Senator Cash or one of her colleagues—in what would still be a stunt, but a better-thought-through stunt—to move an amendment. The government will be opposing this poorly-thought-through proposition. I move:

That the motion be put.

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

The question is that the question be put.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask for this debate to continue till 10 o'clock tonight. The only reason why the government is calling a close to this is that the minister is incompetent, being unable to answer the questions that I put to him yesterday. The only thing he could say—which he said constantly, time and time again—was: 'It's in the best interests of the child.' When I raised different issues with him, he couldn't answer. I even referred to section 51(xxii) of the Constitution, where it talks about parental rights.

I am galled by Senator Ayres's comment today that this is a political stunt. This is not a political stunt. I have been heavily involved in family law for years in this place. I got up a joint parliamentary inquiry to deal with family law. What I have explained here is the most important issue that faces many Australians. Surely we have a right to debate it. I have a right to put across the views of those Australians who feel they are not being heard or listened to. We have to understand the problems in our court system if we are to find the right answers and the right legislation to address this whole issue. It's not just about the rights of the children; it's also about the rights of the parents and how they're treated in our court system. We have to look at domestic violence issues as well. We have to look at the ICLs, and we have to look at the recordings. We have to give them a fair go, a fair chance. It's not right that this legislation has been rushed through.

As I said yesterday, it is so important to debate this. The government has rushed this legislation through. They have pages and pages of amendments to their own bills. That tells you something. They have got it wrong. They are the ones playing politics here. We should be debating this. I call on my fellow senators, I call on the crossbench and I call on Senator David Pocock: we are here to debate and to represent the people of this nation; give us the opportunity to represent them. We can only do that by having our say on the floor of parliament. Let the people hear what we have to say. Call out the government if they're wrong in their legislation. Part of this legislation is right. I support parts of this legislation, but let's debate it. This is no stunt. It is so important for us to get this right, and yet the government wants to shut down debate on this important issue. I've seen Senator Pocock stand up in this chamber and talk passionately about things that are important to him. This is important to me, and it's important to many Australians. Please give us the opportunity to have this debate. We can finish at 10 o'clock tonight and go to a vote tomorrow. Where is the harm in that? That's what our job in this chamber is—to be the voice for Australians. Why shut it down? It's so important.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Van, Senator Babet, Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell—crossbenchers with common sense—for supporting the request not to guillotine this but to open it for debate. It's going to come down to Senator David Pocock to support us—the opposition and the rest of the crossbench—to allow this debate to formally go ahead so we can continue with the debate tonight. I'm asking Senator Pocock: please, give us the opportunity to have this debate and let it go through the process that the people of Australia expect to happen here. Too many times in this place, with legislation on important social issues, we've seen the government—which has the numbers with the Greens; they just back them up all the time—just shut down debate. They're not interested in listening to debate in this parliament, because it doesn't suit their agenda. That's not what it's about. When Labor were in opposition, they accused the then government of shutting down debate. I tell you what: this is the worst government I have ever seen when it comes to accountability. The Prime Minister stood up and said, 'We're going to have accountability.' There has been anything but accountability. I've been in parliament with four prime ministers and this is the worst government I have ever seen for lack of accountability, shutting down debate and guillotining. You've got your own hidden agenda, which is an absolute shame on you. And you have the audacity to say this is a stunt. You're the stunt!

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two propositions before the Senate today about how we manage the business the Senate needs to do this week. On the one hand we have a proposition from the government that two very important legislative packages, one on family law and one on migration law, should be rammed through today with almost no scrutiny and almost no debate. The alternative proposition put by Senator Cash recognises the importance of those legislative packages. It doesn't seek to hold them up or obstruct them from passing; it just says we should still do that business this week but we should do it in a less rushed fashion to make sure this chamber can equip its responsibilities to properly scrutinise that legislation.

We can have a proper committee process for both those bills. We can ask the questions we need to ask. We can move the amendments we need to move. The crossbench can do the same, and we will still leave this week having provided the government with an adequate opportunity to pass both those packages. No-one in this chamber is seeking to prevent the government from achieving the support of this chamber for either of these packages. We're just saying, 'Do it on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, so we can spend the time we have here as a chamber properly scrutinising these propositions.'

These are not minor bills. These are not inconsequential bills. These are significant and important pieces of legislation. Senator Cash has already spoken at length about the family law bills and the possible unintended consequences of some of the provisions of those bills, on which the parliament must fulfil its responsibilities to appropriately scrutinise and consider.

Also on the guillotine today from the government is a very important and significant change to our engagement with the Pacific. We in the opposition support the government's objectives of closer engagement with the Pacific. We're very proud of our legacy of the steps we took to ensure that that was the case, and we agree with the government that that should be taken further and extended. But we have an in-principle concern about one of the critical elements of this bill, which is that, for the first time, the government proposes to introduce handing out a visa, and the pathway to permanent residency and ultimately citizenship in Australia, by lottery. We have never done that before in this country. We have never allocated access to our country by lottery before, and that needs to be appropriately considered and scrutinised by this chamber. We think we should have a proper committee stage on that bill. We think that many amendments which have already been circulated by the opposition, the crossbench and the Greens should have the opportunity to be debated, appropriately considered and decided on by this chamber. That will not be the case if we are forced, by guillotine, to consider these this evening. We have two days left of sitting this week. We are prepared to sit late tonight to facilitate the consideration of these bills. We are prepared to facilitate the passage of these bills by Thursday afternoon before we leave. No-one is trying to stop the government from legislating either of these bills. We are just trying to seek proper scrutiny of them.

It's not surprising the government is being hypocritical. It's not surprising that, on their journey from this side of the chamber to that side of the chamber, they've suddenly changed their perspective on legislative scrutiny. All of a sudden it's completely and fine and appropriate to ram things through this chamber without proper consideration. But it would be very disappointing if those on the crossbench and the Greens have changed their perspective. They're not in government. They don't have trappings of power of the ministerial offices and they're not walking around on the blue carpet. They are still on the crossbench, and they should uphold the principles they have often come into this place to talk about—including Senator David Pocock, a new member of this chamber, who has spoken very sincerely, very eloquently and very powerfully about the important principles of transparency and scrutiny. I hope Senator David Pocock and the other crossbenchers, including the Greens, live up to the values they have espoused in this chamber. I hope they are consistent with the things they have argued for in this chamber, which is the appropriate exercise of this chamber's function in scrutinising legislation. I hope they have not done a dirty deal with the government to ram through legislation without appropriate legislative scrutiny. That is our function as senators, that is our function as a Senate chamber, and we should be allowed to perform that function.

Voting for Senator Cash's motion will facilitate the passage of this legislation with proper scrutiny. If the Greens and the crossbenchers are true to what they say, they will vote for Senator Cash's motion to allow this chamber to appropriately consider its responsibilities. They only need to turn to the Attorney-General. When he was the shadow Attorney-General he spoke eloquently and powerfully about the cornerstone of a healthy parliamentary democracy being the usual process of scrutiny and debate. They only need to live by the words that the Labor Party espoused when they were in opposition, hold them to their own words now that they are in government and not let them get away with ramming these bills through today.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again today with Labor proposing to guillotine debate on bills. This will come up in the formal motions. It has become Labor's custom and practice in this chamber to guillotine debate on bills and to stop orders for the production of documents, and who helps them every time? The Greens. They say they are the masters of transparency and scrutiny, but what do they do? They guillotine debate almost every time. They guillotine debate on just about everything.

Let's see who else supports them. Will it be the usual cronies or will they stand up and support debate? It's true that the Liberal motion is also setting a guillotine, but at least it restores some hours for debate, and that's what's fundamentally important. It's extended until 10 o'clock tonight, thank you, and extended tomorrow before imposing a limit. The Liberals are trying to compromise. That's why today we're supporting their extension of hours motion and sitting late tonight.

Here we are again with the Labor Party avoiding debate on bills that are the subject of so many amendments. The Family Law Act is being amended and the government is amending its own amendment bills—not just once, twice or three times but many times. They won't let discussion happened on that. The fact that the Labor government is putting forward so many amendments to its own legislation shows that the legislation is hasty. That's why we must have scrutiny of this.

The Family Law Act has been called the slaughterhouse of the nation. It has been killing people in this country—killing families and killing kids—since 1975 when it was introduced by the Labor Party following UN policy. That is a fact. There have been 48 years of the slaughterhouse of the nation thanks to Lionel Murphy and the Labor Party. Now they are introducing bills to make it even more complex. They won't allow scrutiny of that complexity. What are they hiding?

We also see that other parties, including my own, have got a significant number of amendments in this chamber. We're not even allowed to discuss our own amendments or explain our own amendments. What kind of democracy is that? What kind of scrutiny is that? What kind of responsibility is that?

Look at the two migration bills. Think of the impact on housing. We will be getting 1.2 million new arrivals in this country this year. Where are they going to sleep—under what roof and in what bed? What will that do to the cost of housing and the cost of rent in this country? Labor at the same time is invoking UN 2050 net-zero policies, which are raising the cost of living dramatically. We have high inflation raising the cost of living dramatically. Housing is going up, and they want to bring in more people. We have a lottery, a ballot. Energy prices and inflation—they won't allow scrutiny of this.

Instead of consulting properly in the first place, the government has chosen to put forward poor legislation and just ram it through. The Labor Party need to start doing what Anthony Albanese promised as opposition leader and start listening and consulting, not walking with their ears closed and ramming through legislation. Didn't you learn from last Saturday? The disinformation and misinformation bill will shut down debate. Not only do you want to shut down debate here but you want to shut down debate right across the country. That's the modern Labor Party for you.

This is not how the Senate is supposed to work. The Senate is supposed to be the house of review on behalf of the people. We were elected to represent the people and to debate issues for the people. We're not their masters; we serve them. This is the people's house, and Australians expect their senators to give each piece of legislation careful, extensive and respectful scrutiny. The motion from the Labor Party this afternoon shows complete contempt yet again for the Senate and for the people of Australia who put us in this House and who we are supposed to serve. Labor promised consultation and listening, yet, in practice, shows us Labor does not even know what those words mean.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to see more debate in committee of the whole for this really important—

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

My apologies, Senator Pocock. I am afraid the time allocated for the debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cash to suspend standing orders be agreed to.