Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I would then say that my interpretation of more productive time in which to analyse legislation and properly scrutinise it, and the government's definition of scrutinising legislation, are clearly two very, very different things. When one properly analyses the motion that is before the Senate, the clear implication of it is that it strikes at the very heart of the capacity of the Senate to fulfil its functions as a democratic house of review.

The motion provides for a meagre extension of time of hours today. But let us not forget that we are not just extending hours here. To give something we have got to take something away, so whilst, yes, we may be extending time in relation to the number of hours in which to debate legislation, something has actually got to give. What has got to give is clearly set out in the motion before the Senate:

(1) On Tuesday, 27 November, Wednesday, 28 November, and Thursday, 29 November 2012, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.

The senators well know that that is the opposition's time, and occasionally the Greens' time, to raise in the Senate matters which are of extreme urgency and should be debated. We are going to wipe that clear, a full hour of scrutinising the policies of the government or important issues of the day, which the Manager of Opposition Business has just conveniently wiped from the next three days to ensure that we have more productive time to debate legislation.

The other interesting part of this motion which emphasises that the government is not serious is that everything that the Manager of Government Business said to justify why the government is bringing this motion forward is blatantly misleading to the Senate, because if they were genuinely interested in allowing the Senate to have more productive time in which to debate legislation, why would they set a finishing time on Thursday? I go to part 4(e) of the motion which says:

… the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 6.30 pm.

For those who are listening to the debate who might think that that is probably a good hour after most people knock off, let us be very clear about one thing: the Senate never adjourns until at least 6.50 or 7.20 pm on a Thursday, so in any event we are actually adjourning earlier than we otherwise would. But if one was to ensure, in practice, that senators had more productive time in relation to debating legislation, one would think that the government would happily say in relation to the finishing of the Senate on Thursday that they would run through until the Senate finishes. That means that if we are here at midnight, if we are here at 1 am on Friday or if we are here at 2 am on Friday, that is just the way it will be to ensure that, as the Manager of Government Business said, the Senate truly does have more time in which to debate legislation.

Like so much of what the government says, it means nothing. The reasoning for debating this motion today—and why the government is ganging together with their little friends the Greens to put this motion through, because another little deal is being done to the Greens' advantage—means nothing. It is mere rhetoric. I will take you back to what Mr Albanese said. Just after the election of the Rudd government Mr Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the House, said in relation to the federal parliament and sitting hours:

Federal Parliament will sit five days a week under the Rudd Government.

…   …   …   

More sitting days not only improves accountability, it also means the Parliament better structures the consideration of legislation and minimises the need for all-night sittings where critical decisions are made late into the night.

…   …   …   

The Rudd Government is committed to Parliamentary reform to ensure greater accountability and the Parliamentary timetable is a step in the right direction.

I think that most people would know that you can go onto the website and find this press release, but I do not know whether the parliament ever sat five days. In the last 4½ years that I have been here, I can tell you now that unless we move for an extension of sitting hours, the parliament has never sat five days a week. It was just a promise, just like the carbon tax, that the government made to the Australian people that they never ever had any intention at all of keeping.

In fact when you actually compare the number of sitting weeks under the former Howard government and the number of sitting weeks on the parliamentary sitting calendar under the former Rudd and current Gillard governments, that is when it becomes truly evident which government was not afraid of scrutiny and which government was not afraid of accountability. Under the Howard government, the parliament sat for an average of 22 sitting weeks per year. Under a 22-week sitting pattern there is more than ample time, to again quote the Manager of Government Business, for 'more productive time' for senators to debate legislation. The Rudd government and the Gillard government have reduced the number of sitting weeks per year to 18 weeks. So you had 22 weeks under the former Howard government and you have the time reduced to 18 weeks under the former Rudd and current Gillard governments. I am putting my money on the fact that the former Howard government was more interested in scrutiny and accountability than the former Rudd government and the current Gillard government are.

We will also not be supporting the motion that is before the Senate because of what is not in the motion, as Senator Fifield says. There is a clear implication in the motion because item (4)(e) provides that the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 6.30 pm on Thursday. I think we are going to have a rerun of what happened on the last Thursday last year. The way the government behaved was an absolute disgrace. It ensured that the only thing that a senator found out about a bill that was before the Senate was the name of the bill. The minute the name of the bill was read out by the Clerk the bill was then put to a vote.

I am going to go back to exactly where we were 12 months ago because I can almost guarantee that on Thursday, just as Senator Fifield said, the Senate will be in the exact same position where, rather than allowing senators more productive time in which to debate legislation, the government will get together with its alliance partner, the Greens, to gag debate in this place. On Thursday, 24 November 2011 Senator Macdonald said to the Senate:

But, Parliamentary Secretary, you are aware that tonight, in the 40 minutes left to us—

before we rise for the year—

we have to deal with the Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill, the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No.1) and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill.

All in 40 minutes. Now I will take you to the point of order that Senator Macdonald quite rightly raised when the government and the Greens sought to impose the guillotine on debate. Senator Ian Macdonald said:

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. How can I possibly vote on that bill when I have not even seen the addendum? This is a ridiculous procedure where the Greens and the Labor Party have been guillotining the bill through and they are changing it as we go. We do not even have a chance to read what he has just tabled.

Well, that is allowing more productive debate on legislation if ever I saw it! Senator Fifield, in relation to the same point of time, said:

I recognise that we are in that twilight zone that is the government's guillotine. It is indeed a peculiar circumstance where senators have to indicate how they are going to vote before they have actually voted.

We had to do that because the name of the bill was just called out and the President had to work out whether to put the whole bill or part of the bill because we were not entitled to debate any of the legislation that was before the Senate.

When those on the other side come into this place and say that this motion will enable more productive time to be spent on debating legislation that is worth just as much as the promise they made to the people of Australia just before the 2010 election that, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' We all know what the end result of that was. I notice that the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate is clearly taking delight in my comments—