Senate debates

Thursday, 1 December 2016

Business

Rearrangement

6:25 pm

Photo of Katy GallagherKaty Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari is a very hard act to follow, but I would like to make just a few comments on this motion. Of course, we will not be supporting the motion to suspend standing orders. What chaos and dysfunction we have seen this week from the government. We have seen complete dysfunction and disarray. We have had four motions to vary hours—that is one per day—to reorder and reorganise because this government cannot keep their program in order.

The Manager of Government Business in the Senate, who I have to say, in the spirit of Christmas, I have enjoyed working with in my short term as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, used the words 'working with different groupings in this place'. Well, that sums up this week. Basically the government have been prepared cut a deal wherever, regardless of who it is with and what they want. We saw things like the ABC board meetings somehow rolled into anti-worker, anti-union legislation for the ABCC. That was odd. We then had the water debacle where promises were made. There was no resolution to that. We have had working groups promised. We have had COAG agenda items promised. As someone who sat on COAG for a number of years, I hold grave fears for that being a suitable vehicle for any resolution of that matter. We have had committee references agreed to in an effort to seal deals. Now the government that lectures us about repairing the budget have managed to cut a deal this afternoon that hits the budget in the order of $100 million.

The Greens of course say that that is a win because they have squeezed another $100 million out of a government that supposedly does not want to spend any more money. But this government that lecture us about budget repair and the need to be fiscally responsible on the afternoon of the last sitting day have said, 'You can have whatever you want, Greens.' Maybe they could have got $200 million. We do not know. The government might have been prepared to do that. They have given away COAG agenda items, for goodness sake. I am not sure what value is placed on that and working groups and committee references. So it is $100 million instead of the government swallowing their pride and accepting that the majority will of this chamber has twice resolved 10½ per cent.

We are going to be dealing with a bill in a few minutes that none of us have even seen. I am just printing a copy off now. I will probably have to read the explanatory memorandum as we are debating the bill. There have been two versions of the backpacker bill. We are going to have another new version of the superannuation bill. We have already had two goes at the bill on the passenger movement charge. This is all in an attempt to stubbornly not accept the will of this Senate and the position of the parties within it of 10½ per cent.

So here we are at 6.30. Some would suggest that people have their eyes on the departures out of Canberra Airport and that that is the reason behind this deal being cut. We could have sat tomorrow. We could have taken our time. But, instead, the Greens, perhaps with their bags packed, are ready to go, ready to cheer about $100 million of extra savings—which will have to be found from somewhere. That will be paid for from somewhere, and you will no doubt cut a deal on that as well.

So we are in this position where we are now being forced, again, to debate and pass legislation that has not gone through any scrutiny at all. This is, supposedly, the chamber of review. I agree with Senator Dastyari, and say to the Greens: 'You don't need to solve the governments problems for them. Just because they're incapable of solving their problems, you don't have to place yourself in the position where you solve them for them.' There was a solution for the government—it was to accept the will of this chamber and to negotiate in good faith. They have not done so. We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders, and we look forward to some long and considered debates on all of the legislation outlined in this motion.

Comments

No comments