Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(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.

(2) On Tuesday, 27 November 2012:

  (a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

  (b) the routine of business from not later than 7.30 pm to 8.15 pm shall be consideration of general business order of the day no. 83 (Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012);

  (c) the bill listed in paragraph (b) be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted be as follows:

from 7.30 pm to 7.45 pm—second reading from 7.45 pm to 8.15 pm—all remaining stages, and this paragraph shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

  (d) the routine of business from not later than 4 pm to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to 10 pm shall be government business only; and

  (e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(3) On Wednesday, 28 November 2012, the consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with.

(4) On Thursday, 29 November 2012:

  (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 7.10 pm;

  (b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;

  (c) consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

  (d) the routine of business from not later than 12.45 pm to 2 pm and from not later than 3.45 pm shall be government business only; and

  (e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 6.30 pm.

I move this motion in relation to hours but should highlight that this motion sits within a series of procedural motions to allow the Senate additional sitting time to consider a range of government legislation before the Senate rises for 2012. This series of motions is very similar to the motions I moved at the same time last week.

Like my comments to the motions last week, I again begin my few remarks in support of this motion by acknowledging that all senators have been remarkably cooperative—in fact in the last week perhaps more so—in allowing the Senate to consider government legislation effectively and efficiently. Through informal agreements last week the Senate debated 18 packages of legislation. This allowed many senators to speak on legislation with debate not excessively curtailed nor interrupted. I understand that this could not have occurred without the cooperation of all parties and Senator Xenophon, and I acknowledge and thank senators for this corporation.

I will not be talking on the three government motions on exemptions. The reasons for the exempting of the bills identified in the motions have been circulated; there is little I can add to these reasons and I believe that by keeping my speaking time as brief as possible these procedural motions will allow more productive time on debate of the bills themselves.

This first motion allows additional time for the Senate for the three remaining sitting days. The motion opens the opportunity for the Senate to be adaptable, as it was last week, in its approach to debating legislation for the remainder of this week. The government's aim in moving the motion is to allow additional time for debate of the government's legislation and for the sittings to be finalised by Thursday evening. Some time is allowed for the business of the Senate and for private senators bills to be debated. The timings are within the scope of the sitting pattern to minimise any disruption to arrangements senators may have made later this week. I am very aware that the end of the year usually requires senators to be finalising parliamentary duties with constituents and committees before Christmas.

I anticipate that the opposition will claim that motions such as these would not be necessary if the government scheduled more sitting days in a year and that this motion today is just a prelude to a time management motion to be moved later in the week, similar to arguments presented last week. But the reality is that it is quite difficult to schedule additional sitting days when senators are also required to attend to an increasingly heavy committee workload. It is also the case that additional regular sitting days would not guarantee significant additional time on government legislation—a matter which we are considering separately. In some respects this is an unresolved issue for the Senate, and one which I hope that the Procedure Committee may be able to pursue in the new year.

I also remind the Senate that debate of government legislation usually dominates Senate time at the end of sittings. This is not the first motion to extend debate time on government legislation at the end of sittings, and it is unlikely to be the last. As to the possibility of a time management motion for the last few sitting days, I would like to put on the record that I am open to one. For these last few days in 2012, I believe that such a motion might be the most effective way for the Senate to manage its time. It would set out clearly the chamber's expectation for debate on legislation; senators would understand the time available on the remainder of the government legislation program; and parties, and Senator Xenophon, would be able to manage the debate time so that decisions on bills could be placed on the record in available time frames.

I am prepared to take on board input from all parties and Senator Xenophon on a time management motion as I think we can probably accommodate most requirements in the next two sitting days, either through a motion or indeed by agreement. However, for the moment a time management motion is not before the chamber. With continued goodwill we can progress the government's legislative program through informal arrangements. This motion provides the chamber further scope to do just that. I commend the motion to the chamber.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson. Sorry—Senator Fifield.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is okay, I can understand why you have that particular name on your mind at the moment, Mr Acting Deputy President!

Senator Collins is right that the opposition has displayed a great deal of cooperation and goodwill in relation to the legislative management in this chamber. In fact, many pieces of legislation have moved at a good pace through the parliament, with all colleagues having had the opportunity to debate, to contribute and to air their views, which is as it should be.

As an opposition, we have also agreed from time to time to additional hours. In fact, in the Senate-only sitting week last week we agreed to commence proceedings an hour and a half earlier to facilitate additional consideration of government business. So we have brought a very positive attitude to bear and we do not rule out of hand, as a matter of course, motions that seek to vary hours. We consider them on a case-by-case basis, but the motion which is before us today we cannot support—due to both what is within the motion and what is not in the motion.

To come, firstly, to what is in the motion that we cannot accept, that is the guillotine in relation to consideration of the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012. This particular item in the motion indicates that the fix is in. The only reason the Australian Greens are agreeing to this motion is that the government has essentially adopted the Greens' Low Aromatic Fuel Bill as a piece of government legislation. If this bill were not in this motion, with a guillotine attached, then the Australian Greens would not be supporting the motion that is before us.

The Low Aromatic Fuel Bill is one that I know many colleagues have an interest in. Senator Scullion, in particular, has a great interest in it. He and I were talking about this bill earlier and he was very keen for me to make the points that: this bill would exempt itself in large part from the Racial Discrimination Act, it would invoke the race powers of the Constitution and it would go against the recommendations of the committee set up to examine it. Given there are issues of great contention, how can this chamber consider gagging debate on this particular piece of legislation? The proposition for this particular bill is:

from 7.30 pm to 7.45 pm—second reading—

that is not a great deal of time—15 minutes—and then:

from 7.45 pm to 8.15 pm—all remaining stages.

We would have barely 45 minutes to consider this particular piece of legislation. The Australian Greens and the government are not embracing the spirit of this place, which is to ensure adequate and proper consideration of legislation. We cannot support this motion because that is in the motion, but we also cannot support the motion because of what is not in it.

What is not in the motion is what is euphemistically here called 'time management' but which is more widely known as 'the guillotine'. We know that the guillotine is coming. How do we know it is coming? We only need to look at item No. 2 in government business notices of motion, where we have a motion to exempt from the cut-off a number of bills. The purpose of the motion to exempt these bills from the cut-off is that they can subsequently be guillotined later this week. If for one second we thought that the government would allow full debate on these pieces of legislation, subject to the cut-off, we might entertain exempting them from the cut-off. But why would we exempt them from the cut-off when we know that they are only going to be guillotined later in the week? We know that is coming.

We cannot accept this motion because of the guillotine that is contained within it and we cannot accept this motion because it is predicated on the following motion being passed, which we know will lead to the guillotining. Again, it is the perversity of this government, where on the one hand they say, 'Look, we want to have extra hours to allow debate,' but on the other hand they are intending to guillotine to curtail debate. Those two things are in conflict, and the strangest thing of all, of course, is that this motion proposes that the Senate finishes its business earlier on Thursday.

The opposition are strongly of the view that we should follow the pattern of the week as it was scheduled and that there should not be a guillotine on the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill—or any other bill, for that matter. We should continue to work cooperatively, as we and other parties have shown that this chamber is well capable of doing, to ensure that those bills which do need to be passed in a particular time frame are indeed passed. We cannot support the motion.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this motion because we want to see an extension of the hours so that we can get the legislation through in a timely manner. I remind the coalition that with several pieces of legislation that have gone through this parliament recently there have been a whole lot of people added to the speakers list from the coalition who have never shown any particular interest in or expertise on a number of topics. One of those was the EU linkage bill on carbon pricing. People spoke from the same set of notes, said the same things and took up the time. If you want to gain respect in terms of engagement with the legislation and timely passage of legislation then that needs to be taken into account.

In terms of the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill, I would like to correct something that Senator Fifield has just said in relation to any of it being contrary to the committee report. That is not the case, and I would remind the Senate that the people who are asking for this bill to be passed to help young Aboriginal people are from Aboriginal communities. They are the people who have been asking for us to deal with this as quickly as possible so that young Aboriginal people can maximise their life opportunities. I would have thought that was something that every senator would be keen to facilitate. If we want to talk about appropriate time management, filibustering out debates does not help. We have some extended hours. Let's approach it in a reasonable manner and we should be able to get through the business of the Senate.

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

I too rise to speak to the motion in relation to the hours of meeting and routine of business for the remainder of the spring sittings, and to support the comments made by my colleague Senator Fifield in relation to why the opposition will not be supporting this motion. One of the comments that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate made was that the motion that is currently before the Senate will enable the Senate to spend more productive time on debating legislation. I have to say that that is a rather novel approach when you analyse the motion that is before the Senate, because when you go to part 2(c) of the motion, as Senator Fifield has outlined, in relation to the bill that is listed to be debated, from 7.30 pm to 7.45 pm, the second reading debate will occur on this bill.

The last time I checked, a senator had 20 minutes to give a second reading speech. This limits second readers to 15 minutes so I am not quite sure how many senators are going to get to participate in the second reading debate. Then from 7.45 to 8:15 pm all remaining stages of this particular bill will be debated. Again, if this bill were to go into committee, we would have all of 30 minutes to get through the committee stage, to report back to the Senate and to get to the third reading, and if anybody wanted to speak on the third reading there would be no speaking on the third reading. So when the Manager of Government Business says that this motion will enable the Senate to have more productive time, I am assuming that the Manager of Government Business was saying that with her tongue firmly implanted in her cheek.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cash! I remind you of standing order 193, imputation of improper motives is not parliamentary.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to 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—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Government business.

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

Manager of Government Business. That was slightly Freudian, but one can only hope. If the Manager of Government Business finds the comments that Senator Fifield and I have put on the record in relation to why the opposition will not be supporting this motion so amusing, would she please as part of her summing up speech give a guarantee to the Senate that the government, in bed with the Greens, will not over the next three days—Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—implement the gag or the guillotine?

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I remind you that under standing order 197 senators have the right to be heard in silence.

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

Perhaps the Manager of Government Business would be kind enough to give a guarantee to the Senate that there is no intention to impose a gag or guillotine on senators over the next three days. Perhaps then we would have a little more comfort in relation to the motion and the reasons being given in asking the Senate to support the motion.

It is the government's obligation to manage their legislative program, and they do that with the sitting schedule that they publish. The sitting schedule is published at the end of each year for the coming year. This is the government's call. They have the timetable and they set the agenda. This is a government that does not like scrutiny. You cannot deny that. You cannot go from 22 weeks of sitting under the former Howard government to 18 weeks of sitting under a Labor government and say that you are all for scrutiny of our legislation. Add another four weeks to the sitting calendar—it is as simple as that! But they do not. So we reject the request for the extension of hours and the extra sitting week because the government should be able to manage within the hours that they have set themselves. The onus is on the government to make the case for a change to the sitting schedule and they have not done so. On that basis, the opposition will be voting against this motion.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a very short contribution—I aim to do it in less than three minutes. I indicate that I will support the government's motion for these reasons. Firstly, I see one of the primary purposes of this motion is to ensure that there is a resolution to the Greens' Low Aromatic Fuel Bill. Let us put that in perspective. That bill was introduced on 1 March this year and was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry on 10 May this year. A report was provided to the Senate on 26 September. There was debate on 22 November, but a resolution was not reached because there were a number of speakers on that bill.

I think it is important that the bill introduced by Senator Siewert be brought to a resolution. It is an important bill. It actually relates to the welfare of Indigenous kids in this country and I think that the social benefits of that bill are considerable and it ought to be brought to a resolution. Having said that, I note that is why we are primarily supporting this motion.

Secondly, Senator Cash makes a very good point that what happened on 24 November last year was nothing short of a disgrace. We had a number of bills that were guillotined and not debated, and Senator Macdonald's point of order was a quite relevant one at the time. I remember well that, in relation to some significant changes to the Family Law Act, there was not an appropriate opportunity to actually debate a bill or to have it considered in committee. So I hope that we do not go down that path again, but I see this as being an opportunity to extend the hours so that we do not get to that position.

I can foreshadow that I will not be supporting a gag or a guillotine on government bills, because I do not think that is the right thing to do. We are a house of review. We are meant to appropriately scrutinise legislation. But in terms of dealing with the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill, there actually has been a process so that it has been dealt with quite thoroughly and, because it is a private senator's bill, there needs to be a mechanism in order to bring that to a vote, to a resolution. So, for those reasons, I will be supporting this motion but I indicate to the government that I do not, under any circumstances, want a repeat of what occurred last year, because I thought that was not a good look for democracy in terms of gagging debate on a number of important bills.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will keep my remarks brief—much as I prefer not to be provoked by some of the hysteria that has been canvassed in this discussion. Unfortunately, Senator Cash, for instance, needed to listen to the comments I made when moving this motion. There were two aspects, acknowledged by Senator Fifield, that I raised. Firstly, she has mischaracterised the comments I made about allowing more productive time. What I indicated was that I was going to limit my comments, as I will now also in reply, so that more time can be spent in the Senate debating legislation rather than procedural motions. But perhaps the more critical issue that Senator Cash should have listened to was that I said very clearly in my remarks, as acknowledged by Senator Fifield, that I was indeed open to the question of time management. So why she is seeking an assurance directly contrary to what I gave in my initial remarks is somewhat bizarre. I thank Senator Xenophon for adding some perspective to this discussion.

One issue I thought needed to be highlighted and which was not covered by Senators Cash or Fifield was that the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill had almost 2½ hours of debate last week. Suggestions that there will be no time for bills or that for the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill there will be only the time in the discussion of this motion are somewhat misleading. I would also encourage Senator Cash to perhaps have a broader history lesson on the conduct of this chamber or indeed the conduct of both this chamber and the House. Her perspective seems considerably narrow. The Senate itself has finished earlier than the current time frame on a Thursday on many occasions with cooperation amongst senators. I am an optimist. I hope that we might be able to return to our families at the end of the session somewhat sooner but, as I highlighted, I am still open to the situation where we may seek to time manage to ensure that we progress all legislation. Senator Cash also raised the issue of Fridays in the House and perhaps I will share with the senator a different perspective about why Mr Rudd's plan to extend sittings in the House did not work. That was more as a result of lack of cooperation from the opposition than the government's plan to try to extend the sittings in the House.

Finally, with respect to the perspective on debate on legislation at the end of a session, I think it should be highlighted, whether it is the current government or the Howard government or indeed other governments with 22 sitting weeks, that time management is not something new to the Senate. As for the issues around how much time is available for legislation, obviously with cooperation—as we have had in the last week or two as we have moved through legislation in a prompt fashion—that avoids some of that pressure at the end of the final week and avoids a situation where we are moving through the remainder of the legislation at a very fast pace. With cooperation sufficient time can be allowed but I would ask senators not to misrepresent the situation or seek to claim that it is one peculiar to one particular government.

Question agreed to.