Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in relation to proceedings on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (No. 1), (No. 3) and (No. 5)) Bill 2014, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (No. 2), (No. 4) and (No. 6)) Bill 2014, and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (Parliamentary Departments)) Bill 2014, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or 60 minutes after the resumption of the second reading debate, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay, (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members, (b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member, and (c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for the bills being announced together;

(4) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 20 minutes at which time any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and

(6) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

In speaking to this debate management motion I wish to acknowledge that it is the usual practice of the parliament to introduce bills and have them sit on the table for a relatively short period of time—often four days, sometimes longer—while the opposition has the opportunity to consider the bills that the government has asked the parliament to pass. That is the usual practice. That is the practice that I prefer. The original advice with respect to this bill was that that would be allowed to occur and the bill would be introduced and did not necessarily need to be passed in a short time frame. Things do not always work out as you would like, and on this occasion it has not. The bill, I am now advised, must be passed as soon as possible and certainly before the end of the financial year. Therefore, the government is moving this debate management motion, not because we get any particular enjoyment out of it but because as Leader of the House my responsibilities are to ensure that the governance of the nation is efficient and effective and my advice is that this bill must be passed. Therefore, we are moving this debate management motion. I will understand if the opposition is disappointed by that. This might be the second part of the day, where less acrimony from this side of the House at least is visited into the parliament.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, we find that debate in this chamber is being gagged. Yesterday we had what must have been close to a record number of gag resolutions put through this chamber. We start today and we are back with more.

This is one where there is no excuse on the part of the government for this bill having been introduced so late. While the Leader of the House has clearly been given advice that there was a view that the legislation might not have to be put in before 1 July, it has actually always been the case that this legislation would have to be ready to be fully enacted by 1 July this year. Even the Minister for Finance's department's website had stated as early as 30 May this year that the bills would be introduced to parliament in the week of 2 June. Had they been introduced in that week, all the ordinary processes would have been able to take place for the opposition to be able to work through the bills and for parliament to be able to have a sensible debate on this legislation. At one level when you are dealing with public governance and performance accountability it is often viewed as very much a beltway political issue and technical detail of governance, but there is also a lot riding on getting this right. There has been a lot of work done by both the previous government and this government on this piece of legislation. For the operation and governance measures of our departments and agencies, a lot rides on getting the detail of this legislation right.

I do not think anyone can pretend that a bill that was introduced yesterday and that is now going to be rammed through with the government using its numbers today is going to have any of the scrutiny that this parliament is here to provide. Members of this parliament on both sides have been elected and put here to actually provide that level of scrutiny. People can do speed reading, they can flick through the words of it as quickly as they want, but let's not pretend that anyone is going to be across this. The effect of this is that we have deferred our role as legislators entirely to the public servants who have been working on this. I have good faith in the public servants who have been working on this, but I do not think that gives us an excuse to give up our role as legislators.

It was on the website that this bill had to be introduced in the week of 2 June. It was not. And we now find that, as part of the grand strategy this week of spending a whole lot of time dealing with as much as possible so that there is a distraction from the budget, this bill gets tied up in it. And what's the bill about? Governance. The bill itself is actually about making sure that you have due process. And the process that we are being left with in this parliament really is a disgrace for any bill to go through it. There are times when there is genuine emergency, but this bill ought never to have arrived so late. We should not have been put in the situation where whoever was doing the checks and balances to try to get the bill in its best possible form before it was introduced to parliament decided that their job was more important than our job as legislators to work through the legislation.

I agree that this bill needs to have been fully dealt with by 1 July. I think the handling of this bill by the government has been absolutely appalling. I do not blame the Leader of the House for this one. I will blame him for most atrocities that happen in this room—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Accurate, true! I will not blame him for this one because we have all been put in an impossible situation by the minister who has responsibility for this legislation. It is not just a matter of the gravity of this bill dealing with governance; let's also look at the complexity of what it does. Over 250 different acts of parliament are amended by this bill but we are now going to be a position of offering no effective level of scrutiny. There are over 500 pages of amendments in the bill and they deserve a lot more scrutiny than we can give in this situation.

Ministers have a responsibility not to wait for the brief to arrive. There will be times when the Public Service, in good faith, is working diligently through something and wants it to be perfect before it comes up. But if the price of a minister just taking a back seat and saying, 'I'll deal with it whenever it's ready,' is that we effectively cut the legislature—the House of Representatives and the Senate—out of effective scrutiny, then what on earth is the parliament for? And, as I said before, of all the bills to do it on, to do it on one that is about governance! The parliament should be given the opportunity to ensure these bills actually give effect to their intended purpose. There are occasions when, no matter how much work has gone into a bill, errors are found by the parliament itself. Only this week we had to deal with the fact that an amendment had to be moved to an appropriations bill because nearly $1 billion had been forgotten about in the schedule. That sort of scrutiny is what the parliament is here to provide. That sort of scrutiny is now not being offered to these bills, yet for something that is actually—except for one part of it—not particularly controversial across the parliament, that sort of scrutiny would have been a constructive thing, and in the interests, I might add, of the government. There is nothing to be gained for the government in mistakes being made in governance legislation, because when those mistakes end up being made we know who gets the blame, and it becomes no excuse to say, 'Oh, but the bill was rushed through parliament.'

There is, of course, one further issue which is a part of these bills that the opposition has a very strong view about and which the opposition wants to have extended debate about. This goes to the effect of these bills on people who are employed as cleaners. Through these bills the government is seeking to cut the pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers. It is not the primary purpose of these bills, but it is caught up within them. There is no shortage of members of parliament who have strong views on the pay being cut to some of Australia's lowest paid workers. There is no shortage of people on this side of the House who have dedicated a good part of their professional life to defending the rights of some of Australia's lowest paid workers. No matter how many times some of those opposite want us to somehow feel that that is something to be anything but proud of, people on this side are proud of the fact that they have defended some of Australia's lowest paid workers, and they want the chance now to be a voice for them in the parliament, a voice that is being taken away by the resolution that is in front of us.

The Prime Minister at the dispatch box, last Monday week, said:

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced.

That is now challenged by the legislation that the parliament is going to debate. It is no surprise that that gets caught up in a debate that the government seeks to gag. The Prime Minister then said:

This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner full stop, end of story. This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner.

Well, a pay rate under the Cleaning Services Guidelines of $22 an hour to the rate of the award of $17.49 an hour is a reduction. I am not sure what those opposite think. We have had arguments this week where they have argued that 550 is bigger than 6,000. Today, for cleaners' wages, we are getting an argument that $17.49 is bigger than $22.02. If that is the argument they want to make, I reckon let us have a long debate on that issue. It is only one of the issues within these bills; it is not the only one.

Most of this is bipartisan, but the fact that a bill is bipartisan does not mean it should be excused from scrutiny, which is the role of the parliament. That role is being ignored because of the actions, I presume, of a single minister either not pushing for the brief to be given to him and for him to work through the legislation in time for it to be presented in an orderly way to the parliament, or, in the alternative, actually not bothering to deal with it when it did arrive on the minister's desk. I do not know which of them it was, but ultimately the minister ends up responsible.

The minister has made a decision that puts every single member of parliament here at a disadvantage. It is not simply opposition members. It may be only opposition members who want to stand up for the rights of low-paid cleaners. But, on the issue of general scrutiny and general governance, it is of the interest and the responsibility of every single member of this place. The timing of this bill has precluded members of parliament from doing their job and the resolution, which has now been moved by the Leader of the House, guarantees and enforces that members of parliament are cut out of the effective legislative process. The House should not stand for it.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in relation to proceedings on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2014, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2014, the Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Bill 2014, and the Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account Bill 2014, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a minister speaking in reply, or two hours after the resumption of the second reading debate, whichever is the earlier, a minister being called to sum up the second reading debate and then without delay, (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition members, (b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other member, and (c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, any messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for the bills being announced together;

(4 the consideration in detail stages, if required, on the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 30 minutes at which time any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(5) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and

(6) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a minister.

He is really missing it, isn't he, the poor old member for Grayndler. He had a brief shining moment of power but it has flickered out!

This debate management motion will ensure that the Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Bill 2014 can be passed today. There is ample time for debate put aside for the bills today. This is an important measure that the government wants passed as part of our budget, to repair the damage that Labor left with their debt and deficit legacy. I commend the motion to the House.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has there ever been a government which has wanted to talk about their budget less than this one? Has there ever been a government which is so determined to gag debate on their own budget? It is not something that this side of the House is proposing. It is the government's centrepiece policy and they do not want to talk about it. We will oppose this protection racket for their policies. Why? Because we want to provide plenty of time for the members of the National Party to explain to their electorates why they are voting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): I had expected some methodical, calm and sensible contribution, but, as we have not had one, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.