Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This morning we see another display by the opposition of wasting valuable time dealing with a procedural motion rather than the clean energy package. These procedures were put in place before I entered the Senate, in fact, which was in 1999. They have been there, available to use—and I don't complain if people use them; they do serve a purpose. Since I have been in the chamber, more than 12 years now, I can only recall—the record may correct me—them being used at the most once or twice, usually for the purposes of a stunt. There was no other reason than that. Of course, sometimes they are good stunts and sometimes they fall flat. But, nonetheless, it is a usual procedure to expedite proceedings so that the Senate can get on with business. And that is exactly what we are here today to do: to use the available time to deal with the clean energy package.

I hoped a couple of weeks away from the chamber may have settled the opposition down from creating stunts on procedural motions, but it seems that it has not. It seems that they are full of vim and vigour to concentrate on procedural aspects of the chamber rather than the substantive matters that we do need to debate here today. Senators will recall that when we last sat, on Thursday, 13 October, the opposition excelled themselves in time-wasting. In the closing hours of the Senate Senator Abetz sought to defer consideration of the clean energy bills, yet again. And Senator Macdonald moved dissent from the ruling of the chair—subsequently withdrawn, and I thank Senator Macdonald for that. But it did seem clear that the Senate did not support the attempts to distract the chamber from the substantive matters that were before it. I understand that some of those from the opposition find it amusing to manage the Senate in this way. I think that a bit of commonsense should prevail. We should get on with the substantive matters that are before the Senate today. Unfortunately, the opposition again moved this morning that the steel bill should be procedurally dealt with rather than allowed to be part of the package of bills that we need to manage in the chamber in a sensible way so that everyone can contribute. I do recognise that there is a long list of people who want to contribute to the clean energy package. There are more than 30-odd names already on the list. I have not counted them all, but it is a page-long list of people who want to speak in the Senate on the clean energy package and make a contribution.

All of the points that were made by the Manager of Opposition Business could be made by those in the opposition during their contribution on the clean energy package. No doubt, though, they will—it may be repetitive—and it is their entitlement to make the points again about the clean energy package. They have stated their position. However, the government has allowed plenty of time for people to make their contribution during the second reading debate on the clean energy package. The number of senators who have put their name on the list demonstrates that the opposition does want to contribute during the second reading debate on the clean energy package, and I encourage them to do that. No doubt they will use their time effectively to do that.

The steel bill, which is before us, has been passed by the House through the normal transmission of the bill. It should proceed through the chamber here. As many, many bills have done, it should simply be reported in a message and we can get on with the substantive matters that are currently before the Senate today rather than again make the procedural points that have been becoming quite frequent from the opposition. One would think that the opposition can only manage procedural motions rather than the substantive matters of the clean energy package before us today, but that is for others to judge. After spending more than a day in the last sitting week on procedural discussions, a full day could have been utilised for making these points during the substantive debate. Nonetheless, we will again spend some time on procedural motions as the opposition seems to have a want to do. However, can I encourage them to get on with the substantive matters—to get on with the clean energy debate— rather than utilise time on procedural motions.

I recommend that we deal with the procedural matter quickly. It seems that the points the opposition have again made today they made last time we sat. It seems a little repetitive. Their arguments have not changed substantially. All of those arguments they have made they have made before, time and time again. The Senate should cease indulging the opposition on these procedural motions and the introduction of this bill should proceed. We should get down to the business of debating the legislation. In standing, of course, I am closing the debate. Therefore, I do not need to put the question. If that is needed, I will, but I understand that by standing I do close the debate. Question put:

That this bill may proceed without formalities.

The Senate divided. [10:38]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.