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

We will get on to that Senator Abetz, don't worry!

This legislation will be a punch to the solar plexus of Australian health funds and of Australians who want to do the right thing by providing for their private health insurance. On this side we believe in a carrot-and-stick approach to private health insurance. There should be a stick. If you have the means to take out private health insurance and you do not then, yes, you should be subject to an additional surcharge. But if you do the right thing there should also be a reward—an encouragement—and that is what the private health insurance rebate was.

This government always want to practice the politics of envy. They always want to attack self-reliance. They always want to attack initiative. They do not want people to provide for themselves. They would prefer everyone to be reliant on the state. They do not want people to have private health insurance; they would prefer everyone to be in the public health system so that an already overburdened public health system is even more overburdened. That is their objective. It is an ideological objective: they just do not like private health insurance. They do not care that everyone who drops private health insurance adds to the burden on the public health system. They do not care about that. They do not think about that. They are purely ideologically driven.

We do express outrage when we see a significant piece of legislation like this, which will dramatically change the treatment of health in Australia, being given only 10 hours and 20 minutes. It might be another story altogether if they had taken that policy to the election and had actually been elected upon it. They might have an argument for saying, 'Ten hours and 20 minutes is long enough to debate something which we have a mandate for,' but they do not have a mandate for it. They have never sought a mandate for it. They do not have a mandate for it, and this piece of legislation deserves to be exposed. This piece of legislation deserves to have extensive debate. The next item on the government's legislative agenda was the minerals resource rent tax. Sixteen hours and 15 minutes was provided for that particular piece of legislation. To be honest, we are still not entirely sure what the government's real position is on this, because it has evolved several times. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan had one iteration of it. It did not go down too well. They had some private meetings with a few companies and we saw a different policy result. The Australian Greens have a different take on this. We do not know what is going to be the end product as a result of the deliberations of this parliament. So this legislation needs significant examination. It is legislation that has some quite significant effects on the mining industry and particularly on the resource-rich states. It deserves proper examination.

There was the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment Bill—four hours and 30 minutes. There was the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill—45 minutes. There was the Road Safety Remuneration Bill—one hour and 45 minutes. There was the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill—30 minutes. There was the Indirect Tax Laws Amendment (Assessment) Bill—30 minutes. There was the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill—30 minutes. There was the Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill—one hour and 30 minutes. There was the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill—15 minutes. There was the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill—15 minutes. There was the Excise Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill—10 minutes. There was the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill—15 minutes. There was Appropriation Bill (No. 3)—one hour and 30 minutes. So it ranges from 15 minutes of consideration for a piece of legislation.

I do not know the mind of every colleague in this place. If I were manager of government business, I could not presume to know what contributions colleagues have to make in this place on a particular piece of legislation. I could not presume to know whether they have some insight into a piece of legislation which I do not. I could not presume to know that. The only way that you can know that is to have a full-blooded debate on legislation and give this chamber the opportunity to examine legislation. So we go from 15 minutes for some pieces of legislation to 10 hours or 16 hours. You have to have that in perspective. That is 10 hours or 16 hours for, in one case, a bill which the Australian Labor Party did not flag their intention to introduce at the last election—that is, the private health insurance rebate amendment bill. And there were other pieces of legislation—the mining resource rent tax package of bills—which have great and far-reaching economic consequences.

We have seen this before with this government. On one hand, they say, 'We're all for debate. We're all for airing things. That's why we're extending hours,' but on the other hand they say, 'We're going to introduce a guillotine.' They give with one hand and they take with the other. We have seen that before. We are opposing the extension of hours and we are also opposing the guillotine. We are opposing the extension of hours because we are at the ninth sitting day of the year, so it should be possible for the government to manage their legislative program in the days that they set. We do not set the sitting schedule. We do not set the days that the parliament sits. That is something that the government do. So the government should be well able to manage their legislative agenda within the time frame that they themselves stipulate. That is the first point. The second point is that if they are unable to do that then the last thing that they should do is guillotine. They should be affording appropriate opportunity for debate in this place. It is confused and muddled thinking on the government's part that you extend hours and guillotine at the same time. It is an internal contradiction that I do not think Senator Collins adequately explained in this place.

Another thing that Senator Collins said is that we make outrageous and unnecessary contributions during non-controversial legislation time. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are an incredibly responsible opposition. Where there are pieces of legislation on which we agree—where the government agrees, the Greens agree, Senator Xenophon agrees and Senator Madigan agrees—we do not seek to delay. We do not seek to thwart those. We readily flag our position and we readily flag that we support those pieces of legislation. And there are contributions from our side because we think it is important to make contributions on each piece of legislation, but they are not unnecessary contributions. I would defy any member of this chamber to identify a single piece of non-controversial legislation where there have been unnecessary contributions. Yes, the relevant shadow minister makes a contribution and, yes, where a senator has an interest in an issue and wants to make a contribution, they do so—that is their right. Who would deny, for instance, Senator Macdonald his right to contribute on any piece of legislation? It is his right.