Senate debates

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

Motions

Suspension of Standing Orders

12:47 pm

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

I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate that this is becoming a pattern for the leader of the Greens—at kick-off on a Tuesday afternoon to seek leave to move a motion and, when it is denied, to then follow through with a suspension of standing orders, the outcome of which I think we can all predict. This has become a pattern which has disrupted the working of this place, disrupted government business time. There are many forms in this place to address issues that colleagues wish to put a focus on. Obviously there is question time. There is matters of public importance. There is matters of public interest. There is general business time. There are a range of forms in this place for colleagues to avail themselves of. That's the first point—that this is not the time, this is not the opportunity, to seek to ventilate these issues.

The second point I wish to make is that the leader of the Greens is seeking to debate matters which are yet to be put into the public domain. It is a matter of record that the government have agreed to 49 of the 50 Finkel recommendations and that we are going through our internal processes to look at other matters that Mr Finkel touched upon. And, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate alluded to, it is highly likely that we will have more to say in the coming hours. This would be an odd time to have a debate, when the chamber is not in possession of what the government has to say later today.

I also think it's worth just pausing for a moment to reflect on what the government has done on the issue of energy. We're absolutely seized of the importance of reliability, the importance of affordability and the importance of meeting our international commitments. Since we've been in government, we have abolished the carbon tax, which is the single most significant thing to address affordability, and I don't hear calls from the community for that to be reintroduced. We have, obviously, made our commitments in Paris, which we intend to honour. We have put in serious work with the energy retailers. As a result, consumers have been written to advising them that there are better deals available and that they should take advantage of those, and many Australians have done just that. We have also taken steps in relation to the domestic gas supply to ensure that that is met and that there is downward pressure there. We instituted the Finkle review, and, as I mentioned, we've adopted 49 of the 50 recommendations. The Finkle review recommendations went to COAG. They then went to the energy ministers, and the energy ministers collectively adopted 49 of the 50. We now have an internal process underway which we'll have more to say about shortly.

On this side of the chamber, we don't take a theological or an ideological approach to energy policy. We look at the engineering. We look at the economics. We already have a plan which is before the Australian people, and we'll have a little bit more to say very soon about the next iteration of that. The Greens have not made a compelling case for the suspension of standing orders this morning. There are forms in this place to address issues, and we will all have the benefit of what the government has to say a little later today.

Comments

No comments