Senate debates

Thursday, 27 November 2025

Business

Rearrangement

3:12 pm

Photo of Anne RustonAnne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the motion.

Leave note granted.

In the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That the Senate suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from moving such a motion to enable me to amend this motion.

The reason I do that is because this motion has been amended from the 3.30 pm timeframe that put on it because, quite clearly, everybody in this place decided they wanted to go home tonight but then realised that they hadn't left themselves enough time to finish the dirty deal they did with those down the end of the chamber, so they needed more time to get their paperwork in order. We're not going to stand in the way of more scrutiny of this bill, which is the reason we supported the motion put forward by Senator Wong to extend the time. But why can't we extend that time now until 7.30 pm and at least give us some chance for some level of proper scrutiny of this particular bill? We already know, from all of the committees, that absolutely no scrutiny has been able to be done on this bill. So much subordinated legislation has had no scrutiny. At least give us the opportunity of another 2½ hours over and above what the chamber has already agreed to—or do we still all want to get on the plane to go home tonight?

This bill is not being determined by this chamber. Quite frankly, this bill has been determined in the Prime Minister's office. They come in here and completely and utterly disregard this chamber so that we can end up with a deal that's been done in the Prime Minister's office overnight. Who knows what's been promised to the people at the other end of the chamber in other words for this bill to pass. We are not going to stand in the way of scrutiny, but I tell you what: we're also not going to allow the government and the Greens to get away with the fact that they did a dirty deal in the middle of the night and they didn't cross their t's and dot their i's. We find ourselves in here, right now, having to have a motion moved for more time just so you can get your paperwork in order. I think the Australian public deserve better on a bill of such significance. You actually might have got your act into gear. Who knows what else is being mucked up in this bill? We won't know, because we're not allowed to scrutinise it.

So here we are on Thursday afternoon in the last sitting week of the year. We've had a dirty deal done in the middle of the night. They've messed up their paperwork. They've failed to attend to the detail. They haven't done their administration, so they come in here and give us a little more time. Well, don't come in here and pretend you're giving us more time for scrutiny. You're not. You're just fixing up a mistake of your own making. If you're really genuine about applying a level of scrutiny and giving us more time, give us until 7.30 pm. I would ask the Greens, at the other end of the chamber: if you really are genuine about this—I've heard Senator Hanson-Young talk very strongly about the importance of the bill—what's wrong with a little bit more scrutiny?

Maybe we could stay here until 7.30 tonight. No-one's catching a plane home anyway, so why don't we actually do our job that the people of Australia elected us to do: come in here, scrutinise legislation and make sure we get to ask the questions of the government, who have been secretive throughout the entire process of these bills? We've got legislation that is so big, you'd be lucky to high jump over it. Yet we've had no time for scrutiny. This government's track record on scrutiny is obviously something to behold. Never before has there been a government that has lacked scrutiny the same way that this government does. We will not have the Australian public believe that the government has come in here and allowed more time when, quite frankly, it is nothing more than fixing up their own mistake.

I would ask the government: if you really are genuine about this—no-one's going home tonight anyway—why don't we all accept our responsibility as elected members of the Australian parliament and allow some additional scrutiny? When I watched the interrogation of Minister Watt during committee before we came in for question time, Minister Watt was filibustering his own bill to stop us asking questions. If Minister Watt were prepared not only to answer the questions but to not sit there and lecture everybody with a filibuster, maybe we could get some more answers about some of the things that are in this bill, some answers about what's intended and some answers about what the consequences are of this bill instead of him hiding behind the fact that he completely disregards this place.

The deal was done in the Prime Minister's office. This chamber has not decided the outcome of this really important suite of legislation; the Prime Minister in his office has. And I think it is incumbent on this government to allow more scrutiny and to not just hide behind the fact that you made a great big mess and now you're trying to fix it.

Comments

No comments