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

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010

Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise, for the Senate’s attention, the complete disarray the government are in regarding the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Bill 2010. The government have known since parliament resumed that this bill has been scheduled, but it is constantly being pushed down the list. It is yet another example of the complete disarray that the government are in is that they cannot get themselves organised enough to debate these bills at the appropriate time when they see a need. I would like the Senate to note that, while we will not be opposing the motion, three years after this government came to power this is yet another instance of the complete disarray and mess that this government are in. They have known about this piece of legislation. It should have been appropriately organised well before now and it is entirely inappropriate for the minister not to have this suitably arranged. The bill should necessarily be debated in reasonable time.

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

Senators sometimes try to make political points about the program. If they understood the program they would know that, having had an election, the cut-off period—which is a longstanding matter in this place and which has served its purpose to allow bills to be introduced and subsequently considered in the next sitting period—would be next year if we were to adhere to that. Because we had an election, to consider the bills that are essential in this sitting period, of course, we have to exempt them from the cut-off to allow them to be considered now. So it is not a case of pushing bills down the list; it is about allowing these bills to be considered during this period.

Sometimes it would be helpful, if people are going to make contributions in the Senate, for them to make them accurately and for them to understand the import of what they are putting. The exemption from the cut-off is a usual devise that ensures that the Senate can consider bills appropriately—it allows for time for them to consider bills—and that they be dealt with in the next session. In this instance we asked that this bill to be considered to be exempt from the cut-off for reasons such as I have provided—sensible reasons which allow this bill actually to be considered during this period. I am sure Senator Nash wants this bill to be considered during this period and I think that was in her submission. If we did not agree to this motion—by the opposition not supporting it, which I know they will not—it would effectively mean that it would go to next year and then not be considered. With all respect, her submission is both erroneous and misdirected.

Question agreed to.