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

Before I start on the motion to vary the hours this week, I advise I will be seeking leave to amend the motion before moving it. I seek leave to make a short statement as well to explain the circumstances.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to seek leave to speak to your proposed amendment and then seek leave to have it amended?

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

I know the Clerk of the Senate will be horrified at what I am doing. To make sure that the week goes forward as planned, I think it would be helpful to explain first.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you are seeking leave to make a short statement?

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

Yes, first.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think so. Does Mitch know about this?

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

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

It will be helpful to put this in context. This week we will endeavour, through cooperation from the other side and from the crossbenchers, to complete our legislative program. There are a range of bills that require finalisation this week. In addition, we have an important debate today dealing with Afghanistan. It was to be scheduled between 7:30 and 9:00. However, there is a view around the chamber that it would be better to be held at the end of the urgency motion today, which would put the debate around five o'clock. It will then proceed for an hour and a half. That will allow the debate to receive the proper attention it deserves.

I seek the cooperation of the chamber to grant leave to amend the motion to allow that to occur. I thought it would be worthwhile to explain the reason behind this. It is an important debate and I seek the cooperation of the Senate to undertake that endeavour.

In addition, I have ensured that there is an open-ended adjournment on Tuesday night so that if people want to contribute to the particular debate or raise other matters then that is the opportunity for the Senate to do that. Normally, we would truncate it and have an ordinary 40-minute adjournment. But I think there are a range of issues that people want to raise throughout this week, so that will give an opportunity for senators to do that. Turning to the substantive motion, I seek leave to amend the motion before moving it.

Leave not granted.

At the request of Senator Arbib, I move:

That—

(1)   In the week beginning Monday, 21 November 2011, the following government business orders of the day shall be considered:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011

National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011

Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011

Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011

Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2011

Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011

Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011

Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011

Navigation Amendment Bill 2011

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011

National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011

Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011

Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011

Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011

Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

(1A)   On Monday, 21 November 2011, the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 9 pm, shall be debate relating to a ministerial statement concerning Afghanistan.

(2)   On Wednesday, 23 November 2011 and Thursday, 24 November 2011, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.

(3)   On Tuesday, 22 November 2011:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 2 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;

  (b)   the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and

  (c)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(4)   On Wednesday, 23 November 2011:

  (a)   consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Sinodinos to make his first speech without any question before the chair; and

  (b)   consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with.

(5)   On Thursday, 24 November 2011:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.40 pm;

  (b)   consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;

  (c)   the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm, and from not later than 3.45 pm, shall be government business only;

  (d)   divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

  (e)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.

(6)   That the Senate shall sit on Friday, 25 November 2011 and that:

  (a)   the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;

  (b)   the routine of business shall be:

     (i)   notices of motion, and

     (ii)   government business only; and

  (c)   the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.

(7)   That the bills listed in paragraph (1) be considered under a limitation of debate and the allotment of time for consideration of the bills be as follows:

(8)   Paragraph (7) operates as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

This motion will allow the Senate to operate in a focused and effective manner for the next five sitting days, and it will ensure that we complete the consideration of the government's legislative program for this year. There is some disappoint in having to move this motion, because the government has very few options available to it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't want any legislation scrutinised.

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

I listen to you in silence when you contribute to these debates in Senate and you should return the favour one day—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you are destroying what parliament is about, you can put up with my interjections.

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

although I will not hold my breath waiting for you to return that favour.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, interjections are disorderly and, Minister, could you direct your remarks through the chair.

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

I apologise, Mr Deputy President. In the past two weeks, the Senate spent almost 30 hours debating the clean energy package. Without doubt this is significant legislation deserving scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Senate has also spent far too many hours on procedural motions—MPI debates—that are, quite frankly, simply variations of a tired theme. Senator Macdonald has been one of those who has contributed significantly to that tired theme, debating bills that all senators recognise are noncontroversial. By convention, as agreed by all parties and Independent senators, non-controversial bills are put through at a particular time on Thursdays. Why? Because they are, by their nature, noncontroversial.

However, we now have some 13 non-controversial bills carrying over from the last three sitting periods. This has led to the government seeking, in this motion, to have them dealt with at the end of this week. Why? Because they are non-controversial bills. Those on the other side have sought to debate those non-controversial bills at length, ad nauseum.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How outrageous for the Senate to debate bills!

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

In usual times, when the opposition and the government—and when we were in opposition—treated them as non-controversial bills, senators spoke to them in a way which would ensure their passage during the period usually set. However, there has been a lack of cooperation in that regard. We even have one non-controversial bill that has been held over from July. It highlights what has happened—those opposite treating non-controversial bills as full debating bills when we have agreement that they are noncontroversial. It seems that that convention has worn quite thin of late.

There are also 20 or so bills listed on the draft program for the week. The majority of these bills have commencement dates on or before 1 January 2012. These bills need to be completed this week to ensure that they can commence by their start-up date of 1 January 2012. It is not unusual for the Senate to deal with about this number of bills in its final sitting week. It is not unusual for the Senate, with a level of cooperation, to organise its business so that we can sit a few extra hours this week and organise its business with a motion which provides certainty for those in the chamber that we will progress through the bills this week.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we won't be able to debate them.

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

Unfortunately—and I think the interjection highlights this fact—the government is not able to rely on the informal and constructive cooperation that it has had in the past. I note as well that, when we were in opposition, we offered informal and constructive assistance to ensure that the Senate completed a number of bills at the end of sitting periods. However, again, that position seems to have worn quite thin of late. In the spring sittings we have seen, quite frankly, self-indulgence, repetition and debate with, usually, only tenuous connections to the substantive matters contained in the bill. This is an opposition which has become ill-disciplined and does not use the Senate's time in an effective and constructive way to deal with bills. We find instead interjections and debate with only tenuous connection to the substance of the topic. Instead, the opposition has been hell-bent on thwarting the ability of this Senate to scrutinise legislation effectively.

We have a motion today that lists the bills to be debated and completed each day. That allows senators to take the appropriate time to debate a bill and finalise their contribution to it so that the bill can be finalised in the evening.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why can't we sit next week and debate these bills?

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

The motion allows for some 30 hours of debate on legislation this week, assuming that the opposition does not continue to use its time to debate procedural motions. This motion provides additional sitting hours on Tuesday night and Thursday this week, and a sitting day on Friday. It is the government's intention not to sit on 28, 29 and 30 November. I foreshadow that at this point and will inform the Senate through the usual processes in due course.

The House of Representatives has decided likewise not to sit next week. While it is not unusual for the Senate to sit without the House also sitting, if the Senate were to set in path legislation which requires consideration of the House before it is finalised, this would mean that the House would have to come back before the end of the year to finalise any amendments that were passed through the Senate. It would require an additional cost. In those circumstances, it is the government's view that it is better to structure the sitting this week so that the whole program can be completed this week. There are hours available to allow this to occur—to ensure that government business is finalised.

I note that the last time this type of motion was used to structure Senate business was in 1999, when the current opposition was in government. It is not the typical motion that I would usually have used. A motion that would allow the opposition to continue until a bill was finalised is another approach that could have been adopted. However, given the opposition's position that I outlined earlier, speaking on procedural motions and speaking on a range of bills that are noncontroversial—without the cooperation and constructive approach that the opposition has displayed in the past—the type of motion that is now constructed will, in the government's view, ensure that the legislative program is finalised this week.

I do not intend to take up any additional time because the more I talk the more I eat into the time available for the opposition to constructively contribute to the bills that are on the program. I just add, in relation to the matter that I was denied leave for—and that does not prevent another senator moving to amend the motion in this regard—that it is the government's view that it would be more appropriate to deal with the Afghanistan debate at the end of the urgency motions.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

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

That would allow the urgency motions from the opposition to be completed. It is a government time that is being chosen.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The government should, notwithstanding Senator Macdonald's interjections, be able to organise its time as it sees fit to be able to debate the program as stipulated by government. There has been a convention in this place for a very long time that governments can determine what happens in government time. It would be disappointing to find that the opposition are now breaking that longstanding convention to allow the government to organise its time the way it sees fit. With those short words, I ask the Senate to agree to the motion.

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

The motion before the chamber is quite extraordinary. This motion proposes that no fewer than 33 bills go through this chamber this week. If senators were not particularly inclined to speak on many of the 33 bills, that might be okay, but that is not what this motion provides for. This motion institutes a rolling guillotine. If this motion is successful, at the end of each day every single bill listed for debate will be put through the voting on all stages—even if the Senate chamber is still at the second reading stage of the first bill listed, even if not a single senator has got to their feet and even if not a single senator has had the opportunity to ask one question in a committee stage. This motion seeks to deny senators their basic and fundamental rights, but, worse than that, this motion seeks to deny this chamber the ability to perform its duty and its obligation to scrutinise legislation, to debate legislation, to critique legislation and to ask questions of government ministers about legislation.

This motion goes to the very core of why this chamber is here. We are a house of review. Our purpose is to scrutinise. Our purpose is to hold the government to account. Our purpose is to ask questions about the detail of legislation and this motion seeks to deny that very opportunity. Even if this motion were not before us, I would think that it is a pretty extraordinary ask of the chamber to consider adequately and properly 33 bills in the course of a week. But there is no need for this motion. The Senate has already passed a motion that the chamber will sit next week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. They are scheduled sitting days for the Australian Senate. They are not simply pencilled in on a draft parliamentary program as days which might be required, as days when senators should not book too many things in their diary in case they are called upon. No. Those sitting days—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week, 28, 29 and 30 November—were listed, were scheduled and were agreed upon by this chamber at the time the rest of the sitting schedule for this year was decided. Those dates are there for a reason—to facilitate proper and adequate debate of the bills which come before this chamber. So there is absolutely no need for a guillotine at the end of each day. This is the first time I have seen that procedure in the time I have been in this place. The guillotine which was put in place for the carbon tax legislation was bad enough, but to have a guillotine at the end of each and every day, regardless of the stages which multiple bills have reached, is extraordinary.

What absolutely flabbergasts me in this matter is the Australian Greens, who have held themselves out as paragons of parliamentary virtue, who have held themselves out as the great defenders of the rights, duties and obligations of the Australian Senate, who have held themselves out as being better and purer than what they refer to as 'the old parties' or 'the big parties'. The Australian Greens, who have always presented themselves as an entirely different parliamentary beast, have shown their true colours today. They are no better than the Australian Labor Party—and that is the most damning thing I can say of any other parliamentary party—because they are complicit in this act to seek to deny the chamber the opportunity to consider this legislation.

There is a very simple solution. We would not expect the government to change their mind. We know what they are made of. We saw that in the carbon tax debate. The simple solution is for the Australian Greens to recognise that what they are doing is abominable, that what they are proposing to do goes against every speech on accountability they have given in this place. It goes against every one of the group doorstops which they do in the courtyard outside this chamber, where they bemoan the trashing of parliamentary democracy, where they bemoan the denial of opportunity to scrutinise legislation. They do still have an opportunity to reconsider their position. Mr Deputy President, it was bad enough that the government and the Greens conspired to deny this chamber the opportunity to address the carbon tax legislation in proper detail. It is in your recent memory, I know, so you will recall that barely seven sitting days were dedicated to the scrutiny of the 17 or 18 bills in the carbon tax legislation package. Compare that with the five months of scrutiny that the GST: A New Tax System legislation received. That was bad enough. Worse than that of course was the government lying to the Australian people that they would not introduce a carbon tax. That was bad enough. Not worse than that but approaching it was the denial of the opportunity in this place to properly scrutinise the carbon tax legislation. But you would have thought at the very least—putting aside the fact that the government lied about not introducing a carbon tax and putting aside the fact that they denied this chamber the opportunity to properly scrutinise that legislation—that with legislation of a more routine nature they would allow just a modicum of parliamentary scrutiny. But no.

We recognised, though we did not agree, that with the carbon tax legislation the government had a political imperative they were determined to see through. We recognised that they set up the false deadline of the Durban conference by which they had to get the carbon tax legislation through. We thought it was atrocious but we knew what they were doing. But here we have an entirely different crime against the Australian Senate, which is to deny it consideration of more routine legislation. I would have thought the Australian Labor Party would be looking for the opportunity to redeem themselves after the carbon tax outrage; that they would have been looking for the opportunity to say, over the balance of this parliamentary term: 'Sure, we did the wrong thing with the carbon tax legislation. We completely disregarded the rights and prerogatives of the Senate. But look at these other 100-plus bills where we allowed proper and decent debate.' You would have thought that at the very least, in seeking to regain a bit of decency, the Australian Labor Party would have afforded this chamber that opportunity. But no. Even on bills of the nature of those before us today they seek to deny us that opportunity.

As I said, the Australian Greens should think again, but if they are not prepared to think again the government should honour the parliamentary program and sit the parliament on the 28th, 29th and 30th. They should do that so this legislation is not forced through this chamber without due and proper consideration. But there is another reason the parliament should sit on 28, 29 and 30 November, and that is the rapidly deteriorating budget position. The government, we know, are going to release a midyear economic update in a week or so, maybe in a matter of days. It will in effect be a minibudget. The government have been trawling for savings because they have been spending so much that they will be unable to achieve their commitment to have the budget back in surplus by 2012-13. Because of that, they are in effect producing a minibudget, though it is dressed up as a midyear economic review. That no doubt will be delivered on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week, and an economic document of that significance should be considered by the Australian parliament. So not just the Australian Senate should sit on the 28th, 29th and 30th, next week, as is scheduled, but the House of Representatives should also sit on those dates to provide the opportunity for the parliament to examine that economic update, to examine the nation's finances.

The other thing the government should do is get Treasury to re-examine the carbon tax legislation, to re-run their numbers. As we found out from President Obama's visit last week, the United States is not going to have a carbon tax any time soon and it is not going to have an emissions trading scheme any time soon. As we found out from the Canadian foreign minister when CHOGM was on, the Canadian government is never going to introduce a price on carbon. So Treasury's assumptions that by 2016 there will be a full-blooded global carbon trading system and that the United States will have put a price on carbon are completely wrong, which means that all of the revenue assumptions on which the carbon tax is based are wrong, the pricing assumptions for the carbon tax itself are wrong and the assumptions on which the proposed compensation package is based are wrong.

So we have a number of reasons that the parliament should be sitting next week: it should be sitting because it should be doing its job in examining legislation—it should be examining these 33 bills which the government proposes to ram through this place—but it should also be examining the midyear economic statement, the crisis minibudget, which the government will be handing down next week. We in the Senate should sit on the days scheduled and so should the Australian House of Representatives.

On this side of the chamber we have, I think, been genuinely surprised over the last few months. As I said, it was bad enough that the government lied to the Australian people about the carbon tax, but even we, with our deep and well-founded cynicism about the Australian Labor Party, did not think they would seek to deny this chamber its right, its privilege and its duty to properly examine legislation. On this side of the chamber we were genuinely surprised that the government denied us the opportunity to examine the carbon tax, that the government denied the Senate's own committees the opportunity to examine the carbon tax. We are pretty cynical, but I thought, and a number of my colleagues thought, that even the Australian Labor Party would not be so cynical, would not be so craven, would not show such contempt for this chamber. We were proved wrong. What we on this side of the chamber learnt was that, yes, our cynicism was well founded but it actually should have run deeper than it did. I can assure the Senate that our cynicism runs very deep indeed—but it does not run as deep as the sense of disappointment of the Australian people, who were denied the opportunity to have a say on the carbon tax at the last election. The Australian people are a wake-up to the fact that this parliament was forced to rush through guillotined legislation. I know those opposite think that the Australian public do not pay much attention to parliamentary affairs, that they do not pay much attention to chamber tactics. Sure, they do not follow closely each motion that goes through this place but they are well aware that the opportunity for scrutiny of the carbon tax legislation was denied and they will be well aware that the opportunity for debate on this list of 33 bills before us is also being denied.

The Australian Labor Party national conference is coming up. Whenever I see you, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, I think of the Australian Labor Party national conference. I know of your commitment to having full-blooded debate at the conference. I know of your commitment to having motions adequately scrutinised and to ensuring there is opportunity for discussion. How ironic it is that just as the Australian Labor Party is about to present themselves as a great democratic party willing to debate and thrash out the tough issues, they are doing the exact opposite in this place. They are seeking to deny the opportunity to debate 33 pieces of legislation. Everyone will tune into the Australian Labor Party's national conference and the debates and the punch-ups, with Mr Acting Deputy President leading the charge on a number of issues. That is just a bit of show, a bit of a bunfight for the benefit of voters. That is just so the Prime Minister can say, 'Look, I am actually a pretty conservative kind of person—look at all these lefties in my own party who are gunning for me; look how much I have got them offside'. That is all stage-managed, as are the fights with the Australian Greens that the Prime Minister is manufacturing now: 'Look, I have really upset the Australian Greens by proposing uranium exports to India—look how upset they are; I must be pretty conservative'. She is doing the same thing with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not doubt your sincerity, but you are playing the role exactly as she wants.

I am not interested in these confected debates between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens and between the Australian Labor Party and themselves. I am interested in the debates that take place in this chamber. The Australian Labor Party can talk all they want about reforming their internal rules, about bringing democratic processes to bear in their party organisation—they can talk about that till the cows come home. Maybe they will institute some reform. I do not know and I do not care. Even if they do, it means nothing if the Australian Labor Party are not prepared to support due process in this place. It means nothing if the Australian Labor Party are not prepared to support proper scrutiny. It means nothing if the Australian Labor Party are not prepared to allow legislation to be the subject of second reading debates. It means nothing if the Australian Labor Party are not prepared to allow committee stage consideration of legislation in this place. It means nothing if the Australian Labor Party will not allow third reading debates—which I have to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, we are starting to take a real shine to. It means nothing if the Australian Labor Party will not support motions to refer legislation as important as the carbon tax to the Senate's own committees. All that posturing, all those phoney debates in the ALP national conference, all those phoney arguments with the Australian Greens, mean nothing—they are merely a cover for the denial of proper process and proper accountability in this chamber.

Rest assured that we will be paying close attention to the Australian Labor Party national conference and whenever we are asked for comment on it—as we are from time to time—we will say, 'Do not worry about what is happening at the ALP national conference, look at the way the government conduct themselves in the Australian Senate; look at the way the Australian Labor Party deal with scrutiny in the Australian Senate.' Each one of these 33 bills before us, whether it is of great significance or whether it is relatively minor, deserves appropriate scrutiny, each one of them deserves appropriate debate and each one of them deserves senators being provided with the opportunity to pose questions to ministers. This motion seeks to deny that opportunity. It seeks to flagrantly disregard the role of the Australian Senate. We cannot support this motion, we will not support this motion and no senator in this place should support this motion. The government should think again and, if they do not, the Australian Greens should. Any senator who supports this motion stands condemned.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This proposal to guillotine bills is an outrageous motion. I have been here for 21 years—I was here in 1999—and never in that time have this many bills been guillotined in this fashion. The Manager of Government Business seems to think that legislation thought of by the Australian Labor Party or the Greens should automatically go through parliament. It is said to be noncontroversial because the Labor Party and the Greens think it is okay. If anyone else in this parliament wants to debate it, they are denied the opportunity by this outrageous and undemocratic approach of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. There are a number of bills here that are very important. One of them is in committee already. But, through what the Manager of Government Business has proposed today, we will not even get back to the committee stage of that bill to investigate, to look at, some of the issues that were to be raised there, which may well have helped the government to legislate in a better fashion. All of this legislation needs scrutiny. Even if it is agreed to by the other parties in the chamber, there are times when errors can be pointed out and when different suggestions can be made that would improve legislation that we all agree with.

Today, not only are we to deal with the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011; the Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011; the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011; the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011, which, I might say, should be very closely scrutinised; the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which should also be very closely scrutinised; the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011; and the Navigation Amendment Bill 2011 and Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, both of which require considerable scrutiny and were going to be dealt with in the Committee of the Whole, but in addition to that we are now going to have 1½ hours of debate on a ministerial statement on Afghanistan. I agree that this parliament should be discussing Afghanistan, but the hour and a half that is being taken out of the day means that there is that much less time for all of those other bills that will be guillotined through tonight.

This is unprecedented. The Manager of Government Business affects concern that these bills will not be allowed through, but does the minister think that, simply because the government proposes them, they are in order to be passed? This is a parliament. This used to be a democracy where legislation was to be scrutinised by the parliament. But the government says: 'No scrutiny is necessary. We have determined what is right. Don't you worry about wasting the time of the senators. Don't you worry about that. We've told you the bill's okay, so it should go through without any debate.'

Have a look through all of these bills. They are bills that affect the everyday life of ordinary Australians everywhere. They do require scrutiny. They should be debated. But in this chamber now—and the carbon tax legislation was perhaps the most outrageous example of this—the government simply does not like debate. It does not like scrutiny. That is a clear sign of a government in trouble. It is quite clear that Ms Gillard wants to get out of this place as quickly as possible before her detractors in the Labor Party can perform a coup, as she organised a year ago when she got rid of the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Ms Gillard just wants to get out of this place at the very earliest time.

As Senator Fifield has correctly pointed out and as the Manager of Government Business himself has correctly pointed out, all year the Senate has known that it was going to sit on the 28th, 29th and 30th of November. Why, now, are we not going to sit on those three days?

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

'Durban,' I hear called. What could there possibly be in Durban that would stop the Senate from sitting? Clearly, the Greens and the Labor Party want to walk the world stage and tell the world how great they are in getting a carbon tax through, even though they know and everybody else knows that nobody else in the world is going to be doing the same and even though they know that this carbon tax is a legislated piece of policy based on a lie, in that the Prime Minister promised solemnly just before the last election that it would never be introduced under her regime, under a government she led. But, instead of debating these pieces of legislation that are of particular importance to the people of Australia, we are going to effectively have to curtail the Senate so that we can allow some of our colleagues to go to Durban to swan around in the glare of the television cameras at a climate change convention that will again go nowhere and will be a waste of the time and money of the people attending.

Parliament should be sitting. Right back a year ago, this parliament decided that it would sit on these three days, so what has changed, with all of this legislation that needs to be properly addressed? Tomorrow we are going to be dealing with the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, a measure that requires a great deal of debate because it is something that, regrettably, affects many in our society. Are we going to have the opportunity of fully discussing that? No. It is going to be guillotined by the Greens and the Australian Labor Party, yet again. There is the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. There is the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011, which, again, is very, very important. Transport aviation security cannot be taken lightly. The legislation is heading in the right direction, but it needs scrutiny. It could be better. Just because the Labor Party and the Greens say that it is okay and does not need the debate of parliament, that does not mean that it is okay. These bills need to be looked at.

There is the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011. We all have constituents who have an interest in that bill. Again, the bill heads in the right direction—it is something the coalition has been advocating for some time—but it needs proper scrutiny because it affects many people. I would estimate that at least half the senators in this chamber would have been approached by constituents who have a very great interest in that bill. Are we going to get a chance to talk about the issues of our constituents? Are we going to get a chance to try to make that bill a little bit better? We are not going to, because, again, it is going to be guillotined by the Labor Party and the Greens. There is a bill on the protection of the sea and the prevention of pollution from ships. I know nobody else in this chamber is terribly interested in the marine environment, but the Liberal and National parties certainly are and we want to debate that bill. There are aspects of that bill that could perhaps be improved, but it is going to be dealt with tomorrow afternoon and voted on between 9 pm and 9.40 pm—there will be no debate on it. This government is acting like a totalitarian government of the past. Those governments did not have oppositions, they did not allow people to discuss legislation and they did not allow scrutiny of government—they just happened to be there. Totalitarian regimes got to power usually by force but often by democratic elections, which then allowed those totalitarian parties to suppress the opposition, disallow debate and become one-party states. That is what happens when governments say: 'Don't worry about this legislation—it doesn't need to be debated. Don't worry about any scrutiny. We, the government, have said this is okay, so you will just accept it and we will not allow you to talk about it.' That is how totalitarian regimes were encouraged and nurtured in the pages of history.

To go through these bills, on Wednesday there is the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011. There is also the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. The Labor Party and the Greens are always getting up and pretending they are interested in Indigenous matters, but there will not be any opportunity to talk about this legislation because the government and the Greens are guillotining it. We on this side have a real interest in Indigenous affairs. It makes me so proud to be a member of the Liberal Party that the very first Indigenous member of this parliament was a Liberal Party senator—an old mate of mine, Neville Bonner. And which party did he choose to go to? Was it the Greens? Was it the Labor Party? No, he chose the Liberal Party because he believed it was the party that best represented his hopes and aspirations for his people. I am delighted that the first Indigenous member of the lower house is another Liberal, Ken Wyatt, the honourable member for Hasluck. Again, he had the choice to join any political party, but which political party did he join? Was it the Greens, with all their pious words about Indigenous people? Was it the Labor Party, who do all the processes but take none of the action on Indigenous people? It is the Liberal Party that he joined.

There is a bill coming up which many of us in the Liberal and National parties would like to contribute to. We would like to put forward some—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down, and then you can!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why can't we sit on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday? Then we can all discuss these things, Senator. Where do you want to go? Are you going to Durban, or are you taking an early Christmas holiday?

Senator Polley interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

You just want three more days of procedural argument.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, Senator Ludwig wants an early Christmas holiday. He will not be silly enough to go to Durban. He will not want to be embarrassed over there—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, can I draw your attention to the matter before the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I have been talking for 13 minutes now about all the bills that have been guillotined. I get one interjection and you then draw me into line and forget about the interjectors. I have been talking about these bills, which are so important. On Thursday, in one day, we are going to go through the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. All of us have been approached by the firefighters about that, and we all agree with the general tenor of the legislation, but it is legislation that should be debated. Who knows? Perhaps the draftsman made a mistake that could be pointed out in the Committee of the Whole, but we are not going to get that opportunity.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011, the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011 and the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011 all need scrutiny. These are things that need to be fully debated, because quite frankly the Labor Party and the Greens do not have all wisdom. Totalitarian leaders of the past used to think that they had all wisdom; they did not need a parliament, they did not need opposition and they did not need to be able to discuss legislation. They just did it, and if anyone did not agree then poor fool them and good luck for their future safety. This is the first stage, when they deny parliament the opportunity to properly debate these bills.

I have been here a long time. I was here when the Independents and the Democrats were in this parliament. In 1999, as I think Senator Ludwig mentioned, the crossbenchers and the Labor Party had a majority in this place, and we would never guillotine things like this. I had my issues with the Democrats, but in those days the Democrats would never have allowed the sort of guillotining that the Greens are now allowing. The Greens used to make a virtue out of allowing people to debate legislation for as long as they wanted, whether they agreed with it or not. The Greens used to say, 'It's your right to debate it.' But what happens now? They want to go to Durban, and so they are happy enough to take an early Christmas holiday and cancel the last three days of the scheduled sitting. The Democrats would never have done that. As I say, I had my issues with the Australian Democrats, but at least they were true to their word on the issue of guillotining. The Greens clearly have a different agenda. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011 is enormously important and needs to be fully debated. But will it be fully debated? We will not even get a chance to open our mouths on that. I could go on. There is the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010—parliamentary scrutiny of human rights! What parliamentary scrutiny is there when people who represent 51 per cent of the Australian population are not even going to get a chance to talk on it? There are other bills as well.

I do not want to use my full time on this debate. I ask the government to act as if they are a democratic party and allow proper debate. There are three days set aside in the schedule that really should be used for this debate. I will leave it there and urge the government to rethink.

(Quorum formed)

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludwig's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:59]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.