Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer to the Senate's constitutional role as a house of review and, to use the minister's own words, as a chamber of accountability and scrutiny. I also refer to numerous statements by Senator Milne and other Greens senators about the importance of the Senate in diligently reviewing legislation and by the Prime Minister herself when she promised a new era of accountability and to 'let the sun shine in'. Will the minister confirm that the government and the Greens propose to guillotine an unprecedented 55 bills through the Senate this week? Will he also confirm that this will bring the total number of bills that the government and the Greens have guillotined through the Senate in the last three years to 216, compared with 32 in three years in which the coalition held a majority in the Senate? How does the minister defend this scandalous abuse of process?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by not having a short memory. I sat on that side of the chamber during the debate on the privatisation of Telstra. Notwithstanding the promises Senator Joyce made to the Queensland public when he promised he would vote against it and voted for it in the end, what we saw, even during the committee stage, was that your minister was so inept and feeble that you actually orchestrated your own Dorothy Dix speakers to take up time during the guillotine of the committee stage of the privatisation of Telstra. Absolutely disgraceful: you were so afraid of scrutiny that your minister was unable to answer the questions in this chamber that you organised people using a guillotine in that bill.

Then we had WorkChoices, the most vicious anti-family working bill that you have ever seen put before the Australian public—rammed through, I am reminded by good Senator Collins, both houses in one day. You are shameless to stand here and pretend you have anything other than contempt for this chamber. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister assure the Senate that Labor has done no deals with its Greens alliance partners to get their support for this unprecedented use of the guillotine? If the government has done deals or made arrangements or come to understandings, what are those deals, arrangements or understandings?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A majority, as was just demonstrated in this chamber, agreed to bring forward and ensure, with a time management motion, that we passed the legislation. There are some in this chamber who are interested in passing the budget. There are some who are interested in passing the education reforms that this country so desperately needs. We know that those opposite have no interest in it. I sat and listened during the morning to filibustering from Senator Fifield, filibustering from other members—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The minister was asked, as the first supplementary, a specific question: was the Greens' support for the guillotine motion secured by a deal, and if so, what were the terms of the deal? The political rhetoric in which Senator Conroy is now engaged has no bearing whatsoever on the question he was asked.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Conroy is being directly relevant to the question. The opposition here talks about deals. Well, the deal is to progress legislation.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has 20 seconds remaining.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite have no genuine interest in progressing this legislation, but a majority in this chamber do. A majority in this chamber want to see Australian children get the best possible education with the best possible support in the classrooms. There is a majority in this— (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note no denial of a deal with the Greens. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that Labor and the Greens have controlled the numbers in the Senate for the last three years and also controlled the preparation and scheduling of legislation, does the Leader of the Government in the Senate accept any responsibility at all for allowing the situation to arise where 55 important bills are to be guillotined through the Senate in just 57½ hours of sittings? That is almost twice as many in one week as the coalition had in three years.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take, and the government takes, no responsibility for the endless filibustering both in this chamber and the other place, where those opposite in both chambers have set out to frustrate the government's legislation on many, many occasions. There have been situations where the backlog of bills has been caused by the other chamber due to the fact that those opposite have opposed just about everything but the budget itself. Just about everything but the budget itself they have opposed all the way. They are not interested. They are not interested in better schooling for our children. They are not interested in a national broadband network. They are not interested in a disability care scheme. They are not interested— (Time expired)

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! On my right!