Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer to the fact that, under the government's guillotine motion, the Senate has been given approximately 15 minutes to debate the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 on Thursday. Given that this is a contentious issue of policy that needs to be properly debated, why is the government using the guillotine as a political tool to avoid scrutiny, negating the principles of accountability and openness?

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

As I answered a few moments ago, the opposition are crying crocodile tears when it comes to complaining about the length of time available to debate this bill. If they had not filibustered, if they had not wasted two full days on the EPBC amendment, if they had not spent all their time deliberately gumming up the works of this chamber, we would not be in this position. But those opposite, who are the rank hypocrites for what they did with Work Choices and for what they did with the Telstra bill, now want to pretend to you—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill. It was about nothing else. It asked why the government was guillotining that particular bill. References to Telstra, references to the EPBC and references to other legislation earlier in this parliament or in earlier parliaments cannot be relevant to that question.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: the question was about one aspect of the government's time management program and Senator Conroy is explaining the form and the behaviour of this opposition and why it has been necessary to take such measures.

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

Order! I believe the minister is answering the question. There is no point of order. I am listening to the minister's answer. The minister has one minute and 17 seconds remaining.

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

That those opposite are, again, time-wasting with these points of order—to grandstand and just repeat endlessly the same mantra—goes to the heart of why it is necessary. Those opposite have no interest in debating these issues. They have an interest in pursuing Mr Abbott's no-policy agenda. They want to oppose, oppose, oppose. They simply want to use this chamber as part of their political strategy. They will be exposed on that side of the chamber for having no interest whatsoever in substantive policy debate, because those opposite would not be able to make a positive contribution to these debates. They simply would stand up and say, 'No.' And then they would waste the rest of their time trying to justify their opposition for opposition's sake and trying to support Mr Abbott. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the government's deliberate failure to conduct a regulatory impact statement in relation to the labour-market-testing aspects of this bill, is it not true that the extraordinary haste with which this bill has been rammed through the parliament is confirmation of the total control that the union movement has over the Green-Labor government?

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

I thank the senator for that expansive question about the motivations of some legislation before the chamber.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I am, as I have said many times and will continue to say in this chamber, a proud member of the Transport Workers' Union—as proud as Senator Brandis is for being in probably the toughest union in the white-collar industry: the lawyers' union. Those opposite have no interest in his legislation other than to reveal what every Australian should know. They hate trade unions, they hate working families and they intend to pursue an agenda that will undermine the living standards and undermine the conditions of all Australian workers. You hate trade unions, you hate— (Time expired)

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

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

Order! When there is silence we will proceed.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is it not true that guillotining of debate on this important piece of legislation demonstrates that Minister O'Connor and the Labor government have an arrogant contempt for the Australian people and the Australian parliament, a trait that has become the hallmark of this government?

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

I am not sure if that actually qualifies as a question or a rant, Mr President. Those opposite have put together a political rant and pretend it is a question. I reject absolutely every aspect—not the premise; every aspect—of that question.