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

I seek leave to move a motion regarding the order of call during question time.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the order of business for the call for question time.

Well, once again, we have seen those opposite decide that they're going to come into this chamber and have a childish response to a legitimate motion of the Senate. It's incredibly disappointing. You come in here and you make it sound as though there has never before been any attempt in this chamber to hold a government to account.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston has moved a suspension, and she will be heard in silence. If you can't be silent, I invite you to leave the chamber.

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

As I was saying, those opposite seem to want to rewrite history here and say that something like this has never occurred before, where a government has been held to account. I'd like to repeat something I put into Hansard last week, when Senator Wong was overseas and not here. I think it is entirely relevant that we read back to Hansard the commentary of Senator Wong in relation to a motion that the opposition at the time, now the government, sought to move at a time they were accusing Senator Cormann of not being transparent when he was not releasing a document. Let's be clear here. The precedent for this particular issue has been set already by those opposite. To remind those opposite, in case you've forgotten from last week, this is what Senator Wong had to say back on 12 February 2020:

It is entirely explicable why the government have such an attitude, though. Frankly, they're arrogant. They've been on a victory lap. They think they own the joint. They think that the last election was the last word on accountability. They think they're unbeatable and that, no matter how badly they govern or abuse their office, they can get away with it. That's what they think, and it is reflected in their behaviour.

I would remind government ministers that unchecked power never ends well.

They were the words of Senator Wong in relation to when a much more aggressive punitive action was threated against Senator Cormann.

Quite simply, the easiest way for this impasse to be dealt with is for the government to comply with the order. The minister responsible for this particular document hasn't provided it to the chamber, despite the majority of this chamber saying that she needed to provide this document, a document that she promised to release 2½ years ago and has still not produced to date. It's actually a very sad indictment on the transparency of this government.

But the most egregious thing that has happened in this chamber is that the will of this chamber has continually been denied by those opposite. You are behaving like the most arrogant government. You do not believe you need to comply with the orders of this place. This chamber is sovereign. The orders of this chamber, the will of this chamber, should be adhered to. There were a number of people in this chamber, the overwhelming number of people in this chamber—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, I have been listening carefully. I remind you that you are speaking on a suspension motion and you need to demonstrate to the chamber why it's urgent that you need to put aside procedures of the Senate to move the suspension.

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

The reason this suspension is particularly urgent is that there could be nothing more urgent in this place than a government that is abusing its power. Quite frankly, that is nothing more and nothing less than what is happening here. You are a government that came to power promising transparency and accountability, and all you have done is be completely non-transparent and unaccountable, and, in the process of doing that, you are abusing your power.

To make things even worse, when the will of the chamber was expressed not in your favour, what did we hear last week? We heard that the Leader of the House, Mr Burke, threatened retribution.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, you are drifting. The issue before the Senate right now is the suspension motion that you moved. The suspension is saying to the chamber that this matter is so urgent that the rest of the business of the Senate must be put aside for this debate to continue. That's what you need to address.

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

Thank you very much, President, for your ruling. As I said, the reason I believe this suspension is urgent enough to be called at this particular time of the day is that we have a government that is abusing its power. I do not understand how anybody in this chamber could think that the abuse of power by a government was not probably the most serious or egregious thing that could occur in the Parliament of Australia.

What we've got here is an ongoing demonstration of the refusal to provide information that is important to the Australian public. We saw last week that the government had refused to provide information about, for example, the incoming government brief about energy policy—the incoming government brief that said your energy policy is failing, emissions are not going down and energy bills are going up. Nothing could be more important to Australians than their ability to pay their bills—nothing could be more important to Australian businesses and the 1,000 people at Tomago who are concerned about their jobs.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a fairly expansive contribution to the Senate, and I want to make a few points in response.

No, it will be precise and to the point. The first is that the senator seems to be very keen to quote me, which maybe I'll take as a compliment. But I would make the point that I have served in this chamber opposite Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, George Brandis and Mathias Cormann, who I had the pleasure of catching up with last week.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Birmo?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, of course, Birmo most recently, on the other side! But I will say, as Leader of the Opposition, what we all understood in our roles was what we wanted to have as something that parties of government resolve and when we would play the crossbench in. And of course, at time, people do play the crossbench in, but it wasn't really until last week that I've ever observed a party of government essentially inviting a member of the crossbench to become the Leader of the Opposition! And I thought, really, Senator Pocock should just be invited to the Liberal party room and be elected to your job, because he is doing your job. That is what you're doing. That's the first point I'd say. I've never seen that in over 20 years.

The second point I would make is this: this is not urgent. This is a stunt.

No. Excuse me. I actually listened to you.

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

I'm listening to you.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Courtesy! This is a stunt. And I'm interested to see if the senator actually returns to the last question, which she fought so much about.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

David Smith is going to lose his seat.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath! Senator Ruston, I ensured there was silence in the chamber, and I expect that same respect—

Order! You're not in a debate with me, Senator McGrath! I expect Senator Wong to be heard in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think we all understand this is a stunt. And if the approach we want to take is a conversation across the chamber about the order of the call, that's how we will approach it. But those opposite, particularly this acting Leader of the Opposition, has not taken that approach. If the Senate wants to return to what has been the approach—certainly in all the time I've been here, with many different leaders—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You sacked our staff.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, would you mind? I'm tired of you interjecting on me. It's just rude.

Senator! Excuse me! If senators want to return to a conversation across the chamber about how the order of the call is managed—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Release the document.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you done?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, I've called you to order about three times. If you can't sit in silence, leave the chamber.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If senators want to return to that sort of approach, we're up for that. We are up for that. I've always sought in this role, and Minister Gallagher has always sought in her role, to have that sort of conversation across the chamber. That isn't the approach that the acting Leader of the Opposition, in her wisdom, has taken. I would recommend to your party room to consider whether or not it's in the long-term interests of a supposed party of government—

Well, her leader isn't.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr! Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the matter of urgency to suspend, the Greens will not be supporting this suspension. However, it is quite clear that question time has become an absolute farce, that the respect across the chamber is at an all-time low and that we obviously need to do something about putting a bit more order in place. I'll take up one point that Senator Wong raised. And, I must say, I felt—with all due respect, Senator Wong—I know you weren't here last week, but I'm not sure you're really listening and hearing what the rest of the chamber is saying. To stand here today and argue that, in the past, the two major parties have been able to decide and dictate when to 'play the crossbench in'—that's not exactly what any of us on this end of the chamber like to hear right now.

The two-party system is crumbling. Voters don't like it, that's why they voted at the last election, at record levels, against the two major parties.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, I've called you because I'm going to draw you back to the suspension matter.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here in the chamber, the government of the day does not have the numbers to control the chamber, and neither, of course, does the rabble over there in the coalition. The numbers on the crossbench continue to grow, and they are growing because the majority of Australians are looking, more and more, at options other than the two major parties. I would say to you—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, I'm really struggling to understand your arguments about the suspension motion. That is what you need to focus your remarks on.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My argument about the suspension, President, is that this chamber needs to put in place a system that reflects the reality in this chamber. It should not simply be dictated by one side of the major parties to the next. We will not be supporting this suspension. We want a proper process put in place to ensure that there is fairness across the chamber for those from the non-government side who are able to hold the government of the day to account.

When you continue to not release documents, when you tell the not—

Government senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, President, but if you can't even keep your government side quiet while I make my argument, what's the point?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat! I'm going to ask you to withdraw that comment.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, President, and I seek your protection from the rabble inside the chamber.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, have you finished or do you wish to continue?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I haven't. I have two minutes and 25 seconds left.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order across the chamber.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I urge both sides to talk to the rest of us in the chamber about what would be a good way forward, because it is clear that leaving it to mum and dad isn't working. Leaving it to the major parties isn't working. If we want to put in place a system that holds the government of the day to account, then the crossbench should have a larger number of questions every question time. The opposition should be able to ask questions when they want, and the government should answer. That is how question time is meant to work. It's not so that government members can continue to prop up each other; it is so that the government of the day is held to account. I'm not going to let Senator Wong sit here today and say that it's up to the Labor Party or the Liberal Party to dictate when the crossbench are played in.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Duniam for this motion. I won't be supporting it. I note that it looks like it doesn't necessarily reflect the current one to 10, but I would be willing to look at another motion. I think it may be a good reminder of why we're actually here, and that is because the Labor government, who made much in opposition about transparency, about jobs for mates, is sitting on a report that is more than two years old now. The Lynelle Briggs report into public sector—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I'm going to remind you there's a suspension order that was moved by Senator Ruston. You need to indicate to the chamber your views on why the matter is so urgent or not urgent that the business of the Senate ought to be put aside to continue the debate. This is what you need to focus on.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. This is critically urgent, because Australians have had a gutful of jobs for mates. They have a government that, in opposition, made much about it and that, when it came into government, said, 'It's so bad, we have to abolish the AAT.' And yet, when given a report on how to change that, they sit on it. In those two years there have been a number of former Labor politicians appointed to things who may or may not have been well qualified. They may have had both the experience and the credentials, but we don't know, because it's so opaque. Why won't they release this report that was—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, you are drifting. This is about the suspension.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're only in this situation—having to suspend question time after a record question time on Thursday—because the government has an addiction to secrecy and will not respond to Senate orders by simply releasing a document. It is not in line with community expectation. I applaud the Senate for putting our foot down and saying: 'You need to comply with Senate orders. This is not good enough.'

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the heart of the urgency motion before the chamber is the matter of transparency. Question time is all about transparency. It's about non-government senators asking ministers questions and answers being provided. I tell you, sadly, this government isn't in the habit of doing so. What this enabled, again, is for the world to see what this government is really like. The aerating of this motion in front of the media, in front of the gallery, again highlights the aversion to transparency this government has.

Senator Pocock mentioned, of course, that the catalyst for this, which precipitated the question time last week—the longest question time since federation, 3½ hours—when the government lost control of the chamber, was that this government refuses to release a document. That's the catalyst. That's why we're having this debate now in response, instead of releasing the document which brought us to where we are today. This is because the government—the all-powerful government that must be obeyed and will tell this chamber what to do, when they'll do it and who'll get what question at what time—again sought to alter the order of question time. So, of course, all of this comes back to this attitude, which is completely opposite to what the government promised this country they would have, around transparency. Even the answers to the questions that were asked by senators in this place last Thursday and today were not befitting of transparent ministers—one-word answers, 10 seconds here, 10 seconds there. The EPBC Act—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, you are now drifting off the matter of the suspension.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The suspension, of course, is about question time and altering the order of call. We believe it is urgent because this government, these ministers, refuse to be transparent. That is the thing. The minister over there, Senator Watt, says, 'We've answered the questions.' He's provided whatever he thinks is an answer, but it doesn't go to the issues that are being asked about here, because, as discussed, record numbers—this is all interrelated. It's all interrelated.

Transparency is not just something that occurs in one part of a government's business. We have orders for the production of documents that this government refused to respond to in any meaningful way. We have FOI requests on behalf of the people of Australia that this government refused to provide responses to in any meaningful way. We are here in question time—the one time of the day when we are able to ask ministers of the Crown, elected on behalf of the people of Australia to run the government. Of course, they seek to run their influence here as well, telling senators when they'll get a question and in what order. What is next from this government that refuses to stand by the promises they made? They won't do it. This is just another example of that.

So I would ask the Greens to reconsider their position—and Senator Pocock as well—because I think it is important this government is held to account. If we can't get this motion passed here today, we will come back with another motion to deal with this very issue, because, as I said last week, it is an urgent matter now. But we've had enough of a government completely rejecting the democratic rights of the people of Australia, as represented here by the majority of senators outside of the Australian Labor Party.

I look forward to working with a government that wants to actually be co-operative; I'm happy to do that. But a bit of transparency along the way never goes astray. It was what was promised—transparency. Part of that is question time. We have, as I've said before, a government that refuses to be transparent and wants to dictate to this Senate who'll get a question when and in what order. That doesn't sound like a government that is obeying the will of the Australian people and working cooperatively with all senators that don't happen to be in their party room. Of course, this Senate chamber is sovereign. It is not ruled by the government. There are conventions that that mob there, this government, will not stick by, whether it's on staffing, on question time, on transparency—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Duniam, please resume your seat. Order! Order across the chamber but particularly on my right. Senator Duniam.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, President. It has been a delight to again highlight the willingness of this government to hide from accountability and to do what it can do with its numbers from time to time. It's a real disappointment, especially when such promises were made before the last election and the one before that, which they so easily break.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this. I think others have spoken about the fact that this chamber largely works by cooperating across the chamber—not that a lot of people see it. No single party has the numbers, and no individual senator can deliver a particular outcome. So, from the minute we start to the minute we adjourn, there are a whole range of agreements that are reached, usually outside of the floor as we talk across all of the offices. That's the only way the Senate can truly function. We don't talk about it often, because it isn't demonstrated on the floor, but that's how the place works. Last week, that was fractured, and we are seeing the results of that now.

The Briggs report—I'm trying to keep within the motion, and the Briggs report is relevant because it triggered the fracture that played out on Thursday and is playing out again today. That report will be released, as I have said a number of times, but it won't be released until the cabinet has finished its consideration of it.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just want to read the report.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It won't be released until that time, because it is not fair to my cabinet colleagues to do that when they have the right to consider that report as it relates to their own portfolios. It is a piece of work that is restricted to boards and committees. That is the work that was done by Ms Briggs. But it is currently before cabinet. Under the conventions and under the operations of cabinet confidentiality—and this is recognised in Odgers'while those discussions and deliberations are underway, the government has a right to protect that information. That is all we are doing.

We will release that report; I've been clear about that. So I do not accept the criticism from Senator Pocock, who not once has asked for a briefing on boards or committees or anything to do with that report.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I draw you back to the suspension.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is linked. Convention was ripped up on the floor, led by a senator who hadn't sought any information about the work that I am currently doing. It has ramifications. We've been seeing that over the last couple of days. I wish it had been dealt with differently, but that was the choice of a senator who, working with others, passed this motion. We are trying to make that work, as we did on Thursday, when we all sat here and were prepared to sit here for as long as you had questions. We tried to stay till midnight. We kept question time going. We were the ones that were directing the show. And those opposite, in all these calls for transparency, left. The exodus out of those doors was something I haven't seen before.

So don't lecture this government about transparency. As Senator Wong said, we have answered more OPDs than any other government in the history of this parliament. OPDs are being misused by the Senate right now. They're being used as the first point of research, not the last. There are OPDs being used that have 1.8 million documents under their scope.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. At some point, could Senator Paterson cease the interjections. At some point in this five-minute contribution—

Even now.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, come to order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's just rude. We listened to your leader in silence.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a debate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Almost silence. We certainly did. How about we have almost silence? How about that? Whereas you do permanent interjections.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. It's not an open debate across the chamber. Minister, please continue. I'm going to draw you back to the suspension motion.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The scope of some of the OPDs include 1.8 million documents, and they have to be delivered to this chamber within eight days. I mean, come on. This chamber needs a serious discussion about how it's going to operate. It looks like those opposite are prepared to rip up any pathway to resolution on this, but I would urge everyone in this chamber—the government is up for it—to talk through how we will make this chamber work. In the history of this chamber for its proud 124 years, that is the way it has worked.

We do not support the suspension. We have the order of the call. I'm not sure if we're going to get to question 15. We are prepared to work across the parliament to resolve the order of the call going forward.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

Could I please ask that the division be cancelled.

Leave granted; question negatived.