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

I move:

That further time be allotted for the remaining stages of the bills listed in the motion agreed to earlier today, as follows:

Commencing from 3.30 pm until 5.00 pm.

I also move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion to close the debate as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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 relating to the motion.

Leave note granted.

In the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That the Senate suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from moving such a motion to enable me to amend this motion.

The reason I do that is because this motion has been amended from the 3.30 pm timeframe that put on it because, quite clearly, everybody in this place decided they wanted to go home tonight but then realised that they hadn't left themselves enough time to finish the dirty deal they did with those down the end of the chamber, so they needed more time to get their paperwork in order. We're not going to stand in the way of more scrutiny of this bill, which is the reason we supported the motion put forward by Senator Wong to extend the time. But why can't we extend that time now until 7.30 pm and at least give us some chance for some level of proper scrutiny of this particular bill? We already know, from all of the committees, that absolutely no scrutiny has been able to be done on this bill. So much subordinated legislation has had no scrutiny. At least give us the opportunity of another 2½ hours over and above what the chamber has already agreed to—or do we still all want to get on the plane to go home tonight?

This bill is not being determined by this chamber. Quite frankly, this bill has been determined in the Prime Minister's office. They come in here and completely and utterly disregard this chamber so that we can end up with a deal that's been done in the Prime Minister's office overnight. Who knows what's been promised to the people at the other end of the chamber in other words for this bill to pass. We are not going to stand in the way of scrutiny, but I tell you what: we're also not going to allow the government and the Greens to get away with the fact that they did a dirty deal in the middle of the night and they didn't cross their t's and dot their i's. We find ourselves in here, right now, having to have a motion moved for more time just so you can get your paperwork in order. I think the Australian public deserve better on a bill of such significance. You actually might have got your act into gear. Who knows what else is being mucked up in this bill? We won't know, because we're not allowed to scrutinise it.

So here we are on Thursday afternoon in the last sitting week of the year. We've had a dirty deal done in the middle of the night. They've messed up their paperwork. They've failed to attend to the detail. They haven't done their administration, so they come in here and give us a little more time. Well, don't come in here and pretend you're giving us more time for scrutiny. You're not. You're just fixing up a mistake of your own making. If you're really genuine about applying a level of scrutiny and giving us more time, give us until 7.30 pm. I would ask the Greens, at the other end of the chamber: if you really are genuine about this—I've heard Senator Hanson-Young talk very strongly about the importance of the bill—what's wrong with a little bit more scrutiny?

Maybe we could stay here until 7.30 tonight. No-one's catching a plane home anyway, so why don't we actually do our job that the people of Australia elected us to do: come in here, scrutinise legislation and make sure we get to ask the questions of the government, who have been secretive throughout the entire process of these bills? We've got legislation that is so big, you'd be lucky to high jump over it. Yet we've had no time for scrutiny. This government's track record on scrutiny is obviously something to behold. Never before has there been a government that has lacked scrutiny the same way that this government does. We will not have the Australian public believe that the government has come in here and allowed more time when, quite frankly, it is nothing more than fixing up their own mistake.

I would ask the government: if you really are genuine about this—no-one's going home tonight anyway—why don't we all accept our responsibility as elected members of the Australian parliament and allow some additional scrutiny? When I watched the interrogation of Minister Watt during committee before we came in for question time, Minister Watt was filibustering his own bill to stop us asking questions. If Minister Watt were prepared not only to answer the questions but to not sit there and lecture everybody with a filibuster, maybe we could get some more answers about some of the things that are in this bill, some answers about what's intended and some answers about what the consequences are of this bill instead of him hiding behind the fact that he completely disregards this place.

The deal was done in the Prime Minister's office. This chamber has not decided the outcome of this really important suite of legislation; the Prime Minister in his office has. And I think it is incumbent on this government to allow more scrutiny and to not just hide behind the fact that you made a great big mess and now you're trying to fix it.

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

I welcome this motion. Clearly, these are big changes that need scrutiny, and we're currently having amendments legislated as we speak and hurtle towards the guillotine. I have questions on offsets, how that system is going to work and why we're replicating a system that has failed in New South Wales and has been called out by the auditor there. I've got questions about the ruling powers and the proposed national interest pathway—'the NACC trap' as it's been described by a member in the other place. I have questions about net gain. I have questions about devolution of powers and questions about standards that we haven't seen yet, so I would welcome more scrutiny of these enormous changes.

I welcome some of the amendments that are currently being circulated, but, again, I would note for the Senate that, as crossbenchers, we haven't had the drafting resources to actually get our own amendments drafted. I had 22 amendments submitted on Friday. We've had six done. Then we had the drafters say: 'I'm sorry. We just don't have time.' They may not be supported, but I feel, as an elected representative of the ACT, that it's my duty to actually listen to experts, listen to Canberrans, get those amendments drafted in good faith, put them to the Senate and be able to make my case in a second reading speech, which I and 20 other senators haven't had the opportunity to do. I may disagree very strongly with some of the views in those second reading debate speeches, but isn't that how this chamber is meant to work? I welcome this additional time, and I would say to Senate colleagues let's actually spend an extra couple of hours looking at this. Let's go through the detail. Let's think about what we're doing. Let's vote on amendments with a clear idea of what they do, what they don't do and what unintended consequences they may actually have.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when we haven't seen the Senate committee process actually report. I would note that in the more than 100 submissions to the bill, looking through those and getting someone to actually analyse them, I don't think there was a single submission that said we should pass this legislation as is. Everyone, every stakeholder had a view. Yes, potentially extremely divergent views on what the legislation should look like, but they had a view.

I'm really concerned about the process today and no second reading debate speeches. It's a deal that was done so hastily that they then have to extend Committee of the Whole so they can move their own amendments. That kind of points out that we probably should have had a different approach from the start, and some more scrutiny.

I really welcome this. You can say that it's easy for a senator for the ACT to say, but I care deeply about this and Canberrans care very deeply about environmental laws. They want environmental laws that actually protect nature, that aren't just a thing where we say, 'We've done a great job,' and then, when we're looking back in 10 years time, we're saying: 'What the hell did we do? What did we do? We missed a golden opportunity to reform our broken environmental laws, and we just simply patched it up, put a few little patches on it and said, "She'll be right mate."' We can do better than that. We should do better than that as the Senate. Thank you. I hope that we do actually get a couple of extra hours from this amendment.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that will come before this parliament. It affects industry from a whole range of perspectives. The government didn't even allow the committee process to be completed—a process that this chamber decided on. There has been no proper scrutiny of the legislation by this chamber, which is this chamber's job. That process was scrapped by the grubby deal done overnight by Labor and the Greens.

And the fact that the embarrassment will continue out of the Labor Party's process is demonstrated already by the fact that they themselves have to extend time for the debate in the committee stage of this legislation. It is absolutely shameful that senators stand in this place to say that they haven't had the parliamentary resources to have their amendments for this legislation drafted. How shameful is that? And of course we know what sits behind that. The Greens don't have theirs ready either, which is why we're standing here debating additional time, and the government is put in the embarrassing situation of having to extend time for the committee stage of this legislation.

I have questions that I would have liked to ask during the committee stage before lunch with respect to the standards, particularly around the treatment of the forest industry, which I've worked very closely with over a period of time. But the minister's response to questions and submissions made as part of the debate here belled the cat on the whole show. Labor are about the politics and the deal. They're not about looking after the environment. They're not about looking after Australian communities. And they're not about looking after people in our communities that rely on an effective piece of environmental legislation. They're all about the politics. Every time a coalition senator stood up to make a contribution, the minister's response was all about the politics.

It's absolutely shameful that senators in this place would have to get up as part of this extension debate to say that they are being told by officials of the Senate that they can't get their amendments drafted. How is that a proper process? How does the government and how do the Greens see that as a proper and reasonable process to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament will pass—that senators cannot get their amendments drafted? That is a failure of this place, and it's a failure of the way the government is running this place. They should be ashamed. They're not. They think it's a joke. It shows how much they respect this chamber and it shows how much they respect the Australian people. They don't. It is all about the politics and it's all about the deal, and they should all be ashamed.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is a very important piece of legislation. It deserves the proper scrutiny that this parliament gave it through the committee process which was to report at the end of March next year. What we are finding, and what industry and those who are going to have to work with the legislation are finding, is the more we look into it, the more problems we find. This government is going to go through further embarrassment next year when they have to come back with an EPBC Act reform bill, because they're going to have to fix up the mistakes that, to their shame and embarrassment, aren't being dealt with right now. They'll see it as a joke. They'll blame somebody else. But it's their bill; it's their dirty, grubby deal; and they should all be ashamed. They should give this chamber enough time to debate it properly. (Time expired)

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

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