Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, from your bird's-eye seat, watching how this place has operated over a number of years, you would be absolutely aware that this opposition has said from day one that we are open to having proposals put by the government of the day—which is responsible for the sitting pattern—and open to having responsible suggestions put to us where there is a case of urgency around legislation which needs to be considered for any extra hours. This is the way that we want to facilitate how things operate effectively in the Senate. Already this morning we have had a discussion and process around extending hours today. But, again, there was no urgency.

We had a proposal from the government about extra sitting days in the week of the ceremonial activities with a whole list of legislation attached. I cannot quite remember, but I think there were at least 20 bills attached. There was so sense of urgency and no sense of priority, but there was an expectation that this Senate would respond to the whims of the government because they feel as though it would be an appropriate time to sit. Therefore, our job on this side of the chamber was simply to say yes, it was fine, even though we have said consistently that we have a principled approach to how we respond to requests and that was around having time to consider and look at the real issues of urgency. The responsibility for setting the pattern and for having an understanding and expectation of what the requirements of this place will be to consider legislation is with the government. When they put forward a calendar with what they believe will be the expected dates of sitting, we would then think that they have taken into account what the legislation will be. However, we know that, in the particular make-up of this Senate, we can find out, often, by reading the media of the day, what the real issues are, as to when the expectation is that legislation will pass, so that that will be the determining factor of how these processes are done.

So we put on record again: we do value the role of the Senate in appropriate consideration of any legislation that comes before us. We accept that there should be the most effective processes put in place. As to the process for the sitting week that has been put forward, some senators will be here, though not all, and what we have in place for us now are ceremonial expectations. There are other issues going on; we have to look at the balance of need for senators to do other jobs. We now have this process where we will be told by the government that they need these three days—and we are not quite sure what for, except that there are a lot of bills that have to be considered.

That comes back to the management of this place by the government. If there are so many bills, there possibly should have been other considerations earlier about how we do that. So we are waiting to hear what the urgency is for this particular request. And, should the government be putting forward these requests, I would think that they should be put forward in the appropriate part of our agenda, which is under general business—under government business. Putting forward these executive motions under discovery of formal business limits the ability for this discussion to occur. Under discovery of formal business, there cannot be a discussion, a debate, around the process—it is a very set program—and we would have to suspend standing orders to have any debate around it.

So we would request that, just in the way that the Senate operates, we would have an understanding that this kind of change of program and change of expectation as to sittings would come under government business so that we would be able to handle it in that way. Otherwise, it just seems that an expectation is put on the Senate that it is going to happen, and there is limited opportunity to put forward other issues and to work out exactly why we should do it.

I would also like to remind the Senate that we did not, in government, ever put forward hours of business motions in this way. We understood that it was actually for government business. I would remind the Manager of Government Business: if you checked the record, you would see that this opposition has been most cooperative. We have given up chunks of our time—I think that is the technical term, Mr Deputy President, in terms of the processes that we have given up—to ensure that the Senate could operate effectively, and that, when there is an urgency that can be shared, where we can understand what is going on, we are prepared to negotiate. So I say again, as to Senator Fifield's position: we have been cooperative; we need processes followed. (Time expired)