Senate debates

Thursday, 30 October 2014

Business

Suspension of Standing Orders

12:29 pm

Photo of Mitch FifieldMitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consider of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to government business notice of motion No. 1.

I guess I should not be surprised that the opposition have sought to deny the opportunity for this motion to be moved as a formal motion. Sadly, it is another attempt by the opposition to thwart the ability of the government of the day to prosecute and deal with legislation on its agenda. While it does not surprise me that the opposition are not being helpful, I must say it does surprise me that, on this particular occasion with this particular motion, the opposition are not prepared to consider it.

I think it is important, Mr Deputy President, to take you through what this motion is seeking to do. You would be aware, because you are one of the presiding officers of this place, that on Monday, 17 November, the President of the People's Republic of China will be addressing the House of Representatives. That will be an address to which the House will invite senators. On Tuesday, 18 November, the Prime Minister of the Republic of India will be addressing the House of Representatives. Again, the House will invite senators to attend.

So senators will be here on that Monday and on that Tuesday, and it is the strong view of the government that, given we will be here as senators for that ceremonial occasion, we should actually do some work. We should actually do the people's business. We should actually ensure that taxpayers, who will be paying for each of us to come to Canberra to hear those addresses, get value for their taxpayer dollars. That is why we are putting forward that the Senate sit on Monday and on Tuesday. Since we are here on Monday and Tuesday, why don't we go crazy and sit on the Wednesday as well?

There is also the issue of the day of Senate estimates which was postponed as a mark of respect for former Prime Minister Whitlam. We all agree that estimates is an important accountability mechanism. I would have thought that all senators would agree that that schedule of estimates hearings should be adhered to and that we should find another opportunity to transact that business. Given that we will be here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for regular Senate sitting days, we are proposing that we also be here on Thursday 20 November to transact the business of Senate estimates committees.

It makes sense that since we will be here Monday and Tuesday for those ceremonial occasions that we make it a full week of Senate business. Obviously, the proposition in this motion is that the business of the Senate suspend on the Monday to enable us to join our House colleagues for the important addresses which will take place in that chamber. But I would have thought that this is one of the most eminently sensible propositions that could be put forward in relation to an additional sitting week. I know I do not have to point this out to you, Mr Deputy President. You see a play here ball by ball and see that there isn't the cooperation from those opposite to facilitate the orderly transaction of the Senate business.

I have said before that when we were in opposition I think we were models of cooperation. Of course, there are incredibly contentious bills, and we all agree that debate is robust and it takes time. But there were many other pieces of less contentious legislation whose passage we readily facilitated, and I know Senator Moore, on occasion, does do that. But I suspect that her colleagues in the other place send instructions from time to time that this place not be perhaps as cooperative as some on the other side may like. I am giving those colleagues on the other side the benefit of the doubt.

I think it is a very reasonable proposition that the Senate sit in that week commencing 17 November to transact business, to debate legislation and also to have the make-up day of Senate estimates hearings. I am hopeful that there will be a majority of colleagues who think that is a reasonable proposition.

12:34 pm

Photo of Claire MooreClaire 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)

12:40 pm

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It seems like the Labor Party is using the old work-to-rule arrangement again. This has been talked about for some time. We are all familiar with the fact that the Senate will be coming back for heads-of-state addresses. While we are here, I think the Australian public would want us to transact some business rather than just come down for a formal function. So I think that the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business should be adopted. And, Mr Deputy President, I move that the motion be now put.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

No, I am sorry—you cannot move that, having just spoken, Senator Macdonald. I call Senator Cameron.

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President—

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Cameron—just a moment. Senator Macdonald, on a point of order?

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

What prevents me from moving the motion?

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

Standing order 199.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Which says?

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

Now you are really testing me, but my advice is that it is standing order 199. Standing order 199 effectively says: a senator cannot move the closure of the debate if they have spoken in the debate, unless they are a minister.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr Deputy President: that is the motion I moved. I had some preamble to moving the motion, but—

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

No.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I did not hear anything about a minister in the ruling.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

No, Senator Macdonald: you sought the call on the question that was already before the chair—

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

You did not move another motion until after you had spoken to the question that was already before the chair. So standing order 199 prevents you from moving closure at this time.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

So you are saying, Mr Deputy President, that if I had stood up and said nothing else but 'I move the motion be put' that would have been in order, but because I prefaced the motion—

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

You spoke to the motion—

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

with some remarks—

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

No, no—you did not preface the motion; you spoke to the motion that was already before the chair. I am not going to debate this with you—

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am not asking you to debate it.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

across the chamber. I have ruled that you cannot move it.

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Can I indicate that I disagree with your ruling.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

You can disagree with my ruling; if you want to dissent from my ruling, that is another matter. Senator Cameron.

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this notice of motion. Senator Fifield talks about the proposition being 'eminently sensible'. I just find the words 'eminently sensible' and 'the Liberal Party' not to be compatible at all. This is a government that almost for nine months did absolutely nothing. They got into office, and they had all the three-word slogans, and it took them nine months to try and convert those three-word slogans into a parliamentary proposal that would deal with a legislative process of this place. And we warned the coalition. We warned them, when they were putting together the time frame for parliamentary sittings for this session, that they had got it wrong—that there probably would not be enough time. But we were ignored. And this so-called eminently sensible government, that has demonstrated nothing but chaos in this place from the first sitting to this sitting, cannot stand up here and lecture us about any of these issues about trying to get legislation through this place.

As Senator Moore has said, we are prepared to accept any responsible suggestions. But we need to deal with those responsible suggestions on the basis that there is some urgency to the issues before us. No argument has been put up about the urgency. No argument has been put up about why this is eminently sensible, other than assertions. Assertions do not make good arguments. Simply asserting urgency and simply asserting that it is eminently sensible is not good enough, Senator Fifield. It is not good enough when you have nine months of inactivity behind you. (Time expired)

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

I would remind senators to direct their remarks to the chair.

Photo of Doug CameronDoug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I apologise.

Debate interrupted.