|
senate vote 2017-12-04#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-10-10 14:27:59
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Amend motion
Description
<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-12-04.110.2) to a motion introduced by Queensland Senator [George Brandis](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/george_brandis) (Liberal), which means that original motion will remain unchanged.
- ### Original motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, and that it may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.*
- Standing orders are the usual procedural rules of parliament.
- ### Amendment text
- > *Omit "and determined without amendment or debate".*
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, and that it may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</p><p>The purpose of the motion, for the moving of which leave is sought, is self-explanatory. This is, as we all know, the last sitting week of the year. The government has a great deal of business to get through that has been notified—it's on the <i>Notice Paper</i><i></i>and the government seeks to vary the order of business so as to most efficiently dispose of that business and to move on to other legislation. If we look at today's red, we can see there are very urgent and important bills to be considered, including, for example, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, which is a bill upon which a lot of people in regional communities have a lot riding. There are other bills on the <i>Notice Paper</i> too that the government consider need to be deliberated upon and we seek urgent passage of this week.</p><p>We really had this debate last week. The point I made in the debate then is the same point I make now—that it is for the government to determine the government's legislative agenda. We acknowledge the fact that of course on occasions the Senate will have other views, and that general proposition does admit of exceptions. Nevertheless, given the busyness on the <i>Notice Paper</i> in this final sitting week, it is the desire of the government to reorder the priorities as set out in the Senate order of 30 November in this respect, which is why the government seeks support of the Senate for this motion.</p><p>I understand that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is that the opposition will not support this. I think that is regrettable, because it disrespects the convention that the government should have the principal say in the ordering of business. Nevertheless, we do respectfully ask those who sit on the crossbench to respect the orthodox conventional position that the government should, especially in the busy final week of the year, have the principal right to indicate the order of business for the Senate's consideration. I don't want to detain the Senate any longer, so I will leave it at that. We ask the crossbench for their favourable consideration of the government's wishes.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>What a complete farce. What the government are now doing, just so we are clear, is taking out of the order of business motion that thing they had a fight on last week to put in the order of business. Just so we are clear: this is taking out of the motion the bills on superannuation that in fact the opposition moved to take out last time but the government voted against and got the support of the crossbench. Do you know why they've changed it? It's because they've suddenly worked out that they may not have the numbers. It is not that the government are changing the program because they care about the Regional Investment Corporation; it's because they have suddenly worked out that they haven't got the numbers, so they don't want to bring it on for debate. Let's be clear what this is: chopping and changing the Senate program between Thursday and Monday—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>That's right. You should vote with us.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>At least he's honest. Senator Cormann says, 'Guilty as charged.' He's right. But on Thursday he demanded that Senators Griff and Patrick support him against Labor to take these out. We didn't want them debated. We don't support these bills. We're clear about that. Now the government are worried they haven't got the numbers so they're saying: 'We actually don't want to talk about these anymore. Can we please change the program because we don't want to talk about these anymore?' Can I be really clear: we won't be supporting this. I move as an amendment to the motion:</p><p class="italic">Omit "and determined without amendment or debate".</p><p>Can I be clear what I'm doing. The Labor Party want to vote on at least one of these bills. We think it is bad law. We think the legislation in relation to strengthening trustee arrangements, which I'm sure the crossbench have been lobbied about substantially—and I won't go through that again—should be read a second time, and we will be voting against it. We invite the crossbench to vote with us. If you don't want that bill to proceed, you should vote with us on my amendment, which will enable us to then move that that bill be now read a second time. That's what we want to do. We don't think the government should be able to keep holding a bill over here so they can keep pressuring all of you to make sure they get the votes before we return next year, or before the end of the week. That's what this is all about—they want to take the bill out of the program and keep working on you until the end of the week. If they get the numbers, they'll quickly bring it back on and get you to vote. If they defer it to next year, you'll keep being lobbied over the Christmas and summer break because these are important matters.</p><p>We on this side, unlike the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who again besmirched industry superannuation funds by suggesting in one of his answers today that they were something nefarious, don't think it's actually such a bad idea for working people to have access to capital. I know that's a radical idea: to actually allow working people and their representatives access to capital, access to superannuation savings and access to a decent retirement. What an incredibly socialist idea—isn't that extraordinary! On the other side we've got the government, who basically can't bear the fact that working people and their representatives have engagement in superannuation and some control of those investment funds. That's what they can't bear.</p><p>We are consistent. We will be opposing this legislation. We particularly want a vote on the strengthening trustee arrangements. If the Senate passes my amendment, that will ensure we bring that to a vote. On the other matters, we understand that, if the crossbench wish to defer them, that's a matter for them. But we don't believe we should have a situation where the government can chop and change its program on the basis it might have the numbers at a particular point.</p><p class="italic">Senator Brandis interjecting—</p><p>Well, this is a new level of—I was going to say 'incompetence', but that's a bit harsh—using the chamber as your plaything. On Thursday: 'Oh no, we have to have superannuation debated; we have to have it done; vote against Wong's amendment,' et cetera. On Monday: 'Oh dear, we might not have the numbers; let's filibuster; Senator McGrath, get out and read the same talking points as Senator McKenzie and everybody else'—a complete joke of a debate in the chamber. That's what happened. Now the government want to discharge the bills from the program. I say to One Nation; I say to the crossbench: if your position on this legislation is that it should be opposed, vote on it now. Don't allow this government to keep it hanging over your head. Vote on it now so you don't have to have the spectre of being lobbied about this for the rest of this week and over the summer break, because that's what will happen.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>On one point, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate does have the government cold. She's absolutely right that we want to vary the program and she's absolutely right that, at this point in time, the government does not have the numbers on these particular pieces of legislation. She's got us cold. We confess; we admit it—it's true. But 'twas ever thus: whether it be this government or its predecessors, governments schedule for debate pieces of legislation for times when the government thinks that there is a reasonable prospect of passage. That is what governments do. In fact, in this place, it's always been recognised that the government of the day should have the opportunity to determine the legislation that is debated in government business time. That is all we are seeking to do through the motion that Senator Brandis is seeking leave to move.</p><p>I need to respond to a couple of points that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate raised. Firstly, it is not the government's intention to bring this legislation back later this week. That is not the intention of the government. Indeed, if there is not a consensus around this legislation in the new year, the government will not be listing it again. That is the way this place operates. If there is a consensus, if it's clear that there is a majority of the chamber who supports a particular legislative proposition, then we put it forward for debate and for a vote. So let me be very clear: the government will not be seeking to list this legislation later this week. The reason is self-evident: we want there to be the opportunity for further discussions with groupings in this place. I am advised by the relevant minister, Ms O'Dwyer, that there are some groupings in this place who are open to further discussion. So we are providing the opportunity for that to occur.</p><p>Mr President, given it's getting towards the end of the year, you tend to start reflecting a bit and I'm getting a little bit nostalgic. I recall when Senator Ludwig was the Manager of Government Business. He would say to me, 'Mitch, look, we're the government of the day. Don't intervene in our right to list legislation, because whatever goes around, comes around. You do the right thing by us as an opposition and, when we go into opposition, we'll do the right thing by you.' I took Senator Ludwig at his word, and he's an honourable man, and I've got no doubt that, if he was still in this place, he would be urging that the government of the day should have the opportunity to determine the legislation which is debated. But it does seem that the cooperation that the then opposition rendered isn't being reciprocated. In fact, I well recall, at that time in opposition, some of my colleagues—and Senator Macdonald may well have been one of them—said to me, 'Mitch, they say that now but, when they're in opposition, they're not going to honour that. They're not going to practise what they preach.' And Senator Macdonald may have had a point.</p><p>So, I would encourage colleagues to support Senator Brandis in his endeavour to suspend standing orders so that he can move a motion to do that which should be a fairly straightforward matter for any government to do and which, you would hope, would be supported by the chamber—that is, to enable the government to list and determine the legislation that is debated in government business time and the order in which it's dealt with. We think that's just good and sensible practice, and it will provide the opportunity for further discussion about this legislation. As I said earlier, the government won't be relisting this legislation for any time later this week. We'll have discussions and then we'll see what the new year holds.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|