|
representatives vote 2019-07-22#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-08-21 13:04:13
|
Title
Governor-General's Speech — Future Drought Fund Legislation- Motions - Future Drought Fund Legislation - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>by leave—I move:</p><p class="italic">That the House:</p>- The majority voted in favour of speeding things along by *putting* the [question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2019-07-22/6). This means that debate on the question will now end and it will be voted on immediately.
<p class="italic">(1) notes that:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Government first introduced the Future Drought Fund Bill and Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill into the House of Representatives in November last year;</p><p class="italic">(b) the Government failed to prioritise the bills, with the Future Drought Fund Bill being introduced but never debated in the Senate, and the Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill never passing the House;</p><p class="italic">(c) the Government introduced 26 bills into the House of Representatives last sitting week but these bills were not among them;</p><p class="italic">(d) today, the Government is seeking to both introduce and debate the amended bills on the one day;</p><p class="italic">(e) it is usual for bills to be introduced by the Government in one sitting week and not debated until the following sitting week to allow Members the opportunity to properly consider bills before voting on them; and</p><p class="italic">(f) the drought funding in these bills is not available to help farmers until 1 July 2020; and</p><p class="italic">(2) therefore, calls on the Government to adjourn debate on these bills immediately following the Minister's speech on the second reading to allow all Members the opportunity to properly consider these bills before debate resumes tomorrow.</p><p>What has been put on the <i>Notice Paper</i> today is really unusual. There are times when we rush legislation through. I remember John Howard coming in here and rushing legislation through on national security issues where an amendment had to be made so that arrests could take place later that week. It was urgent. We held emergency meetings, and it all went through straightaway and it was cooperative.</p><p>When the parliament last sat, the government had broken its promise to recall parliament before the end of the financial year and there was a priority to make sure that the stage 1 tax cuts were able to get into people's pockets. That week only had three days scheduled and one of them was to be dedicated to the memory of Bob Hawke. Therefore, the only way we could make sure that the bill could make it to the Senate was for there to be cooperation across the floor and to make sure that the debate could go through all stages on the first night. We did that for a very good reason. We had to get something through both houses that was to be backdated. There was a level of urgency and immediacy in the actions of the parliament.</p><p>Today, we are about to have legislation before us which starts taking effect on 1 July 2020. Whether it goes through this House today or tomorrow—and it's going to make it through the House; no-one doubts that, and I suspect it will make it through the Senate as well—</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>Why play the game?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>but there is a procedure here that the government—and I acknowledge the interjection from the minister because it actually says it all. He said, 'Why play the game?' I say to the House, this place is not meant to simply be a game. There is a process that happens with legislation that I have to say does matter. It does matter that members have the opportunity to read legislation which is being introduced in an amended form before they are asked to vote on it. Given that the vast majority of members of this House are members of political parties, it is reasonable that those party room meetings are allowed to take place not while the House is sitting but actually during the Tuesday morning period on the timetable of this House that is deliberately set aside so that the party room meetings can happen and we can then make collective decisions on legislation.</p><p>There is only one reason why the government have decided that they want this legislation to be rushed through tonight—it's because they have decided to play the game. There is no other reason.</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>There is.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>He's not the agriculture minister anymore; he's the minister for drought. He acknowledges that and says that there is a reason. Yes; the reason is politics. There's a giveaway. Every time the opening line of a government minister is, 'This will be a test for Labor,' and not, 'This will help farmers,' we know what you're on about. Every time the opening line from a minister of this government is, 'We're going to find out whose side Labor is on,' we know the objective has nothing to do with the people who are the subjects of the legislation. That of itself isn't necessarily an argument against the bill, but it is an argument against rushing the bill and it is an argument against demanding that members of this House vote on legislation without having had an opportunity to consider it.</p><p>We just had first speeches from members of parliament who are now in their second week of sittings. Saying that something was introduced in the last parliament doesn't give a whole lot of consolation to people who were not members of it—those on our side, on the crossbench and on the government benches as well. The public have a right to believe that members of parliament will at least have time to read what is in front of them. The public have a right to expect that the debate in this House will in some way be informed by the contents of the bill, not the report of the focus group. The public have a right to expect that the government will do more than, as the minister said, play the game—and that is what they're doing.</p><p>I want to remind every member of this House of the impact of this motion. People need to know that this is not a procedural motion in the sense of suspending the standing orders. Leave was given so the question is in fact in front of us. The motion I have moved does not suspend the standing orders. It is simply asking the government to adjourn the debate after the minister's speech and resume the debate tomorrow. There will be people who are concerned. Will this make a difference to the timing of any farmers receiving drought assistance? The answer is no. Will this make a difference to the timing of the Senate consideration of the bill? The answer is no. Will this make a difference to the proper order of the parliament and good process in this room? The answer is yes. The House would simply be resolving that that is what we are asking the government to do.</p><p>There is in nothing in this motion condemning the government and there is nothing in this motion that is in any way critical of the legislation, but just wait for the speeches from the other side as to why they are opposed to this motion. There will be nothing about process in it. There will be nothing there about proper consideration. They'll pretend that this means that Labor is somehow opposed to farmers receiving assistance, and that will be because they're still wanting to play the game.</p><p>There is a really simple principle at stake. Some people will say: 'Why don't you just roll over? Just put up with it and let the debate move on. Don't let the government attack you.' The reason is simple. We can't let the parliament degenerate to this, where pieces of legislation are brought in and immediately voted on even though there is no public policy reason for urgency beyond waiting till tomorrow. There is nothing in this motion that creates any difficulty for a single farmer. There is nothing in this motion that makes a tiny bit of difference to when the Senate will debate and consider this legislation. Certainly, they will say that it makes a difference as to whether the Senate will start on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. It certainly doesn't make any difference to when it will get to the Executive Council, which is the moment when it becomes law.</p><p>The only issue that is in front of us now is: are we going to allow the government to keep playing the game? Let's face it, this Prime Minister at the moment thinks that whenever he can put pressure on Labor, whenever he can play the game and whenever he can bash a political opponent about the head is a good day for him. I have to say that a day when you help farmers who are in trouble is a good day. A day when you deliver something to stop people having their wages stolen is a good day. A day when the parliament functions like an adult chamber is a good day.</p><p>I want the government members to note that we haven't come in here condemning them for what they have put on the <i>Notice Paper</i>. We are genuinely asking them to do on this legislation what we do on everything else. We are asking them to do this legislation in the way this parliament functioned last term, the term before that, the term before that and the term before that, all the way back to the time that it was recognised that most members of this House were members of parties. In that, I respect absolutely that there are different issues for Independents too in wanting to have time to consider the bill.</p><p>I ask members of the House, given that this motion will make no difference at all to the timing of drought assistance, to consider deeply whether or not we believe that it should become standard practice in this place for legislation to be rushed through without being read—because that's what's about to happen. We know that the bill that's going to be introduced is an amended bill. It is not the same bill that last went to the parliament. We know that it's amended. We also know that the last time they brought a bill in—the last time they did this—they never bothered to put it to the Senate for the vote.</p><p>We also know that, when the parliament last sat, they introduced 26 bills to the chamber that week. There were 26 bills, and this government said to the members of the House, 'We want you to go away during the break, consider these bills and come up with a position on them'. The different shadow ministers have been working through the bills that were introduced and making sure that we have finalised our position on each and every bill. We have been getting briefings from the departments to work through, clause by clause, the contents of the bills. We are always grateful to the assistants and the ministers who make sure that those briefings are available. That doesn't happen when you introduce a bill in this form and deny even a party room meeting where backbench members can ask the shadow minister who has been briefed about issues of concern that they have.</p><p>To the government, I say: think carefully about this one. From the government's perspective, they might think, 'Oh, wow. Here's a chance to put a bit of pressure on Labor and that will help us in a few newspapers tomorrow morning,' and they're probably right. But I remind the government: if the government decides that proper process in this House no longer matters, then don't come to the opposition asking us to assist with proper process. If it is the government's view that legislation that is not time sensitive between today and tomorrow afternoon is going to be rushed through, simply for the sport of preventing the Labor Party caucus from meeting and simply for the game of preventing members of this House from being properly informed, then don't think our response will only be with respect to one item of legislation and don't think our entire response is contained in the contents of the motion being moved right now.</p><p>If I haven't made it simple enough and if I haven't been blunt enough to the government members, let me put it in these terms: what has been put on the <i>Notice Paper</i> in the long term, in the medium term and in the short term is a really dumb idea. It is a tactic that I reckon will play well for the government in the media cycle for the next 24 hours on one particular issue. But government members should think of the number of times they come to the opposition seeking cooperation and the number of times leave is requested of the opposition for the proper workings of this parliament. They should bear in mind that the only thing that the opposition has requested in this resolution is that we continue the debate after the minister's second reading speech tomorrow. That's all we're asking for. Because it makes a fundamental difference to the processes of this House to the extent to which members of parliament are properly informed and the extent to which members of this House are responsibly voting. Because, first and foremost, beyond everything else, our constitutional responsibility in this place is as legislators. That's our job. We've got lots of other things we do as members of parliament, as advocates, as helping people with their problems but, constitutionally, first and foremost, our job is as legislators. And if this government wants to undermine that and thinks that there won't be a response, then government members are sorely mistaken.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Is the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business seconded?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|