|
senate vote 2017-09-13#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-10-10 17:12:22
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Suspend the usual rules
Description
<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today to provide for the consideration of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is not granted, Senator Brandis.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</p><p>Unless this motion were to be passed, it would not be possible for the Senate today to complete its consideration of some very important legislation—namely, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. It is highly desirable that the Senate completes its consideration of that legislation today. I will leave it to the Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield, in his contribution to this suspension debate to explain to the Senate the particular importance of dealing with this legislation in a timely fashion, and today. But I simply make the general point that it is now just before six o'clock on Wednesday. The parliament will sit for one more day, and then there will be four weeks before the Senate next sits on 16 October. We have a very full <i>Notice Paper</i>. We have a lot of other important legislation to consider. I think the Australian people would expect senators to actually do their job rather than go out to dinner. I know it is the custom on Wednesday evenings that the Senate adjourns early, so senators can go out to dinner and enjoy themselves around the various restaurants and bars of Canberra. But I think that the Australian people would be more impressed if they knew that we were working tonight when there is pressing and urgent business to be dealt with.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Labor will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders or, indeed, the motion that the government has put in this place at this late hour on a Wednesday evening. I just pick up the point that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has raised in his address, which is the urgent nature of these bills. I would like to remind senators that these bills have been before this parliament for some 18 months now. They have been listed for debate on no less than 10 occasions. There is absolutely no merit at all to the argument that these are urgent and have to be dealt with tonight or, indeed, this sitting week.</p><p>Nothing has changed since the time it was listed for debate in the House and in the Senate. Indeed, this week it was listed for debate on Monday, when the government has several hours to debate government legislation, and then it was pulled off two minutes into the dinner break. There was an rearrangement, and other bills were put in its place. Indeed there were, I think, four other non-urgent bills dealt with by the Senate when we could have been dealing with this and allowing for a reasonable debate during normal sitting hours of this place.</p><p>This government is incapable of managing its program. Time and time again we find ourselves in a second sitting week, once last-minute negotiations have been held, deals done and money put on the table, with no scrutiny of those deals, and we are informed that we will be sitting until midnight or 11.00 pm—and who knows what will happen tomorrow if the government gets its way.</p><p>This is the sixth time this year that the government has had a motion to vary the hours of the Senate, with little or no notice to other senators. It's no way to run the Senate and no way to run the government. This bill, as I said, was first introduced in March 2016, 18 months ago. It's been listed for debate on no fewer than 10 occasions in this chamber, and now the minister wants us to change sitting hours to sit late into the night because the government's finally ready to debate it and have a vote on it.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senator</p><p>An opposition senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Good point, in terms of the uncertainty for the people who work in this place, who are now being told at six o'clock at night that they will not be going home to their families until closer to midnight tonight. This shows disrespect for senators in this place. If we look at the role of the Nick Xenophon Team, in particular, hand in hand with the government, doing their deals, we have had: the building and construction legislation in February this year; the social services legislation and the childcare legislation in March; the business tax cuts in March; and the education bill in June—all followed the same path: deals, discussions behind closed doors and, at the last moment, scurrying in here and extending hours to finally debate the bill when the government is ready and on Nick Xenophon's terms. This is the sixth time that the Senate has been placed in this position, where a non-government party, the Nick Xenophon Team, and the government dictate how this Senate is to function for everybody else. It's not acceptable.</p><p>The government have lost control of their program. This bill has been sitting here for 18 months waiting to be debated. Indeed, on one occasion I remember we asked to debate this bill and the government refused to allow it to be dealt with. On Monday this week, it was on and off again. There was plenty of time this week to debate this bill in normal sitting hours and to deal with it in a reasonable fashion. But here we are, almost six o'clock at night, and the government are insisting that the rest of us stay here, including all of the staff in this place, without notice, so that the government can push through the deal that they've done with the Nick Xenophon Team. None of us have a say in that at all. We're just meant to suck it up. This is a pattern from this government. They can't manage their program. They rely on the Nick Xenophon Team to help them, and the rest of us are just pawns in the game. It's not a way to run the program.</p><p class="italic">Senator Brandis interjecting—</p><p>You're nodding at that, Senator Brandis. We are pawns in the game. That's how the Leader of the Government in the Senate sees this. Well, this is a lesson to all of us in this place. We shouldn't be treated like this by the government and we shouldn't be required to sit here— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Senator Brandis has sought to suspend standing orders so that he can move a motion that will provide the Senate with the opportunity to debate the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. It has been observed by those opposite that this bill has been around since shortly after the budget, in which we announced a comprehensive media reform package that has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA. It is not a common occurrence to have all of those organisations on the same page.</p><p>In observing that, can I acknowledge the leaders of Australia's media industry, who have been prepared and able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of the Australian media industry. The interest is that they, like those of us on this side of the chamber and a number of the crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. While we don't always agree with what those in the gallery will write, broadcast, post and blog, we nevertheless do recognise that what they do is an important underpinning for our democracy.</p><p>We think this is a very significant package. It is true that it could have been dealt with many months ago if the Australian Labor Party had supported it, but the Australian Labor Party didn't because they're not particularly concerned about the jobs of those who work in Australia's media industry. Let me mention again some of the organisations: Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo—</p> <p class="speaker">Kim Carr</p><p>News Limited.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>News Limited and Fairfax. When I mention Commercial Radio Australia, it's important to recognise that Commercial Radio Australia represents radio stations around the nation, in small towns, in large towns and in metropolitan areas. Free TV represents the major capital city broadcasters but also regional broadcasters. What this package is all about is helping to enhance their viability.</p><p>I want to acknowledge crossbench colleagues in this place who have been very willing to engage positively and constructively. I also should acknowledge that the Greens have been prepared to engage positively and constructively.</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>On my left! Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I think it's important to recognise colleagues in this place. Even where you may not have reached agreement with them, they nevertheless have been prepared to engage openly and positively. That really leaves the Australian Labor Party as outliers in this place who haven't been prepared to do that. The Australian Labor Party still believe in media bogey-men, and I suppose they believe in media bogey-women as well. They still have their particular predilection when it comes to proprietors. On this side of the chamber, we are proprietor-agnostic.</p><p>Our package is comprehensive. It's for the entire media industry. I have observed before, and let me do it again, that one of the most peculiar observations was that of the shadow minister for communications, Ms Roland, who said that the only reason that the Australian media industry is supporting this package is that there's something in it for all of them. Indeed, there is. That's the purpose and that's the point. We want to see good, strong, viable Australian media organisations and good, strong Australian media voices who can hold all of us to account and can do the important work that they do. It is important that we deal with this business. Senator Brandis is seeking to suspend standing orders to enable a motion to be moved to enable us to do just that.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I rise to say that the Australian Greens won't be supporting the government in bringing on this bill by extending hours. We don't agree that this is urgent. We have been participating in discussions in relation to this and looking at the bill very carefully. We all know that it's been sitting on the <i>Notice Paper</i> for a long time and we also know that there has been a case of the boy who cried wolf several times with the urgency of this. It was urgent in June and it was urgent in August; it's now apparently urgent in September. If it didn't happen today or next week, it would be urgent again in October. No, it's not. What is more urgent and more important is to make sure we get it right. I don't think that having a massive whack at our public broadcasters and the ABC is in any way something that should be fast-tracked or, indeed, done at a minute to midnight. That, Mr President, is what will happen if, of course, this hours motion goes ahead.</p><p>I have more to say on the bill, of course, when we get into debate. Suffice to say, the Greens don't buy the argument that this is urgent today.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.</p> -
- The majority voted in favour of [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-09-13.183.2):
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent [Senator Brandis](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/george_brandis) from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.*
- Standing orders are the usual procedural rules of parliament.
-
-
|