|
senate vote 2023-10-18#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-27 18:15:16
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of government business as circulated in the chamber.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as to prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of government business.</p><p>This motion concerns the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department and a piece of legislation that is before the chamber. The now Attorney-General, when he had the title shadow Attorney-General of Australia, stated, 'Labor is of course always concerned when legislation is rushed through the parliament without the usual process of scrutiny and debate'—it gets better, colleagues; it gets better—'which are the cornerstones for a healthy parliamentary democracy'. Well, I will stop quoting there and throw in my comment: a very unhealthy parliamentary democracy is going to be on display this afternoon when the government moves its own motion to gag debate, to put in place a guillotine on a piece of legislation that is possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. And why do I say that? Because family law touches each and every Australian. If you are not involved in the family law system yourself, you can almost guarantee that you will know someone, whether it is a family member or whether it is a close friend, who is going through the family law system. Major changes to a system of law that touches every single Australian are not going to be properly scrutinised in this place. Why? Because it was pretty obvious yesterday, in the short time in committee that we had, when we put the questions to the government that they were unable to answer them.</p><p>Now, what did Mr Dreyfus say in relation to legislation that is not properly scrutinised? He had a lot to say when he was in opposition. He has next to nothing to say now that he is in government. In fact, as someone said to me, 'Hypocrisy is thy name.' If you look up the word 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary it now states 'Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus'!</p><p>Mr Dreyfus said when you do not have proper scrutiny of legislation, 'Problems can be overlooked and mistakes can be made.' Well, guess what? There are plenty of problems in the legislation that is before the Australian Senate and, I can assure you, we are not going to have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Now, why is that a problem? This legislation, as I said, touches almost every Australian family. Thousands of Australian families will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation and, in some of those cases, will actually end up the Family Court system.</p><p>This Senate is not going to have the opportunity, as Mr Dreyfus always said when they were in opposition, to properly scrutinise this legislation. That is, quite frankly, an absolute disgrace. This is a bill that goes to the heart of our nation, the cohesion of the family unit, and that is why it needs scrutiny. That is why we need clarity about the changes that are being proposed.</p><p>However, why are Labor doing this? Well, in the first instance, this is an Attorney-General Dreyfus special. Mr Dreyfus, when in opposition, for goodness sake, gave speech after speech after speech—he loved to lecture; he loved to preach—about transparency. I only wish there was a journalist out there who would collate what Mr Dreyfus said in relation to transparency, responsibility and accountability and how he would be the person to give this to Australia when he got into government. But, when he dropped the title 'shadow' and became Attorney-General, 'hypocrisy' became Mr Dreyfus's name. He was a good preacher—he was the best preacher up there on the pulpit—but, when it comes to actually practising, putting in place, what he preached while in opposition, Mr Dreyfus is left seriously wanting.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>This is a stunt, and it's not a very well-thought-through or capable stunt. There is, of course, going to be an opportunity later in the day, through the hours motion that is on the<i> Notice Paper</i> in the proper way, for Senator Cash or one of her colleagues—in what would still be a stunt, but a better-thought-through stunt—to move an amendment. The government will be opposing this poorly-thought-through proposition. I move:</p><p class="italic">That the motion be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>The question is that the question be put.</p><p></p> -
- The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-10-18.16.1):
- > *That the motion be put.*
- Motions like these are known as gagging orders, as they end debate on a matter and instead require the Senate to vote on it straight away. Since a majority was not achieved, the debate will now continue.
-
-
|