Senator LUDWIG (4:10 PM) —I wish to note what this motion does. It seeks to extend the hours for tonight, with the adjournment to be proposed at 11 pm. It will also add for this Thursday and next Tuesday and Thursday additional hours, with the adjournment to be proposed at 11 pm. It will also add two Friday sittings—this Friday and next Friday—to the list. The government sought these additional hours to deal with the program—in other words, the bills that remain to be dealt with, as far as the government is concerned, before the winter recess. The government did give us some notice about these additional hours. However, it draws to attention whether the government is in fact ensuring that bills receive proper scrutiny, that bills can be referred to committees so committees can do their work, that the Senate can introduce those committee reports and have them spoken to and dealt with appropriately and properly and that speeches on the second reading can take those reports into consideration in the usual way that this place has proceeded in the past. We know that the government has the numbers in this place and the government can exercise its will by ensuring that this is the process that we will follow. It is really a case of either taking this motion by leave or having the argument which, in any event, the government would win.

Effectively, this motion means that we will expand the program in the last two weeks before the recess to deal with something in the order of 28 sets of bills, within which are a range of complex matters. The opposition has said that it will facilitate the passage of those bills that relate to budget measures. There is no argument about that. However, there are a number of other bills that the government has sought to put on the agenda. They are weighty bills and have weighty issues contained within them. They deserve significant consideration by this Senate. This proposed program tries to cram all that into the last two weeks. It is disappointing to see that the government has again adopted the program of trying to expand the hours to fit the bills in. In truth, what the government has missed is this: ensuring that those bills that have been brought forward over the last six months have been dealt with appropriately and referred to committees and received proper scrutiny. That is what this government has failed to manage in this place.

It is disappointing to see the government, once again, bring before us another expansion of the program to fit the hours in. Of course, it is one matter to say, ‘We are trying to avoid a third week’—as the government has indicated—‘Therefore, we will expand the hours to do that.’ However, it misses the point that this seems to be a regular occurrence. It has happened not once this term; it has happened twice. You may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that before the five-week break it was partly due, so I was told by the government, to the Commonwealth Games. We had roughly the same process where we expanded the program by a number of hours to fit in a range of bills that were required to be dealt with.

I am concerned that this is a process that the government will seek to adopt time and time again to deal with bills at the end of sessions. It may mean that it leaves bills that it wants to ensure do not receive adequate scrutiny from the opposition’s perspective to that last lot at the end of the session, so that it gets wrapped up and punted through. What should happen is that this government should take it on notice from the opposition that it needs to address the issue in a more sensible and pragmatic way to ensure that bills are dealt with in an orderly way, that they can be referred to committees for report back and that they can then be argued and considered speeches on the second reading can be given based on those reports and that they are not then brought on in a compacted program such as this.

The broader issue is that the government now has control of the Senate, and the object of expanding the hours might be to avoid using gags or guillotines. It is unseemly for the government to turn to this, but it has used it in the past to foreshorten debate and I suspect this is a way of trying to avoid that occurring. We will not know until the program progresses whether it has been successful in that process.

We will ensure that each bill receives adequate scrutiny. We will not delay it unnecessarily. We will ensure that each bill gets the attention it requires, but it comes down to what we can deal with in the Senate. The part that preceded it—committees being able to adequately scrutinise, having sufficient time for committees—the government should take on notice and address it in a more sensible way than what they have been doing. In the last six months, they have been foreshortening committee inquiries and making the reporting dates earlier than what is adequate to reasonably examine bills and legislation. They ensure that some committees only sit on one day and have inadequate time to consider bills. They have used gags and guillotines in the past to truncate debates on bills. As I have said, I think they are going to use this technique to try to avoid that.

What needs to be said in all of this is that the government has the numbers. It can take that course, but for the Senate to look at and scrutinise legislation appropriately the government should ensure that reports, committees and references get adequately dealt with in this place. This government has also tended to close down debate by not agreeing to adequate references which would otherwise provide insight for the Senate into particular issues.

There has been a range of issues, but I will come back to those in another debate. I am sure this government will give me an opportunity to come back on Senate process and procedures before this fortnight ends, but I wanted to make that point in respect of this motion. We have allowed it to go by leave, so there is significant understanding within this place that we need to get through the legislative program. But it is worth reminding the government that they have the numbers. They have the responsibility to make sure that legislation gets adequately scrutinised and is not rushed or otherwise dealt with in an unseemly way.