Senator IAN MACDONALD (12:55 PM) —Poor decision making is becoming a hallmark of this government, putting Australia’s future at risk. One of the reasons why it is important to have the maximum number of sitting days is to ensure that the government is totally accountable for the poor decisions that it has made. The Greens come in without any warning and move this motion for additional sitting days and then rail against how unaccountable the government is, but you can rest assured that at the next election, whenever it is, the Greens will again preference the Labor Party, as they have done throughout their history.

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Senator Brown, it is a bit like the Queensland election, when you railed against the Traveston Crossing dam and told everyone how terrible it was and how it was an environmental nightmare. Then you gave preferences to the Labor Party in Queensland to ensure their re-election.

Senator Bob Brown —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: if the honourable senator wants to go to the coalition’s plan for 11 extra dams in Queensland, he should address the chair, not me.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hutchins)—That is no point of order and you know that.

Senator Bob Brown —He should address the chair, not me. That is a point of order and you should adopt it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —He is getting around to it; there is plenty of latitude. There is no point of order.

Senator Bob Brown —If there is not a point of order that the speaker should address the chair, I would ask you to refer that to the President for a further ruling.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You should address the chair on the issue, Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will continue to address you, as I was doing until interrupted by an interjection from Senator Brown, who seems to be very keen on applying the standing orders when they relate to others but not when they relate to him. Of course, he should know that interjecting is disorderly and is not allowed. But that is typical of the Greens: one rule for them and different rules for everybody else.

I can understand why Senator Brown is very sensitive about the issue of supporting the Labor Party. I continue to raise the issue of the Traveston Crossing dam in Queensland; the Greens railed against it but then supported the Labor Party, who are hell-bent and determined to build the Traveston Crossing dam. It just shows the hypocrisy, yet again, of the Greens. They will continue to support the Labor Party at the next election, which means supporting this shorter sitting period.

It is absolutely disgusting of the Labor Party to continually reduce the number of weeks that we sit every year. Under the Howard government there was a very substantial increase in the sitting weeks because we were a government that was accountable and we wanted people to understand and to be able to challenge the then government and to look very carefully at legislation that came before the parliament. The poor decisions of this government that are putting Australia’s future at risk should be subject to scrutiny, but it should be up to the government, as Senator Parry has said, to set the program so there is the maximum number of days.

We all know that there will be an election next year. That is going to mean that whatever we decide today is going to be of little consequence because, as I say, the election is due about this time next year and so the sitting days for the balance of next year will be a matter for the new government. Hopefully, it will be a government that will have the maximum sitting hours available.

The one thing on which I do agree with the Greens is how this government has continually cut back on debate and then filibusters its own legislation to stop other parties from properly debating and discussing important legislation before the chamber. We then get this hypocrisy from the Labor Party pleading for extra days because they cannot get their legislation dealt with. They should have thought about that this time last year when they set the program and they should be thinking about that today in looking at next year’s program.

I would urge the government to withdraw this sitting program and to come back to the Senate with a new program that does allow the scrutiny that Mr Rudd is so vocal about giving. He continues to say how open and accountable his government is and yet the hallmark, the measure of this issue, is how many days the parliament sits. We know in the other chamber there is never any debate; every single bill is cut off by the government so that it cannot be properly debated by the House of Representatives. We know because of the numbers over there that the Liberal and National parties have no opportunity to oppose those cut-offs, those guillotines, that are so often applied by the other chamber. But here in the Senate chamber we do have an ability to hold the government accountable. I would urge Senator Ludwig to withdraw this sitting program and to come back to the Senate with a sitting pattern that does allow for the proper scrutiny without begging and bullying the other parties in this chamber for additional days and additional hours towards the end of every sitting.

Question put: