Senator LUDWIG (Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary) (9:51 AM) —We have now heard the Greens debating not the substantive reason why this bill should come on but in fact the content of the bill. What we have before us is not an urgent bill. If the Greens were serious about this bill, with the opposition, then there is time on Thursday, during general business, for that to be dealt with. If senators want to debate the bill, it can be debated and argued at that time. That is the appropriate time for this bill to be debated. The time set aside in the program for general business is available. If Senator Abetz and the Greens want to debate this bill then it is entirely appropriate that they use that time for that purpose.

This effort today, of course—an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—is a complete stunt to avoid debate on substantive matters before the Senate. The Greens have repeatedly claimed that there is not enough time in the program on sitting days and that the government is at risk of not managing its program. What we now have is a stunt by them to up-end the day so that they can deal with a bill that is not urgent. They do have time tomorrow to debate it, but they are using the Senate time in this way.

What we have on the agenda is the fairer private health insurance legislation, which is very important for two reasons. The fairer private health legislation is an important part of our health reform, it is making the system fairer and more sustainable, and we want to make sure nurses and taxi drivers do not have to subsidise the private health of millionaires and politicians. It will save taxpayers $1.9 billion over the next four years and nearly $100 billion by 2050. That is money we could use for more doctors and more nurses. You would think that the Greens would understand or at least be reasonable about this instead of trying to use the Senate process to up-end the Senate to deal with a bill that is not urgent.

Even if you went to the content of their bill, you would see that it would fail at first instance. It is not one where they have turned their intellectual rigour to ensure that the bill will pass muster in the first instance. Quite frankly, it would not provide the outcome that they are seeking. So you could only conclude that it is nothing more than a stunt by the Greens to use the five minutes—they know it will be defeated in the Senate because of what it is, a stunt—to argue their case. There are many opportunities in the Senate where Senator Brown and the Greens can argue their case about legislation or about particular points. They can use that time rather than take government time where we have a program that has been set.

Of course, on the substantive matter we do have, yesterday the Greens took up further time with a wasteful censure motion. We had a number of hours wasted during that period.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator LUDWIG —Senator Abetz makes a good point: this is a waste of time. I will not take up my five minutes to deal with this issue. This is a matter that should not be supported. There is ample opportunity to deal with this private senator’s bill if the opposition want to assist Senator Brown and the Greens during general business tomorrow.