Download Fragment

Monday, 27 February 2012
Page: 849

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (17:27): It is groundhog day again for those opposite. We have heard this debate twice over now. They get up on procedural matters and suck up oxygen which could be used for the merit of the debate when we have the second reading debate and the committee stages of the bill. Rather than wait for that, they use a cheap political stunt such as a procedural motion to argue the point again. What we did not hear from those opposite is the actual argument for why Senator Fierravanti-Wells's motion should get up—not the merit of the actual debate. Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Cormann can have their say, for 20 minutes a pop, during the second reading debate to argue their case and convince those here in this chamber. But we did not hear one jot about why we should up-end the Senate and pay attention to the false and pitiful motion that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has put up, which would ultimately stop the bill from proceeding. Forget about the fancy words that are put in front of it; it would stop the bill from proceeding. And what would we be doing? We would be denying reform by a Labor government committed to improving the lives of working people and creating greater fairness for them and their families. This legislation is a win-win for working families, and those opposite do not want to participate in it. I understand that. They have a different view. They have a very different view on this legislation. But this is not the time for that debate. They will all have an opportunity to debate that in due course.

We are now having a debate on this motion, put up by Senator Fierravanti-Wells, that is simply a procedure device. They have used it before; they will do it again. As I said, they have not learnt from the last time. All you are doing is using procedural devices to try to change the course, to say that your particular motion should have precedence. This would effectively mean that your motion would take precedence in the Senate. There is no argument for that. There is no argument as to why your motion should take precedence. No specific issues were raised other than the same arguments that were raised in the lower house about the merits of the bill. It is quite appropriate. You can have your say when the second reading debate comes on. That is the place to say it, not here. If we start to add them up, it becomes very clear to me that you are simply into delay and Senate time-wasting opportunities.

In recent years, it seems those opposite have been unable to contain themselves. They find procedural devices to give the debate some more currency—wake up to yourself. Use the force of the second reading debate to make your point in committee rather than try to use cheap political stunts such as this to rerun your argument. Alternatively, subscribe to the groundhog theory that you simply want to rerun the argument time and time again without recognising that what you are doing has little merit. In my view, it has no merit at all.

Five bills have been introduced. This is the point where we introduce the bills for debate. It is usually non-controversial. We bring these bills in, we put them on the Notice Paper and they are there for debate. Unfortunately those opposite seem unable to resist the temptation to use the time of the chamber for procedural shenanigans on the introduction of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2012 and related bills. Let us be clear: this debate is using up the time of the Senate for a cheap, political stunt on a procedural motion that cheapens the opposition's ability to argue during this second stage. Quite disappointingly, those opposite seem only prepared to rerun the arguments without— (Time expired)