Senator CONROY (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:30): I rise to speak today in great sadness at having to witness, yet again, the conservatives crawl into the demolition of our constitutional framework. What we had today is the ghost of 1975 revisited upon us, the long-dead arm of Sir John Kerr, crawling out of his grave to participate in a travesty of democracy in this country. What we saw is a blight on our democracy today. We have seen a democratically elected Senate's decision overturned by the Queen's representative. That is what is at the heart of why are here today. There is no pretence this is a normal process that has gone on. You just had to look around the chamber today. Where were the High Court justices? Where were the heads of our military? Where were the hats of our diplomatic community? All were told, 'Don't come today'—because it is a political stunt. It is not a real opening of the parliament. In fact, they were not just told 'Don't come'; but 'Please, don't come. We don't want to pretend to the Australian public that this is a real proroguing of the parliament for the purposes that it has been used for traditionally.' This is an absolute affront. We have seen today a Governor-General overturn the will of this chamber, a democratically elected chamber. That is what we have seen. We have seen a tawdry political stunt, and the Governor-General has demeaned his office— The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, I remind you of the provisions of the standing orders, particularly relating to the Governor-General and the monarch. You are getting very close to reflecting adversely on His Excellency. I ask you to consider carefully your comments. Senator CONROY: Thank you, I appreciate the point you made, Mr President. I appreciate the point you made, because a strong Governor-General would never have agreed to this. The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, you have deliberately adversely reflected upon the Governor-General. I ask you not to do that again. You were warned about doing that. Senator CONROY: I accept your admonishment, Mr President. If the Queen had been asked to interfere in the British parliament in this way, there is no way on this earth this would have happened. If the British Queen had been asked to manipulate, for political advantage of the government of the day— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Conroy! Government senators interjecting— Senator CONROY: I am talking about the government. The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Brandis: Mr President, I raise a point of order. Standing order 193(2) provides: A senator shall not refer to the Queen, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate, or for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations. There are two limbs to that standing order, Mr President, and the senator has violated both. He has referred disrespectfully to His Excellency the Governor-General not once but on several occasions and he has also invoked the Queen and the Governor-General for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations. This is a serious matter, and the Senator ought to be called firmly to order. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator CONROY: Mr President, on the point of order, I have made no adverse reflection on the Queen at all. In fact, I have done the exact opposite. I have not in any way—I accept your point on the Governor-General; I did not mention the Governor-General, but I made absolutely no reflection on the Queen at all. I ask you, if you feel that I have, to pull me up. But I have made no reflection on the Queen. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Conroy. The mere fact that you referred to Her Majesty in the debate— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! And, as the standing order does clearly state, it was in a way to potentially influence the debate. You have referred to Her Majesty; you have linked Her Majesty to remarks made by the Governor-General and you have referred to the Governor-General as having possibly a different view to that of Her Majesty. You cannot say those things, and I am stressing that you cannot continue along those lines in relation to talking about Her Majesty and the Governor-General in any way that is going to reflect differences or in any way that is going to reflect adversely on either of those positions. So, Senator Conroy, you have the call. Be very careful about how you continue in relation to the monarch and the Governor-General. Senator CONROY: As I said, never has the need for a republic been more evident than today. The ghost of Sir John Kerr has crawled and reached out from the grave to interfere in a democratically elected Senate decision. That is just the situation. I understand why the government are so embarrassed about today. I understand why they told the High Court judges not to come and sit in the boxes. They told the chiefs of Army and Navy and Air Force, 'Don't come today.' They asked the diplomatic corps, 'Don't dress up as you normally do and come to the opening.' I understand why the government have done that. I understand why they are so defensive. I understand they do not want the Australian public to know what the costs of these two sittings are. I understand why they are so sensitive. But, Mr President, despite an enormous expense to the taxpayer, not to mention lost productivity and opportunity costs, this is nothing more than a political stunt by the government, who have dragged the office of the Governor-General into the government's tawdry political manoeuvrings. The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, again you have adversely reflected upon the Governor-General— Senator CONROY: I am reflecting on the government! The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy, you cannot reflect upon the Governor-General by indicating that he has been manipulated by the government. That is definitely adverse. I am warning you, Senator Conroy. I am firmly warning you that you cannot continue down this path. Senator Wong: Mr President, I raise a point of order. I just want to clarify your ruling, if I may, Mr President. I understood Senator Conroy to have been critical of the government. What you are ruling, if I can be clear about it—because I think it is useful for us to be clear about it—is that a reference to dragging the office into a political debate, you are saying, is manipulation. I would ask you to reflect upon whether that is an accurate interpretation of those words. I think if manipulation had been held, I can understand the ruling the President would make. Senator Conroy interjecting — The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Conroy. Thank you, Senator Wong. I am happy to hear what you say. If we cannot uphold this fundamental basis in this chamber in relation to the Governor-General and, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen, then we are failing. I will stringently uphold this standing order. This is the last bastion of standing orders that we should always defend. I will uphold that. I have warned Senator Conroy, and Senator Conroy now has the call. Senator CONROY: Since 1961, the parliament has only been prorogued four times, under extraordinary circumstances, and never to set the scene for an election and never to have a manipulation of politics in this way. Never in modern history has a government prorogued the parliament to obtain a political advantage. That is what this government has done. They have prorogued the parliament to obtain a political advantage. In fact, the government have boasted about how they have used the proroguing of parliament to give themselves a political advantage. Even the newspapers are full of it. You cannot have missed those; I am sure that you have not. They have boasted about their clever political manipulation of the parliament by proroguing it. That is without question. If they are called out on it, Mr President, it is fair debate. I accept all of what you have said so far, Mr President, and I appreciate what you have said. Senator Kim Carr: Another smartie lawyers trick! Senator CONROY: Yes, exactly. As a result of the proroguing of this parliament, the Prime Minister has cancelled all government business, meaning that Australians will have to wait longer for prospective child care changes, just to use one example. It means that the Prime Minister has used his position in advising the Governor-General in a way that I would have thought, after 1975, would never happen again. As we know, the Prime Minister and the government have shown complete political contempt for a democratically elected chamber of this parliament—and for what? So that it can call a double dissolution election just to clear out the crossbenchers; a crossbench that this government is largely incompetent in negotiating with. It is a group of senators that the Prime Minister has labelled 'feral' because they will not be his lap-dogs, because the government want to hide what they are doing from scrutiny. This is a government that has brought down an iron curtain of scrutiny to ensure that Senate committees are treated with contempt; that government senators, where they can get away with it, filibuster their way through scrutiny on committees; and that public servants are bullied and intimidated behind the scenes to not give honest answers— Senator Lines: Publicly! Senator CONROY: Publicly, as well—and to not give truthful answers to the chamber. This is a government that does not deserve to be re-elected; it does not deserve the trust of the Australian people. Labor rejects the premise on which the Prime Minister has prorogued this parliament. We wholeheartedly reject the Australian Building and Construction Commission bills, along with the registered organisations bill. If the Prime Minister—as he now cries crocodile tears for it—was committed to ensuring these two bills passed the parliament, he would have brought them on for debate in the last sitting period. But we know what the Prime Minister's priority was: he wanted to introduce, with his new best friends the Greens, a rort of Senate voting systems. He wanted to introduce a rort. You will all want to cheer me now; I cannot let this opportunity pass. We are here today for one reason and one reason only, because the Greens voted with the government to give the opportunity for this government to hold a double dissolution. They mugged you. They took you to the cleaners in the negotiations. They promised you they would not bring the bill on in those two weeks, but they did not mention they were planning on proroguing the parliament, to use a political manipulation to bring it on anyway. They would only do that because they think will benefit from the new Senate voting system reform. You have handed them that on a platter, just like we have seen Senator Xenophon fold like a deck of cards on the safe rates bill. You have put this country in the hands of Senator Xenophon and the government after this election. We have seen in the last couple of weeks what a backbone he has when it comes to standing up to the government. It is all on your heads. This bill is not urgent enough to go through the political manipulation of proroguing of the parliament. It is all about creating a double-dissolution trigger. It has nothing to do with the need to prorogue. This government has so mismanaged itself, it has so mismanaged this chamber and it has been fighting itself behind the scenes so much that it could not get its act together to bring on the bill for debate. We had till September. The normal election is not till September. These bills could have been dealt with many times over, but this government with the help of the Greens in creating a new rorted Senate voting system has seen a political advantage in forcing a double dissolution on this bill. Senator Wong: Bring it on! Senator CONROY: Exactly, Senator Wong. 'Bring it on!', we say. The Labor Party is ready to seek a mandate, to seek the support of the Australian public for our agenda, to reject the negative agenda. If the Prime Minister, as I said, was so committed to have these bills pass he had every opportunity. We have made our position clear. We will not be supporting the ABCC. Those opposite have spent many months claiming that the ABCC will deal with criminal conduct on building sites. There is only one problem. It is a civil regulator and it is not legally allowed to do that. Their own bill does not allow them to deal legally with criminal matters on building sites. It does not do it, but they will say one thing and do another. The absolute hallmark of this government is to say one thing and do another. Senator Lines: You ignore the facts! Senator CONROY: There are no facts in this political world we live in; there are only assertions. There is no safety link between pay rates and safety. There is no connection at all. I have seen a press conference with the ATA this morning—I watched it on 7.30 earlier in the week. Those opposite are just telling lies. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CONROY: This government is too afraid to engage in factual debates. It is too afraid to admit that Senator Cormann has presided over the highest taxing and highest spending government, almost, in the history of this country. It is too afraid. You see them go on television and say, 'No, that's not true; we're lower taxing than Labor.' It is like: 'How can you possibly say that? Here's a graph. Here's a statistic. Here's a fact.' They have actually spent more. As I have said repeatedly to Senator Cormann in the chamber, 'You will never preside over a surplus while you are the finance minister, Senator Cormann.' You will never do it. You have actually outspent Senator Wong, the person you criticised as the worst finance minister. That was absolutely untrue then, but you on your own test have failed miserably. Just like the claim that there is no link between pay rates and deaths on roads, there is a claim that the ABCC does not improve productivity. Let's get to the nub of the facts and some truth—according to the ABS, the ABCC did not improve productivity as is claimed. For more than seven years, productivity increased before the introduction of the ABCC. Productivity has been higher every year since the abolition of the ABCC in 2012. I have seen the government say black is white on this issue, and I have seen it quote studies discredited by justices. It is not just a political argument—but there is no factual basis for these claims. Please ignore this report! But the government clings to it and uses it as its justification. This is a government that has no agenda for this country; it has no plan for this country; it does not have a clue what it is doing with the budget. One minute it is going to increase taxes for ordinary Australians by making them pay more on the GST; the next minute it wants to give companies tax cuts. Seriously, Mr Turnbull gave the banks a lecture the other day about their behaviour. Do you know what the consequences of his lecture will be if the people of Australia re-elect Mr Turnbull's government? He will give four banks a $9 billion tax cut. That is tough love! My goodness, imagine if he liked them. He says, 'You've got to live within your means.' I would love to live within Malcolm Turnbull's means. The government then claims the ABCC cut industrial disputes, except that it did not. Apart from an abnormal quarter in September 2012, working days lost per thousand workers to industrial action under the FWBI are lower than they were from the start of the series for the ABCC. So productivity did not improve and industrial disputes did not fall, but do not let facts get in the way of this government. It has no facts to support its case. Cutting safe rates will not lead to more deaths on roads—yes, it will. Even the government's own biased study proved the case for why we should keep the Safe Rates tribunal. The ABCC does not deal with corruption; it does not lower industrial disputes; it does not lead to more productivity. This is a government that will stoop to make any claim to advance its political interests. We believe the ABCC's powers are extreme, undemocratic and compromise civil liberties. Workers in the building and construction industry deserve better than this. Similarly, Labor rejects the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill, which will place higher penalties and a more onerous regime on officers of employer bodies and unions than those imposed on company directors. It is quite extraordinary that the government will attack working people and protect the big end of town at every chance it gets. If the government gets re-elected do not believe any promise about the GST. The GST is in the DNA of every single Liberal and National sitting on that side of the chamber—it is in their DNA. They can make any promise. They promised last time, 'We won't go back and raise the rates. We won't expand it onto food.' Twenty years later, they are back for more, and it will not end there. They want to use a tax on food to give the four big banks are $9 billion tax cut. That is what they are about. I have a very simple question for the government: why don't you just make corporations in this country actually pay the tax that they should? Why don't you just make them? Very simple choices. This government will tell you black is white. It will mislead you at every stage. In this sitting, as I said, I rise in sadness. This sitting is a farce. The government have manipulated their way to defy a democratic decision of the Senate. (Time expired)