BUSINESS › Conference with House of Representatives
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:06): The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders. This is a similar approach. Senator Hughes interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: Look, I am not going to take lectures on industrial relations from those opposite. Let me say, this is the most you have been concerned about workers' rights for the entire history of the Liberal Party. You couldn't give a hoot about it. Let's be clear, what you care about is disrupting the program and not dealing with water. That is what you care about. You are the party of WorkChoices—remember that? You are the party that has opposed improving workers' rights with every bone in your bodies since you were elected into this place. That is the approach you take, so don't start getting to us about workers' rights because history will show, and history does show, the approach that you have taken on industrial relations. It is convenient for you, I accept, to align yourself with Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. I accept that. It is convenient. It is a stunt from your point of view. You have no commitment to the issues that are being debated. The government has a program this week that we are working through. We have important legislation, including water—which, again, I accept you guys don't want to deal with—that you would like to delay. That is the program we have set up. The Senate passed a motion last week which we voted against. The House has its program and that determines how it will deal with matters that are before the House, so we won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I know that the minister has been seeking to work with crossbenchers on these important reforms. We were very happy to deal with them this side of Christmas—let's not forget that—but what has happened is people have selected certain elements that they want to deal with but not deal with other parts of the bill and take out those bits. We wanted to deal with this bill; you didn't. You didn't want to deal with the bill. That is what happened. You delayed it through the Selection of Bills Committee report. You kicked the bill off it so it couldn't be dealt with. Senator O'Sullivan: Are you serious? Senator GALLAGHER: Yes, I am serious. That is the position that was taken. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through me. Senator GALLAGHER: Sorry, Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, on a point of order? Senator Henderson: I was going to raise the point of order about speaking through the President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have it in hand. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER: I know the truth hurts but, when the selection of bills came here, you organised for a longer referral so we couldn't deal with them this year. The government wanted to deal with them. We wanted to deal with them in their entirety, even if there were parts that people didn't support. You have that debate and you move those amendments. You don't select the bits that are convenient for you that you want to deal with and trash the rest of it. Let us be clear about what happened two sitting weeks ago when the bills were sent to the House of Representatives. No motion was moved to make them an order of the day, meaning they fell away. This is not the responsibility of the government. They were not government bills. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives conducted a filibuster rather than moving a motion to put them on the Notice Paper. No arrangements were made to put the bills before the House, so no bills exist in the House of Representatives because the opposition stuffed up the procedure and no other member of the House of Representatives was arranged. I understand that this has been explained to Senator Lambie around how that procedure was stuffed up— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: It was on your heads, actually. We will not agree with this. We see it for what it is, which is a delaying tactic and a disrupting tactic. That's why you're aligning on this, because you do not agree with positive industrial relations reforms. Otherwise, some of these things might have been done when you were in government, except they weren't. What a surprise! Your history shows the approach you've taken on industrial relations. You are trying to disrupt the program. We accept that we've lost half an hour and that we'll perhaps get to order before question time, if we're lucky, but that is not the government's position. We will not agree to the suspension. We do not support the motion that's been circulated. I would encourage crossbench senators to continue to work with Minister Burke to try and secure the successful package of this important set of reforms. They're important for working people across the country, and we want to work with the crossbench to ensure that they get done—all of the reforms, not just part of the reforms, all of them done together.