Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:32): I welcome the opportunity to talk about orders for the production of documents and the way that they are being used in the chamber. I think it requires going back and having a look at what has happened, and I've spoken about that in the chamber before. In the past, in the early years of the Senate, orders for production of documents were used sparingly, and for a period of time in the sixties, seventies and eighties they weren't used at all. In 2006, there was one that passed the Senate. It was seen as the most significant power available to the Senate to call for documents. As Senator Wong just said, that has changed. It's changed most dramatically in this parliamentary term, where, on Monday, we had 32 orders for production of documents in one day. If we think back to how they were handled, and it was the way that the opposition used to handle it when they were in government—not when there were that many—the practice was to let orders of production through, which was the approach that we took for a period of time. Then we were criticised and misrepresented by the Senate saying, 'Everyone has agreed to this order for the production of documents, and they are not complying.' So we decided that, yes, we would put our vote on the record every single time we did not agree with an order for the production of documents and have that recorded as a division—as is our right. That was so it could be very clear that, while the rest of the Senate was deciding that documents that had already been published online should be produced for the Senate or documents that maybe covered 130,000 documents should be provided tomorrow, we didn't agree with that. That is why we're dividing and that is why we're amending. We have every single right to do so, just as all of you have a right to move amendments to anything in this place. We respect that right. But don't come in here and say that this is a problem of the government's making. It is not. It is the way formal business is being misused and abused by the Senate. Senator McKenzie: You're just time wasting; don't guillotine your own legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ghosh ): Order! Senator McKenzie, your interjections are disorderly. Senator GALLAGHER: I will continue to say that. I am a big supporter of transparency and open government. If you look at questions on notice and the materials that are being released, you will see—compared to your record, Senator Cash—this government outdoes you on every single measure. The standards that you applied in government are not the standards we apply. But we will not accept that 42 orders for the production of documents for Senator Bragg to find out whether Housing Australia has purchased any furniture is the correct use of that power. That is what is happening in here, and, if we oppose it, we—if you put on them on the Notice Paper and we oppose it, we have the right to divide on it. If we want to amend it, we have the right to amend it and have that amendment considered. And, yes, it affects everyone in this chamber. But it is our right to divide, and, if you are going to load 20 OPDs and 30 OPDs, then, yes, it will take a considerable time in the afternoon to deal with that. We need to be on the record that we do not agree—and the history books will show—with the abuse of the power of the order for the production of documents. I've been trying to reach agreement with people around the Senate about how to deal with OPDs, acknowledging that it's not working for anyone, and then this motion gets put without discussion or debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, I will interrupt you for a moment. Senator McKenzie, before I recognise your point of order, may I just make the observation that you have repeatedly interjected in this debate. Government senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators on my right, too! You have a point of order, but, while you avail yourself of those rules, I would appreciate if you would listen when I call you to order when you are interjecting. Senator McKenzie: I accept I've been disorderly in my interjections. My point of order is on direct relevance. The minister has the opportunity, if this suspension motion gets up, to actually debate whether the Labor Party has been wasting the Senate's time or not. I would ask you to draw her to the question about suspension. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have understood your point of order. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant to this debate, however much you may not agree with her. I've ruled on that point of order. Senator GALLAGHER: The debate is around whether we should suspend to consider a motion around the order for the production of documents. In conclusion, if we look at the 46th Parliament, over 139 sitting days there were 198 orders moved, which was much higher than previous parliaments. In the 47th Parliament, there were 435 orders of production moved, and in 32 sitting days in this parliament—and probably if we include today's and this week's—there have been more than 200. You cannot say that this part of the program and orders for the production of documents are being used appropriately. They are not. They are being used as formal motions, and it's not appropriate. We will continue to oppose and continue to divide.