Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:41): I have to say that I miss former Senator Arbib. In retrospect, his was a brief but glorious period as Manager of Government Business. We have just been subjected to a lecture, and let me sum it up in this way: that scrutiny of legislation in the parliament is a courtesy extended by the executive. That is essentially what Senator Collins said. In all seriousness, I want to congratulate Senator Collins and also express some sympathy to her. This is Senator Collins's second day as Manager of Government Business, and she has been so quick out of the blocks to get a guillotine under her belt that she has done a hamstring. It really is an Olympic-class effort by Senator Collins. She has outdone her predecessor. As I said, Senator Arbib had the role for about a fortnight, and he was a much maligned hatchet man. I think he was often characterised in a very unfair way, but never in his two weeks as manager did he once put forward a guillotine—not once. Senator Collins has outdone him. The thing that really struck me about what Senator Collins said in her contribution was that it is usual in the last few sitting days of a sittings period that there be some time management. Can I point out a basic fact to this chamber: today is the ninth sitting day of the year. We are not talking about the sitting week before the mid-year break. We are not talking about the final parliamentary sitting week or fortnight of the year. We are talking about the ninth sitting day of the parliamentary year. We can count that on our fingers: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. That is not very many days. We are not very far into the parliamentary year, yet already the government is crying and screaming that the opposition is being obstructionist, that the opposition is being difficult and that, heaven forbid, the opposition is availing itself of opportunities provided for by the standing orders, like MPIs. Shock, horror! What an outrage! Are we meant to feel chastised by Senator Collins that in some parliamentary years when Labor was in opposition it only had three or four MPIs? To me that says that those opposite were lazy. They were bone-lazy not to avail themselves of the opportunity, as a parliamentary opposition, to scrutinise the government of the day. They sat back and let those opportunities fly by. It seemed like too much hard work. We take very seriously the role of accountability in this chamber. We take it very seriously, and we make no apology for taking all of the opportunities that this parliament provides to give scrutiny to this government, whether it be through MPIs, question time, seeking to refer legislation to parliamentary committees or other forms of scrutiny. We will take each and every one of those opportunities. This government could have debated some of the matters which are subject to this guillotine motion already this year. Even though we have only had nine days they could have debated the private health insurance rebate legislation previously. They could have debated that in the last sitting week but they did not list it. Why?—because they kept listing, time and again, the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill. More than 10 hours were spent debating that particular piece of legislation. You might have noticed, Deputy President, because you were in a chair for a fair bit of that, that the opposition did not have many speakers in that debate. It was essentially a Labor-Greens forum. No-one can accuse the opposition of having filibustered, talked that out or unnecessarily delayed that piece of legislation. So, if this package of bills, which the government is so keen to get through so quickly, was so important to them they could have availed themselves of the opportunities provided by the previous nine sitting days in this place. They did not do so. So we cannot accept—we will not accept—the accusation that, on day 9 of the sitting of parliament for this year, for some reason it is the opposition's fault that the government's legislative program is in disarray. We will not cop that for a second. I have to say this: this is one of the most extraordinary performances which I have seen from a manager. Usually that sort of confected outrage builds up over time, is savoured by a manager of government business and is delivered mid-way through the year or towards the end of the year. But this is a complete fabrication, which we will not accept for a second. Senator Collins spoke about the role of the Senate and the opportunities that it provides but it is very curious that in the motion which is before us poor old Senator Xenophon loses his general business time. Let me let you in on a surprise Deputy President: the Australian Greens do not lose their general business time according to this motion! Poor old Senator Xenophon cops it in the neck but we know that nothing happens in this place without Australian Greens approval. Their time is preserved. Senator Abetz: They dictate it. Senator FIFIELD: They do dictate; Senator Abetz is right. It is also interesting to note that none of the pieces of legislation which are of particular interest to the Australian Greens are subject to the guillotine. The Stronger Futures piece of legislation, which I know the Greens have a great interest in is—surprise, surprise!—not listed to be subject to the guillotine, but these other pieces of legislation are. Deputy President, I know you are pretty good with maths in your head but I just want to take you through the timings which are provided for each of these pieces of legislation. The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill has about 10 hours and 20 minutes. You might think that 10 hours and 20 minutes sounds pretty reasonable for debate on a piece of legislation but you have to consider the background—the context—of a particular piece of legislation. The members of the Australian Labor Party, you will recall, went to successive elections putting their hands on their hearts and swearing that they would not alter the private health insurance rebate one bit. I think Kevin Rudd said, 'Not one jot; not one tittle.' I am not sure what that meant, but he said it. I took that to mean that it would not be changed in any way, shape or form. I think that is the only way that you can take that phrase, 'It won't be changed—not one jot; not one tittle.' I remember Nicola Roxon putting her hand on her heart, staring down the barrel of the TV camera and saying, as previous shadow minister for health: 'We have no intention. We won't change the private health insurance rebate. We won't scrap it. We won't means test it.' Julia Gillard, when in opposition, said the same thing: 'We won't scrap it. We won't means test it.' Kevin Rudd said the same thing: 'We wont' scrap it. We won't means test it.' They said it before that election and guess what they did. They then said, 'We want to means test the private health insurance rebate.' They were defeated in this place time and again but last election, if you go through their health policy, you will not find reference to it. They have never taken to the Australian people at an election a proposition to either abolish or means test the private health insurance rebate. Senator Abetz: What about a carbon tax? Senator FIFIELD: We will get on to that Senator Abetz, don't worry! This legislation will be a punch to the solar plexus of Australian health funds and of Australians who want to do the right thing by providing for their private health insurance. On this side we believe in a carrot-and-stick approach to private health insurance. There should be a stick. If you have the means to take out private health insurance and you do not then, yes, you should be subject to an additional surcharge. But if you do the right thing there should also be a reward—an encouragement—and that is what the private health insurance rebate was. This government always want to practice the politics of envy. They always want to attack self-reliance. They always want to attack initiative. They do not want people to provide for themselves. They would prefer everyone to be reliant on the state. They do not want people to have private health insurance; they would prefer everyone to be in the public health system so that an already overburdened public health system is even more overburdened. That is their objective. It is an ideological objective: they just do not like private health insurance. They do not care that everyone who drops private health insurance adds to the burden on the public health system. They do not care about that. They do not think about that. They are purely ideologically driven. We do express outrage when we see a significant piece of legislation like this, which will dramatically change the treatment of health in Australia, being given only 10 hours and 20 minutes. It might be another story altogether if they had taken that policy to the election and had actually been elected upon it. They might have an argument for saying, 'Ten hours and 20 minutes is long enough to debate something which we have a mandate for,' but they do not have a mandate for it. They have never sought a mandate for it. They do not have a mandate for it, and this piece of legislation deserves to be exposed. This piece of legislation deserves to have extensive debate. The next item on the government's legislative agenda was the minerals resource rent tax. Sixteen hours and 15 minutes was provided for that particular piece of legislation. To be honest, we are still not entirely sure what the government's real position is on this, because it has evolved several times. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan had one iteration of it. It did not go down too well. They had some private meetings with a few companies and we saw a different policy result. The Australian Greens have a different take on this. We do not know what is going to be the end product as a result of the deliberations of this parliament. So this legislation needs significant examination. It is legislation that has some quite significant effects on the mining industry and particularly on the resource-rich states. It deserves proper examination. There was the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment Bill—four hours and 30 minutes. There was the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill—45 minutes. There was the Road Safety Remuneration Bill—one hour and 45 minutes. There was the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill—30 minutes. There was the Indirect Tax Laws Amendment (Assessment) Bill—30 minutes. There was the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill—30 minutes. There was the Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill—one hour and 30 minutes. There was the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill—15 minutes. There was the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill—15 minutes. There was the Excise Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill—10 minutes. There was the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill—15 minutes. There was Appropriation Bill (No. 3)—one hour and 30 minutes. So it ranges from 15 minutes of consideration for a piece of legislation. I do not know the mind of every colleague in this place. If I were manager of government business, I could not presume to know what contributions colleagues have to make in this place on a particular piece of legislation. I could not presume to know whether they have some insight into a piece of legislation which I do not. I could not presume to know that. The only way that you can know that is to have a full-blooded debate on legislation and give this chamber the opportunity to examine legislation. So we go from 15 minutes for some pieces of legislation to 10 hours or 16 hours. You have to have that in perspective. That is 10 hours or 16 hours for, in one case, a bill which the Australian Labor Party did not flag their intention to introduce at the last election—that is, the private health insurance rebate amendment bill. And there were other pieces of legislation—the mining resource rent tax package of bills—which have great and far-reaching economic consequences. We have seen this before with this government. On one hand, they say, 'We're all for debate. We're all for airing things. That's why we're extending hours,' but on the other hand they say, 'We're going to introduce a guillotine.' They give with one hand and they take with the other. We have seen that before. We are opposing the extension of hours and we are also opposing the guillotine. We are opposing the extension of hours because we are at the ninth sitting day of the year, so it should be possible for the government to manage their legislative program in the days that they set. We do not set the sitting schedule. We do not set the days that the parliament sits. That is something that the government do. So the government should be well able to manage their legislative agenda within the time frame that they themselves stipulate. That is the first point. The second point is that if they are unable to do that then the last thing that they should do is guillotine. They should be affording appropriate opportunity for debate in this place. It is confused and muddled thinking on the government's part that you extend hours and guillotine at the same time. It is an internal contradiction that I do not think Senator Collins adequately explained in this place. Another thing that Senator Collins said is that we make outrageous and unnecessary contributions during non-controversial legislation time. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are an incredibly responsible opposition. Where there are pieces of legislation on which we agree—where the government agrees, the Greens agree, Senator Xenophon agrees and Senator Madigan agrees—we do not seek to delay. We do not seek to thwart those. We readily flag our position and we readily flag that we support those pieces of legislation. And there are contributions from our side because we think it is important to make contributions on each piece of legislation, but they are not unnecessary contributions. I would defy any member of this chamber to identify a single piece of non-controversial legislation where there have been unnecessary contributions. Yes, the relevant shadow minister makes a contribution and, yes, where a senator has an interest in an issue and wants to make a contribution, they do so—that is their right. Who would deny, for instance, Senator Macdonald his right to contribute on any piece of legislation? It is his right. Senator Abetz: Reticent as he is! Senator FIFIELD: Reticent as he is! But that is his right, as it is the right of each and every one of us. You would be very hard pressed to find an opposition that has been as responsible as we are and as cooperative on those issues where we are in agreement. You would be very hard pressed to find an opposition that has been as cooperative. This place works to a large degree on cooperation, but what really strikes a dagger in the heart of cooperation in this place is a guillotine motion on the ninth sitting day of the year. If the government think that the way to have this parliament work better, to ensure appropriate accountability and to engender cooperation is to introduce a guillotine motion on the ninth day of the year, they are wrong. This is an unprecedented act by a government this early in a parliamentary year. Guillotines should be used very, very sparingly, in extraordinary circumstances, and I do not think that the situation we are in today, on the ninth sitting day of the year, meets the criteria of an extraordinary circumstance. What this guillotine represents is disrespect for this chamber. It represents a lack of regard for the role that this chamber has to scrutinise legislation, and it also represents a lazy approach to managing the affairs of the Australian Senate. Any time a government uses a guillotine this early in the year, it is a lazy approach. It is a substitute for cooperation, it is a substitute for collegiality and it is a bar to appropriate scrutiny of legislation. We are not contributing to this debate just to chew up time. We are not contributing to this debate just to fulminate. We are contributing to this debate because we think it is an outrage that we have a guillotined bill put into this place on the ninth sitting day of the year. We are not going to let that fly by, because to do so would be to be complicit in the denial of this chamber's rights and prerogatives to examine legislation to provide a light on flaws and to provide an opportunity for the public to scrutinise what this government wants to do. We do not want to be complicit in that, we will not be a part of it, and we will oppose this motion.