Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (16:50): This motion strikes at two very significant principles: firstly, the principle of an effective and democratic and fair parliament and, secondly, the principle of a free and open media to scrutinise the operations of the parliament. This motion strikes very deeply at the heart of both of those things, because this motion undermines the capacity of this parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny to far-reaching legislation going through this place. In doing so, this motion will facilitate the passage of that far-reaching legislation that attacks the principle of a free media and a free press in Australia. For that reason this motion must be opposed, should be opposed and should be defeated so that this chamber can have a proper debate on issues of such significance. This motion applies, of course, to two areas of very significant legislation—two far-reaching reforms: one of which the opposition, along with the cross-benchers and the government, is deeply and sincerely committed to; and the other of which we are deeply and sincerely opposed to. We are deeply and sincerely committed to seeing the passage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme legislation. Senator Fifield has led, on behalf of the opposition, a passionate stance of supporting this, of trying to strengthen the reform and of calling for greater detail and greater commitments through the life of this parliament. He has sought every step of the way to try to make this a bipartisan measure on behalf of the coalition. We want this measure to succeed. This is a far-reaching measure of fundamental and profound importance to millions of Australians, the many Australians with a disability and the many more Australians who are related to those with disabilities, carers for those with disabilities and friends of those with disabilities. Getting this legislation right is fundamental to its future success, and we want the NDIS to be a success. Therefore, we want to get this legislation right and we believe that it deserved complete and thorough scrutiny through this parliament. As Senator Fifield said, it got the scrutiny it deserved in the other place. In the House of Representatives, there was no guillotine to the NDIS legislation; there was open debate. The open debate ensured that there was the right level of scrutiny. In this place, sadly, the government is now seeking to curtail that debate, and quite unnecessarily so. The government could have very easily proposed extended hours to solely deal with the NDIS. I am confident that in the spirit of bipartisanship and spirit of cooperation the opposition has to this policy issue those extended hours would have been granted. We would have been willing to sit for as long as it took this week to deal with the NDIS and to deal with the sensible amendments related to it. However, the government, because it also wants to get its media reforms through and wants to exact its revenge on those who have dared to criticise it, has had to apply a guillotine not just to those controversial media reforms but to the very sincere and important reforms related to the NDIS. That is a shame because it undermines the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that should surround those reforms. It is to the credit of the opposition and Senator Fifield in particular that we have been so willing to work with the government on this important issue—difficult at times though it can be—and to the shame of the government that they are wrapping up the NDIS in a guillotine motion in this controversial procedure at this time. As I said, their motives for doing so are clear. It is not to do with the NDIS, in fairness to the government; it is to do, of course, with the media law reforms. Reforms that are the most far-reaching in terms of their impact on the operation of media in this country. When it comes to the hours of sitting for this Senate and when it comes to ensuring we have proper scrutiny of legislation in this place, we should expect that to be adhered to. I am not the first person to stand in this place and criticise a procedural motion like this that tries to vary the hours and vary the arrangements and in doing so tries to ram legislation through this place. I am far from the first person to do so. Senator Wong, now the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, back in 2005 said: We are asking for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised by this chamber through a Senate committee process before it is voted on. Let us look very closely at what Senator Wong was asking for there: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised. Both of the legislative packages that are before the chamber fit into that realm. The NDIS may have far-reaching support but it is complex—it is complex for sure. The media reform legislation, equally, has far-reaching effect across all Australians. It is complex and it is most certainly controversial as well. Senator Wong was right in 2005. She was correct in saying that such legislation deserved proper scrutiny then, and it deserves proper scrutiny today as we debate this. When this chamber divides shortly, I hope that Senator Wong and her Labor colleagues will reflect on the words that she said in 2005 and remember that they were asking, as she said, for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised. Equally, in 2006 the now Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy, who of course is the proponent of these media reforms—or at least was the proponent of these media reforms until the Prime Minister pulled the rug out from under his feet and subsumed all negotiations with the cross-benchers in the other place, said: You do not just need to be here in this chamber to realise how arrogant and out of touch this government has become with the ramming through of legislation, ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, changing the sitting pattern all the time and using the guillotine. It is turning this chamber, which for 30 or 40 years has been a chamber of accountability and scrutiny, into a farce. Senator Conroy is of course now the leader of the government in this place. Prior to that, he was the deputy leader of the government in this place. Senator Fifield: It is hard to believe. Senator BIRMINGHAM: It is very hard to believe, Senator Fifield, and I think many on the other side find it equally hard to believe that Senator Conroy is their leader. Senator Fifield: But not for long. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Possibly not. That could be the case across the parliament. Senator Conroy prior to being a cabinet minister, prior to being one of the leaders of the government in this place, had a very sanctimonious stance it seems. He was more than happy to criticise the previous government. He was more than happy to criticise the changing of the sitting pattern, the ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, the ramming through of legislation and the use of the guillotine—all things that this government and Senator Conroy are guilty of time and time again. In fact, this government has used the guillotine on many more occasions than the previous government ever did. On some 158 occasions to date this government has applied the guillotine to separate pieces of legislation. If this motion is successful, another seven will be added to that list, bringing the total number of bills that have been guillotined through this place to 165. Senator Conroy should equally think long and hard when he comes to vote on this as to how hypocritical his stance is compared with what he previously uttered. The crossbenchers are not innocent in this place either. Senator Milne previously said: The Australian people deserve a house of review. A house of review means appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of governments. It does indeed. Senator Milne was correct. The Greens, who have supported this process to date, should when the division comes think long and hard again about Senator Milne's words. Do the Greens genuinely support a house of review that provides appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of government? If they do, they would not support this motion. They would not support this motion because it most definitely does not provide for appropriate scrutiny of legislation in this place. This motion will see, as I said, two very significant areas of reform undertaken. Debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013 will be concluded in the next couple of hours if this motion is successful. Despite the number of amendments that are outstanding and despite the cooperative nature of the debate to date, the NDIS reforms will be rammed through. They are far-reaching reforms that will have—hopefully—positive, profound impacts on the lives of so many Australians. The government is curtailing proper consideration. We need to make sure we maximise the long-term benefits of those reforms. With the media reform package, the government proposes to deal with two of the bills tonight and four of the bills tomorrow. Again, there will be just a few hours of consideration for each of those packages. There will be a few hours for changes to our media landscape that are quite profound. Perhaps it would be acceptable to have curtailed debate on these matters had there been proper, thorough debate through the Senate committee process beforehand. But it has been far from it. The Senate committee sat for two days this week. The bills were released only last Thursday and witnesses had no time whatsoever to provide submissions to that process. Perhaps it would be appropriate for this place to curtail debate as proposed in this motion had there been proper consideration through the Senate committee, but that has not been possible under the terms stipulated by this government. Perhaps it would be possible to curtail debate to some extent had there been proper consideration of these bills in the other place, but no, in the other place the bills have been brought on and taken off by the government—they have mostly been off; they have been sitting off the table without any debate while negotiations were happening behind closed doors. Mr Wilkie has confirmed that Senator Conroy has been shut out of those negotiations. Amazingly, the lead minister has also been absent during this debate about whether his laws get debated in this chamber. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is missing in action once again. Perhaps it would be acceptable to see some element of curtailed debate in this place if there were thorough scrutiny in the other place, but that most certainly will not be the case. If the Senate is to debate these bills as proposed in the motion before us, then the other place will have a maximum of only a few hours to finalise consideration of the legislation as no doubt it will be pushed through under guillotine in that chamber as well. Perhaps it would even be acceptable to see some degree of curtailed debate on these bills on these far-reaching media reforms had there been proper public debate surrounding them, but they were released for the public to see only last Thursday. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013—that is a rather ironically titled bill. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Last Thursday was the first time anybody saw the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013. So, if this motion is successful, in the space of a week the government will have expected the public to have had proper debate around these proposed far-reaching media reforms and their restrictions on the operation of free media in Australia, in the space of a week the government will have expected the parliamentary committee processes of the House of Representatives and the joint committees, like the human rights standing committee that handed down a most interesting and damning report on these reforms, to have considered the legislation. The government believes that a week is sufficient time for the House of Representatives to consider these bills and that a week is sufficient time for the Senate to consider these bills. I know that Senator Ludlam, who is sitting over there, has a different view from mine on media regulation. However, I also know that Senator Ludlam believes in proper public policy processes, and I would urge Senator Ludlam to exercise whatever influence he can on his colleagues in the Australian Greens to make sure that they stand up for proper public policy-making processes, oppose this motion before the Senate and support the proper scrutiny of these far-reaching media reforms. Not only has there been no case made in any adequate terms as to why these reforms are necessary or how these reforms would work but there most certainly has been no case made as to why there is such urgency surrounding these reforms—why it is that this parliament must finalise them by 9 pm tomorrow night. Why must this parliament finalise these reforms by 9 pm tomorrow night? No member of the government stood up and said why it is so necessary or why it is so urgent. Senator Conroy, the responsible minister and the leader of the government in this place, has not been seen for hours. He has not been seen in this chamber. He has not been seen, according to Mr Wilkie, in the negotiations around his legislation. It seems as if the government has gone and hidden Senator Conroy in a corner somewhere. Senator Fifield: Good plan! Senator BIRMINGHAM: A very good plan, Senator Fifield. I understand their embarrassment. I understand why they are embarrassed that he is part of their leadership team. I understand why they are embarrassed that he has put them in this position, where they have been subjected to ridicule and criticism over the abhorrent handling of this legislation and where even Mr Wilkie, the Independent member for Denison, has described the process as 'shambolic', 'too rushed' and 'half-baked'. They are words that perhaps the crossbenchers might reflect on. They are not my words as to the process being applied; they are the words of a fellow crossbencher and Independent member in this parliament, the member for Denison, who describes the process applied to these media reforms as 'shambolic', 'too rushed' and 'half-baked'. Pass this motion and you will only add to it. Pass this motion and we will see a bad process get worse. Pass this motion and we will see bad laws pushed through this parliament. Pass this motion and we will see a further eroding of the proper principles when it comes to handling of parliamentary standards and media laws. That is why this motion should be defeated, and I urge the chamber to do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Before I call Senator Macdonald— Senator Jacinta Collins: No, Xenophon. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I am going to remind honourable senators that the motion before the chair is: That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday 20 March 2013 and Thursday 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined. I would ask those contributing to the debate to be as relevant to that motion as possible, within the high degree of latitude which is typically granted to others. I did see Senator Macdonald on his feet. Senator Jacinta Collins: Senator Xenophon was too. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald was on his feet first. Senator Jacinta Collins: Senator Xenophon was on his feet as well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald.