MATTERS OF URGENCY
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:29): I rise to oppose the government's attempt to suspend standing orders to amend the urgency motion. In addressing the issue before the chamber, I want to make this principally as a procedural point. This is not government business.
Government business, as you know, was already called on earlier today. This is an urgency debate, and it was brought to the Senate under standing order 75. There is a reason that that procedure exists.
There is a reason for the standing orders to provide opportunities for senators to bring urgent matters before this chamber. That is the ordinary rule. This is not government time.
Government time is clearly set out in the Notice Paper. Even if the government doesn't like it, this is the time for those on the opposition side and the crossbench side of the chamber to come to the Senate—it's only a small amount of time that's afforded each week to the opposition and the crossbench—and to bring forward a motion that they want debated. The government, as you know, already has extensive opportunities in which to debate their legislation.
They have government business. As I said, we've already debated government business today. The government can introduce legislation.
The government can determine the legislative priorities. Ministers bring the bills in each and every day. That is the opportunity for the government to debate what they wish to debate.
This small period of time is the time in which the opposition and the crossbench are able to raise matters that are relevant to them. Standing order 75 is one of those opportunities. It allows a senator to say, 'This is an urgent matter and we believe the Senate should debate it.' Now, in the normal course of events, without the stunts that have been pulled by the government—we know this is a stunt, and you're entitled to bring on stunts, but sadly, everybody other than the government bench has actually called out the stunt today—this is just a way for a senator on this side to come to the chamber and say, 'This is an urgent matter which we believe the Senate should debate.' This might be news for the government, but the precedent for the government is that it does not have to agree with the matter that is going to be debated.
It doesn't need to amend it. It can speak to it. It can argue why it does not agree with an urgency motion.
We've certainly done that. Others have done that. You don't need to agree with what the senator is bringing to the chamber, but one would think you would respect the right of the crossbench and the opposition to bring up matters to the chamber in the small amount of time that is allocated to them.
At the end of the day, Labor are able to vote against the motion should they so wish. One Nation has the time today— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cash, I'm also going to remind you to focus on the suspension. Senator CASH: In relation to what Labor are doing, there is no matter of urgency to suspend standing orders to debate the amendment—simply not.
As I said, the government already has time allocated to it each and every day—way more than those on this side of the chamber will ever have—to debate issues that are of relevance to them in the normal course of events. That's why this motion should not be agreed to. In the normal course of events, a senator would move their motion under standing order 75.
That motion would then be debated for a period of time, and at the end of that motion there would be a vote. It is at that point in time—when those bells ring and a vote is called—that all the other parties in the chamber are able to say, 'We agree with the motion,' or alternatively, 'No, we don't agree with the motion.' This is an urgency motion brought under standing order 75.
Standing order 75 is quite deliberate in what it states. It is the opportunity for those of us on this side of the chamber to bring forward a motion we believe should be debated. The government is able to vote against the motion.