Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the high office of Deputy Speaker. I think it is unfortunate that, in this debate, we started with 15 minutes and then it was cut to five minutes and now it has been cut to three minutes. I also think it is unfortunate that here we are at 20 to one in the morning and we are still debating this particular matter.

I respect the fact that the government has been elected. Any government has the right to change the sitting hours and to determine the days on which the parliament sits, but I believe that government also has the responsibility to make sure that our Australian parliamentary democracy survives. I am all about the parliament sitting for a longer period and I am all about the parliament having more opportunity to debate the key issues confronting the Australian people. But what has been suggested in the proposals put forward by the Leader of the House is that we should have a clayton’s Friday. As the Friday will not in fact be a genuine parliamentary sitting day, when we have a question time and a debate on a matter of public importance, it will become, as the honourable member for Leichhardt has suggested, a nick-off day—a day when we can all shoot through; a clayton’s day; a day which in fact will not be a true parliamentary day.

As a member representing a regional electorate, I am somewhat concerned over the fact that the parliament will be sitting for five days—or four days, and on the fifth day you can disappear—when what should happen if the government believes that we need extra days to debate the important issues of the day is that we ought to have more sitting weeks, maybe of three or four days. If the government has a very strong legislative program that it needs to get through in its first six or 12 months of office, then by all means have these extra days but let them be genuine parliamentary days when, as an opposition, we have the opportunity of holding the government to account. I just think it is unfortunate that what we have dressed up as an opportunity for additional debate is in reality an attempt by the government of the day to escape from parliamentary scrutiny.

I am all about additional days. I am all about proper debate. I am all about the government having the time it needs to implement its legislative program. I am all about respecting the fact that the government has a mandate to do certain things. But let us have genuine parliamentary days. Let us not have clayton’s days. Let us not have days when members turn up at nine o’clock and then are able, as the member for Leichhardt tells us, to shoot through. Let us be genuine.

I think the people of Australia deserve more. They elected this government. This government has a mandate. The people of Australia have respect for our Prime Minister. They believe our Prime Minister stands for important principles. I think that this motion currently before the House undermines the confidence and the sense of trust that the Australian people placed in the member for Griffith and his team on 24 November. I appeal to the member for Grayndler, who is the minister opposite, to reconsider this matter. By all means, take your extra day when you need it to start with, but let us go back to a reasonable situation where the parliament does have the opportunity to hold the government to account. Every day we sit we have a question time and we have a debate on a matter of public importance.

For rural members, in particular, sitting five days is not appropriate because it means that rural constituents will be disadvantaged and they will not be able to get to see their members of parliament in the same way as people in the capital cities are able to see their members of parliament. Let us have a fair go. I ask the member for Grayndler to reconsider.

See this speech in context