Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

It was on the Notice Paper. Of course, the Manager of Opposition Business is away, and I am not sure what has happened to the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Cowper. What has occurred is that the member for Sturt has jumped over the member for Cowper in order to make sure that the deputy could not fulfil the role he normally would have had. And, meekly, the National Party, who have the deputy’s position, have just given it up. They have just rolled over and had their tummy tickled by the member for Sturt. That is what the member for Cowper has done with his failure to take on that position.

I want to address the issues of substance raised by the member for Sturt. He suggested that it was appropriate that the parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. I went back and had a look. In 1996 it sat for the 16. In 1997 it sat for 20. In 1998 it sat for 14. In 1999 it sat for 19. In 2000 it sat for 19. In 2001, 14. In 2002, 18. In 2003, 19. In 2004, 16. In 2005, 18. In 2006, 18. So not once while they were in government, in not one of the 12 years, did parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. But here they say that is what should happen.

On behalf of the electorate and constituents of Sturt, I can understand why they would not want their member in Sturt, or why the constituents of Cowper would want their member in Cowper. The fact is they did not do it for their entire time of office. But this is typical of this opposition. It does not matter whether it is over organisational issues or whether it is issues affecting the economy, the global financial crisis and the response of this government to it, they say they are for it essentially, they do not propose any alternatives—we saw the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 Report last night—but they just snipe from the sidelines.

The member for Sturt referred to Friday sittings. In the life of this parliament, what issue has the opposition had most speakers on? Was it about pensions? Was it about the global financial crisis? Was it about workplace relations and their defence of Work Choices? No. It was about Friday sittings. That has been their No. 1 priority as an opposition. That had a speakers list where every one of their members had a view. So parliament sat for the longest first-day sitting since Federation because of their strenuous opposition to working five days a week. That is what motivated them more than the economy, more than pensions, more than the response to climate change. That is what really got their backs up: sitting five days a week. They behaved in a way which brought disrepute to this House during that Friday sitting. Because of that, they lost their opportunity to have a day at the end of the week when they could raise issues of concern to their constituents, be they local electorate issues or responses to the economy or alternative viewpoints. Most of that is now put on Monday night in the Main Committee, because they were not prepared to have that opportunity for real parliamentary reform that was given to the opposition and was of great advantage to the opposition.

We know that when it comes to work and procedures the Manager of Opposition Business does indeed have a record of which he should be very concerned. Because they have no real agenda—

See this speech in context