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

They need to move it the week beforehand. But the fact is that we are having votes on things this week that were determined last sitting week, just as we had votes on things last sitting week that were determined the week before. This is not that hard. If they had wanted a vote on the mental health resolution, all any one of them had to do in the Selection Committee last week was to ask for it. They did not. They went through the debate in this parliament that occurred during private members’ business time and they did not even ask that there be a vote on that motion. Then, after the motion and the debate have been held and it is all over, they go along to the Selection Committee on Tuesday and say: ‘Sorry, we forgot to ask for a vote on that. Can we have one?’ That is what has happened here.

The minutes of the 17 November 2010 meeting of the House of Representatives Selection Committee reflect this. They go through it in detail. And that is important in terms of processes for this parliament because, if we are going to give proper consideration to private members’ bills and motions, it is important that people know what is coming and when it is coming. I, as Leader of the House, am determined to ensure that this new parliament functions properly. I am also determined to ensure that all 150 members, including those who do not have access to a party political machine, are able to know what is coming. It will simply make life untenable for the crossbenchers if every Thursday morning they come in here not knowing what the votes are going to be on. How is that conducive to proper consideration of good public policy? It is not. That is why this is simply a stunt that should be rejected. And I have no doubt it will be rejected.

Last night and this morning the Manager of Opposition Business and I had discussions about this. We agreed that these votes would take place next Wednesday. We agreed to split them because he was concerned about the number of votes. But let us be very clear—

See this speech in context