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

I rise to speak against the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. It is important to outline to the parliament what this amendment is and what it is not. What it is not is a vote on the substance of the private member’s motion moved by the member for Sturt. That is what it is not, in spite of the fact that he spoke passionately about his views on that subject. What it is about is a vote on upholding the processes that we have established in this House to ensure the orderly running of the House of Representatives, particularly given the reforms that we have put in place to allow for voting on private members’ motions and private members’ bills.

The member for Sturt outlined—selectively—what I said on Thursday, 18 November 2010. He indicated correctly that last week there was a debate when he moved an amendment to the motion for the suspension of standing orders in this chamber. He outlined correctly the fact that I certainly considered I had an agreement with him, reached at 10 minutes to nine last week, that we would have, of the five motions that were to be voted upon today, two of them on Wednesday and three of them on Thursday. That was the offer that I made to him; that was the agreement that he made. He then walked in here and broke that agreement and moved that it be brought on immediately. That is what occurred last Thursday—he broke the understanding that was there, given at 10 minutes to nine.

During that debate I made it very clear, and the House of Representatives Hansard of Thursday, 18 November 2010, on page 5, records me saying this:

… the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee, signed by the chair, Harry Jenkins, and dated 17 November 2010, say in writing:

The committee recommended that the following items of private member’s business orders of the day be voted on:

• Mental Health (resumption of debate from 25 October 2010 on motion of Mr Dutton);

• Joint Select Committee on Broadband (resumption of debate from 25 October 2010 on motion of Mr Turnbull);

• Overseas Trained Doctors (resumption of debate from 18 October 2010 on motion of Mr Scott);

• Special Disability Trusts (resumption of debate from 18 October 2010 on motion of Ms Moylan); and

• Climate change notice of motion given by Mr Murphy on 15 November 2010.

This is what I said last Thursday:

What does that tell you? It tells you that there are five items of business to be voted upon next week and that four of those five are from the opposition, none are from the crossbenchers and only one is from the government.

That is what I told the parliament last week would happen this week. So there was proper notice in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

What we have determined and agreed upon is that the Selection Committee will meet. The Selection Committee met on Tuesday, 23 November, and determined the following items would be voted on: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Public Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010, moved by the member for Cowper; a motion on the detention facility at Inverbrackie, moved by the member for Mayo; a motion on the national curriculum, moved by the member for Sturt; and a motion on the home insulation program, moved by the member for Flinders.

Two days ago, on Tuesday, we determined there will be four votes when the parliament comes back, in the first sitting week, all of them from the coalition—100 per cent. Today, we had five items listed—one of them was withdrawn by the member for Maranoa—four of them from the coalition. The majority of the private members’ bills and motions overwhelmingly have been items from the coalition. We are scheduling the votes in an orderly way. I just moved two bills on the National Broadband Network. I moved them today, they get placed here, we have a second reading, then debate commences a week later—when we come back on the Tuesday after the caucuses meet.

This resolution by the member for Sturt attempts to not give private members’ business equal status but greater status than government bills, even though, when this motion is debated, voted upon and carried, it will not have an effect on government policy. It is simply a motion indicating a view of the House of Representatives. That is all it is. If the member for Sturt’s motion is carried, and if we have these debates every Thursday and we divide on these motions, we will be saying as a House of Representatives that these private members’ motions are of more significance than the national legislation coming before this parliament, such as the NBN bills I moved this morning. We have to have proper processes and that is why we have motions and bills introduced at one time, determined they will be voted upon and then a time set out for them. Every one of those four items will be voted upon on Thursday, 10 February 2011. We know that will occur. The reason that has to happen is that, if we are going to take private members’ motions and bills seriously, we have to treat them with some respect. We have to be able to examine them, to have discussions about them, to consult with our constituents and with our political organisations about them.

Particularly for those who sit on the crossbenches, it will simply be untenable if members are able to come in here and move suspensions to bring forward debates at any time. It may well be that they have already settled on a view on the motion moved by the member for Sturt. That is not the point. The point is that you cannot have an orderly running of this House in this way. It is not the government’s fault, nor is it the fault of the crossbench members of the Selection Committee if the coalition members who sit on the Selection Committee did not attend the Selection Committee prior to Tuesday 23 November—two days ago—to ask that votes be held on these items. That is not the government’s responsibility. That is why the member for Sturt apologised and said he was sorry about his own political organisation’s handling of this item.

It is significant that the member for Sturt has moved only one of these items—his own. There is no amendment about the member for Mayo’s motion, no amendment about the member for Flinder’s motion and no amendment about the member for Cowper’s private member’s bill because the member for Sturt knows that this is a trial. He knows that, if the vote was to be held this week, the appropriate time would have been last week’s Selection Committee meeting, not that of two days ago. I think we should get on with the votes being held today that were foreshadowed very clearly last week. The five items were outline there. Unless we do that, we will not be able to have appropriate processes before this House.

See this speech in context