Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise in this debate very conscious of your desire to keep the debate tight on the matter before the House. I certainly intend to do so. This is a debate really about whether we be on private members' business as determined by the Selection Committee or whether we have another stunt in this place that is all about political opportunism and, worse than that, about running interference on proper legal processes. I rise in this debate wearing three hats: as a member of the Selection Committee, as the Chief Government Whip and as a private member in this place. On all three counts, I rise as a fierce defender of private members' rights in this place.

We do have a process. I am now making a contribution on behalf of government members of the Selection Committee. Both the member for Lyne and the member for Melbourne sit on the Selection Committee. They have now made very substantial contributions. I want to thank them for that. The only person who has not now made a contribution to this debate is a member of the opposition who sits on the Selection Committee. I am not surprised. The member for Berowra is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. The member for Barker is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. Both are members of the Selection Committee. I invite them to make a contribution to this debate. I think their contribution is critical in determining what the House should be doing here: whether we should be giving priority to private members' business and rights or whether we should be backing a stunt.

I suspect they are very reluctant to make a contribution because they find themselves sitting there in agreement with me, in agreement with the member for Melbourne and in agreement with the member for Lyne. They know as members of the Selection Committee, as do you, Mr Speaker, as the esteemed chair of that committee, how hard we have worked to make this agreement work and how hard we have slogged to ensure that not only do private members get maximum opportunity in this place but also it works in a bipartisan way.

As you know better than anyone, Mr Speaker, it has been a messy process from time to time. Indeed, occasionally it has been a bit of an ugly process. Each and every one of us—those on that side of the House, those on this side of the House and, indeed, those on the crossbenches—have worked very hard to put politics aside, to work with what we have been given and to make this process work. I have to say that, while it is not always easy for a government to have such a fierce defender of private members' rights, giving so much opportunity to private members, including the opposition in this place, has been a healthy process and a breath of fresh air. It has worked because we have worked together. That is really what this debate is about: whether we want to trash all of that hard work now, a year on, or whether we want to stay with it in recognition of the hard work that has been done. I invite the member for Leichardt, who is now in the chamber and is the most senior member of the opposition on the Selection Committee, the member for Barker or the member for Berowra—they can draw straws or work it out amongst themselves—to stand and explain to the House why we should now be affording priority to a stunt, a bit of political opportunism, over the processes of the Selection Committee.

I want to express my support for everything that has been stated by the Leader of the House and those who have spoken from the crossbench. I want to thank them for their contributions. They were reasoned and sensible contributions. They were contributions that anyone in this House thinking objectively rather than in a partisan way would surely accept, but those on the other side will have an opportunity to respond to that.

The matter for Mr Thomson is complex. I take on board what Mr Wilkie has said. He made the point that maybe he should just come in here and make a short statement. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements. Indeed, he has made a number of statements—

See this speech in context