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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the time and order of business for Tuesday, 20 September 2011, being as follows:

(1) the House shall meet at 9 a . m . ;

(2) Government Business shall have priority from 9am until 2 p . m . ;

(3) during the period from 9 a . m . until 2 p . m . , any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a Matter of Public Importance; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

For the benefit of members I will outline what is proposed—that is, next Tuesday, the House would meet at 9 am, and government business would have priority from 9 am until 2 pm. During the period from 9 am until 2 pm any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a minister during this period, shall stand deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of public importance and any variation to this arrangement be made only by a motion moved by a minister.

We had some considerable discussion on Tuesday about what the process would be for the consideration of the clean energy bills package, and the House determined a process which will allow for proper consideration of this legislation: a joint parliamentary committee that will report to the parliament on 7 October. The government showed its willingness to be flexible by accepting an amendment that was moved by the opposition to alter the date of reporting from 4 October, which is what the government originally proposed. We also accommodated the opposition by expanding the membership of the committee to include an additional opposition member as well as an additional government member, once again showing in our amendment to the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business that this is a government that is prepared to put in place mechanisms to facilitate appropriate consideration of this critical legislation. This, of course, differentiates us from the actions of the previous government, where on issues like Work Choices, for example, we had eight days for the entire consideration. Now, one month is more than eight days. I know that the member for Mackellar has had problems with calendars in the past, but eight days is not as much as a calendar month. That is why we have put in place these mechanisms.

Some concern has been expressed by the opposition about the amount of time that would be permitted for discussion, so one of the things that we are prepared to do—and which I indicated from the outset—is to allow for additional time so that people have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. This resolution today would add five hours at a time that is convenient to members, it being from 9 am to 2 pm. Of course, party room meetings occur at that time. There are a number of members in this parliament who do not have to go to party meetings, but, for those of us who do, the clause in the resolution I am moving about no divisions will ensure that those party processes, which are important to the functioning of both government and opposition, can take place in an orderly way. It is also convenient for the staff, and in that case I am referring not just to the personal staff of members of the House of Representatives, ministers and shadow ministers but, importantly, to the fine men and women who work to keep this parliament functioning in such an effective way: the Hansard reporters, the clerks, the advisory staff of the House of Representatives and, indeed, the fine people who work in your office, Mr Speaker. So, in terms of the functioning of the parliament, this is an appropriate way; this is certainly preferable, for example, to extending the parliament by five hours at the end of Tuesday, which would take us into the early hours of the morning.

The government indicated very early on, I must say—more than a week ago—to the Manager of Opposition Business that this was the government's intention. I foreshadow to you, Mr Speaker, that if additional time is required we will also be proposing to sit on the following Tuesday in a similar manner to add an additional five hours. I also indicate that we are prepared to sit later next week, be it on Wednesday or Thursday, when parliament usually rises at 8 pm and 5 pm respectively, because we want to make sure that everyone who wants to make a contribution to this debate is able to do so. We are doing so in a transparent way. As you are aware, there are various methods available to the government to facilitate this sort of process in a less consultative way through measures which are available to ministers such as the negation of adjournments, for example. We are not doing that. We are attempting, through a consultative process, to get an appropriate vehicle forward.

I suspect that the Manager of Opposition Business has seen a bit of sense in past days and reflected on the contradictions in his remarks when he said that on the one hand we need extra time but that on the other hand he would oppose extra time being made available. I suspect what will occur here is that the Manager of Opposition Business will speak against this motion but will not vote against it, because he knows the absurdity of that position and that contradiction. I commend the resolution to the House, and I look forward to listening to the contributions of members to this important legislation, and indeed reading the contributions of members I am not able to listen to in real time. It is now time to act on dangerous climate change. We have had 35—and with the joint parliamentary committee it is 36—parliamentary inquiries. We have had the Shergold report, we have had the Garnaut report, we have had the work that was done by the emissions trading section of the department of the environment that was established and then abolished by the former government. We have had the work that was done in the lead-up to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, when agreement was reached across the major political parties in this House before the Liberals changed their mind and they combined with the Greens to defeat the legislation in the parliament. Had that legislation been carried we would have a price on carbon and we would have a structure in place. As the member for Wentworth said yesterday, there is a great deal of similarity between the two schemes.

See this speech in context