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

Today I rise for the 44th time to a suspension of standing orders motion moved by the opposition. Every day they come in here and stop question time in order to move a suspension of standing orders, because they have nothing to say about the future of this nation. Not only do they have nothing to say about the future of this nation, they do not even bother to try to hold the government to account on any of the major issues of the day that confront Australia—not on the economy, not on social policy, not on health policy and not on education policy. I have had one question in years on infrastructure and transport, even though the Leader of the National Party is the shadow minister. It shows—and this is the reason we should not support the suspension motion moved by the opposition—that every day this is just an act of self-indulgence. Every time they do this they say that they just care about themselves and not about those they purport to represent. Every time they do it they remind the Australian people that they are not interested in issues. They remind Australians that, in today's case, they are pushing off the matter of public importance debate, which is about a price on carbon. Remember that. They thought it was important, but today they move a motion that, if carried, will mean we will not have a debate today about the price on carbon. We on this side of the House are very happy to debate a clean energy future, what it will mean for our economy, what it will provide in terms of support for pensioners, what it will provide in terms of the support for working Australians through tax cuts, what it will mean for families in the suburbs and what it will mean for future jobs as we move to a carbon constrained economy.

Regarding the resolution today moved by the shadow minister for foreign affairs, you would think that she would just be embarrassed. The only questions that we have had from the shadow minister for foreign affairs have been ones that have sought to play politics and make fun. They are the only things that have been raised. There is never anything serious. There has never been anything about famine in Africa, the great global issues confronting the G20 or the European economy and there has never been anything about the implications for this nation of all those great global issues.

It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said about the member for Kooyong on 28 August last year, 'I've got to say it's nice to have someone in the parliamentary party who understands foreign affairs at last.' What an endorsement! And he heard his name: he thought it was a call from the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry, Josh, it is not my decision; it is the decision of the bloke in front of me. And this bloke in front of me is quite happy to have a lame duck who is not interested in foreign affairs as the shadow minister. We want to debate the substantial issues. That is why we do not support the suspension of standing orders. The member for Kooyong came in with some hope and he did not last a minute! That says it all about those opposite.

We are happy to debate the great issues of the day, such as our stance as enhancers of opportunity versus their stance of entrenchers of privilege, or our stance as builders of the nation versus their stance as wreckers, or our stance on a return to surplus versus their stance, with their $70 billion black hole, or what we stand for with our positive vision for the future versus their stance as a bunch of negative hollow opportunists.

See this speech in context