House debates

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Motions

National Security

4:03 pm

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

The fact is this: the opposition was two votes short of a majority. If it is the case that two members come in here, give an explanation and say they wish to vote, and there was a change, therefore, in the outcome as a result of misadventure, I will support the Manager of Opposition Business's motion. That is what we determined collectively—government, opposition and crossbenchers—after the last parliament.

I will not play the games that the member for Sturt played during the last sitting week. But if you want an example of playing absurd politics with national security, it is this. The Manager of Opposition Business should also know—he might not, but he should—that the suspension of standing orders, if it were carried, and if the motion were moved by the member for Denison, would be out of order. Because you cannot have an inquiry into specific national security matters concerning individuals by this committee. It is expressly outlawed by the standing orders—by House of Representatives Practice. I say to the crossbenchers: have a bit of common sense and think about the implications of why the standing orders are addressed that way—why House of Representatives Practice is addressed that way. If we are going to have national security matters dealing with individuals dealt with by parliamentary committees based upon votes we endanger our national security.

I say to this parliament and the member for Denison—and the member for Lyne, who I have every respect for—withdraw your motion. It should not be proceeded with. If it were the case that the suspension had been carried—and it will not be carried, because there isn't an absolute majority—it is very clear that it is not—

Comments

No comments