Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

He cannot simply try to disrupt the debate with constant points of order. It is quite clear to the House and anybody listening, though I note we are not broadcasting, that what I am explaining to the House is the context in which the suspension of standing orders should be moved if it was so important that the opposition believe that the government's program should be suspended for the rest of the afternoon. Quite obviously if the Labor Party thought that this was the most important issue of the day it should have been the subject of question time, building to a suspension of standing orders. I make the point that Labor's tactics have never been good but on this particular day are spectacularly bad.

Why should standing orders not be suspended? Because there are very important matters that need to be debated this afternoon in the House. I for one was looking forward to the speech from the member for McMahon on the government's attempts to wind back investor protection for consumers seeking financial advice, which he regarded apparently as a matter of public importance needing to be debated. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business thinks that the member for McMahon's speech is not as interesting as I was looking forward to listening to it because he wants to suspend standing orders to delay our attempts to get to that matter of public importance.

On the program for the afternoon are bills like the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. What a spectacular own goal for the Labor Party to move a suspension motion today to stop that bill being debated—to delay it further, potentially to delay it too long for it to be properly implemented—which would benefit 57,000 veterans in Australia, who stand to gain the same indexation mechanism as that which exists for the age pension. We think that is very important and that is why we put it on the agenda to be debated today. But the Labor Party does not think so. The Labor Party thinks a stunt such as this is more important than the 57,000 veterans who have waited four years for this measure to be passed. They think it is more important than debating the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. It speaks volumes for the priorities of the opposition that they always elevate politics above good policy. For the 57,000 veterans waiting to hear that this bill has been passed and gone to the Senate and for every one of those people listening or reading the Hansard in the future, know this: Labor wanted to delay the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill; in fact, they wanted to stop it from happening today and potentially never happen. So a spectacular own goal.

They also want to delay the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The Green Army is a very good public policy measure by this government promised before the election. It is being looked forward to in the community and will be a tremendous asset to repairing our environment in a very practical way. It is one of the measures the government has introduced as a direct action part of our policy for better environmental outcomes, for combating climate change, for improving the area in which we live, the environment in which we live. But Labor think that this stunt they have moved today is a more important priority. That is why they want to suspend standing orders to delay the government's program for the rest of the afternoon. I happen to think that we should get on with introducing the DFRDB bill on fair indexation.

I think we should get on with debating the Green Army Program, because I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House, who were proud to promise the Green Army Program before the election, are looking forward to debating it, to allowing their colleagues to have a go as well on that subject, and to passing that bill and sending it to the Senate. Labor want to delay that bill further, because they would prefer to elevate politics over good policy.

Finally, the other example I will give is the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014, which we also want to debate and pass, because we want to take a hard line with people who gain their wealth through unexplained measures. We want to take a firm line to ensure that law and order is elevated in this country—but not Labor; Labor think political stunts should be elevated, that political stunts are more important than ensuring that the unexplained wealth and other measures bill is passed through this House.

See this speech in context