House debates
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Business
Standing and Sessional Orders
5:50 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source
which members of the parliament will leave this building and the circumstances under which they leave.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
I also have an amendment which I move. There is a boom mike over there, mate. Just calm down. I also move an amendment, which is seconded by the member for Grayndler, to establish a 'take note' debate at the end of question time. The Senate has a 'take note' debate. This amendment allows members of the opposition, sometimes government backbenchers when they have asked questions about their electorate, and certainly members of the crossbench to make 90-second statements in response to what has been said in question time. How many times have we seen answers given in this place that involve complete misrepresentation of the facts? But, because they do not involve a personal misrepresentation, there is no form of the House currently to be able to set the record straight.
The Leader of the House should support this amendment. Why? Because previously he advocated for it. When the Leader of the House held this job, when he made his speech at the National Press Club and he went through the different changes that should happen to standing orders, one of the changes that those opposite promised to bring to the House on coming to government at the 2013 election was to establish a 'take note' debate at the end of question time. So I put it to the government. We are asking no more than for the government to support a change that they previously have advocated. We expect that the government will look at this. There is no shortage of issues where we have dealt with the government coming up with a position that is the opposite of what they previously argued, but this is one where the Leader of the House has something in the exact form that he personally had previously proposed, and not only proposed but put forward as an election commitment at the 2013 election. So I urge the government members to support the Leader of the House as he was in 2013. The incarnation of what he has become in 2016 is something that only he can answer for. There is no doubt that he is a diminished figure since what happened that Thursday afternoon, but at the very least, on this amendment, we are asking the government to support no more than what they have previously advocated.
Our objection to the substantive change being put forward by the government is very simple. People, when they come to Canberra, should be able to debate legislation. There is nothing about members being able to leave the chamber or leave the building that is in any way threatened by the current standing orders, because that issue was fixed last week. The only reason for the substantive amendment that has been put by the Leader of the House is this: the government is in chaos, its backbench is a shambles, and those opposite would rather abolish votes than risk having to rely on their own members to turn up for them.
No comments