Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I will start with the comments that the Leader of the House concluded with, because he was talking about members on this side. I think the challenge for him in moving this motion is not whether or not members of the Labor Party will say something he was not expecting but that he is now dealing with the fact that members of his own side, almost every hour, say things that he was not expecting.

It is hard to believe that today is Wednesday, because the government have brought forward their weekly stuff-up. We had got used to the fact that either on the Wednesday or Thursday of a parliamentary sitting week the government would bring forward their own goal either by not being here or, as was the case last week, by being here and deciding to spontaneously combust and vote with the Labor Party. This week the own goal moved from members of the backbench or members of the frontbench to the Prime Minister and they brought forward the stuff-up to the Tuesday. That is why we are having motions like the one before us today.

Let's not forget what the radio coverage was full of on Monday morning. On Monday morning we were told that in this parliamentary sitting week the government were going to spend the entire week debating industrial relations, debating the bills that were the reason for the double dissolution. Of course, what then happened was that they got to Tuesday morning and decided it was time not to have the debate but to shut the debate down. If they thought this debate was going well for them, they would have it. Let's not forget that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, the one that we are talking about now, is one that they never want to have the debate on in the parliament. Earlier this year the parliament was prorogued in what was viewed at the time as a great constitutional stunt from the Prime Minister. We all went across to the other place for one of those riveting Governor-General's speeches that we all look forward to, and the Governor-General gave both houses the job of dealing with two items of legislation. This bill was one of them, and the government never even brought the bill on for debate. The government do not want there to be a discussion of this piece of legislation. They did not bring it on when the parliament was prorogued and now, after having a double dissolution on two pieces of legislation, they do not want members of parliament to talk about the reason for there being a double dissolution federal election.

The member for Sturt has been here for a long time. Many of his constituents would believe he has been here for a very, very, very long time. It seems not to have occurred to the member for Sturt, as he is gradually consumed by the green leather, that there are a large number of members of parliament, who are in the chamber right now, who have never had the opportunity to speak on this bill. They came to this parliament in a double dissolution election that was meant to be about this piece of legislation, and the motion from the Leader of the House, which is before the House right now, says they will never get to talk on this piece of legislation. If the government have the courage of their convictions, if the government think this is a piece of legislation worth defending, then they should defend it. But they will not; they will not defend this piece of legislation.

The opposition will be moving amendments in the other place, and when the opposition spokesperson on this issue, the shadow minister, makes his contribution he will be foreshadowing those amendments to the House for the first time. It is reasonable to have a consideration in detail opportunity to be able to question the government on the impact of the issues that will be raised in those amendments. It is reasonable to have a consideration in detail stage of the debate to allow questions to be asked of the minister at the table—to ask questions of the person with portfolio responsibility in this House. Of course, the person with portfolio responsibility is the Leader of the House. The person who would have to answer those questions and defend the bill is the Leader of the House. The person who would have to understand what was in the bill in front of the chamber is the person who is moving the motion to make sure he does not have to answer any of those questions. It is no accident that somebody who has a reputation for being rhetoric rich but policy light does not want there to be any opportunity in this House for arguments to be directed at him or for questions to be asked where he would be responsible for providing answers to the House.

I will be moving an amendment to the motion, to be seconded by the shadow minister, which would allow there to be a consideration in detail stage. Obviously, we are opposed to the whole motion. We are opposed to the concept of gagging debate on any piece of legislation, where you take away the rights of members of parliament. But for a parliament that was formed to have a view about this bill, it is beyond belief that we now have a motion preventing members of parliament from expressing a view on the bill. Of all the pieces of legislation to gag, you should not be gagging—this House should not be limiting—debate on items of legislation that were the double dissolution trigger. It is bad enough to do it on any bill, but people on each side of the parliament have been elected based on that double dissolution having been called, and the government now says, 'That may well be true, but we'd rather no-one spoke about it.' If you do not want people to be able to make speeches, I do not understand why you want to be elected to the parliament.

I do not understand why those opposite, if they have such a problem with people putting a point of view, view this as a safe workplace for them to be involved in. If the Leader of the House hates the concept of the house debating legislation, I would suggest he probably ought to get a different job. As the Leader of the House he is meant to be the defender of the House debate and, at the very least, is meant to be defending the right of the House to debate the issues on which the double dissolution trigger was called.

Can I say that, I remember when, previously, under the Howard government, they had contentious legislation. I remember when they had the Work Choices legislation on industrial relations, and they would allow people to try to win the argument. They ended up not winning that argument, but John Howard did not shy away from having the debate. John Howard believed in what he was doing—he believed in something, which would not be a bad start for some of those opposite—and he would have the backbench make the case. Instead, we have a motion today that is designed for government members to bury their own backbench, a motion to make sure they do not take the risk of what their own members might say.

The Leader of the House needs to know that his colleagues will find a camera anywhere, even if he shuts them down here. They will find ways to undermine the government, and it will not just be the backbench that manages to undermine this government. As we saw yesterday, even the Prime Minister will have a go from time to time at undermining this government.

The amendment that I move is in the exact same terms that have been circulated. It does not turn a dreadful resolution into a good one, but it does allow there to be a consideration in detail stage. I therefore move the following amendment to the motion put by the Leader of the House:

Omit paragraph 2 and substitute the following words:

(2)   at the conclusion of the speech of the first Opposition Member on the second reading of the bill, the Prime Minister being called immediately to conclude the second reading debate and the question then being put immediately on the second reading of the bill, a Governor-General’s message being reported, a consideration in detail stage taking place, any questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put and the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill;

And I urge the government: if they want to truncate the consideration in detail stage after people have had a chance to give five minute speeches and to ask questions, then they will still do so and move that the question be put. But the alternative to allowing this amendment is to say that not one new member of parliament gets to have their say on one of the triggers for the double dissolution election. It is an extraordinary attempt by the Leader of the House to silence this parliament.

The amendment that is being put forward is modest. It does not fix the problem but it at least stops what is in front of us right now from making a complete joke of what was meant to be the purpose of the election. If the Leader of the House just wants to accept that the double dissolution game from the Prime Minister was a joke, he will vote against this amendment. If he believes that members of parliament who are new members of parliament have something to contribute, including from his own side, then he will take the risk and allow the parliament to do something really radical, like debate a piece of legislation.

See this speech in context