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

At the moment, we are in a situation that we have not been in at any other point this term. At the moment we are in the situation where we have a hung parliament. And when there is a hung parliament, the presumption should always err on the side of at least making sure we have the debate. The presumption in a hung parliament should always be—should always be!—that we err on the side of allowing people to have their say and to have their vote.

It's some years since we've had a hung parliament in this place. The last time we did, there were many occasions when we were in government when we brought forward motions that we did not agree with. We brought forward a motion moved by the member for Melbourne, for example—the Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012. We supported the procedurals for it and then we voted against the bill. But we did so on the basis that when we have a hung parliament the only way to make it work is that we err on the side of at least allowing the debate to go ahead, even if we're then going to oppose the motion itself.

In the same way, in government we brought on for debate a bill called the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill. It's a fair bet that when the member for Warringah moved the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill, when we were in government, we didn't think that bill was worth supporting. But we did believe that there was a strong enough view within the parliament that it was worth debating. That's what I'm asking for at this point of each member of the House.

I am not asking for anyone to declare their position on penalty rates at the next vote. What I am asking the House to do in the next vote is to determine, given the level of angst that is there in the community—and also, with respect to fellow members of parliament, given the level of angst that is here in this parliament—that we should not be saying in the context of a hung parliament, 'We won't even allow the debate to happen.' That's the question now.

If it is not a hung parliament, very regularly governments will push through and they'll just decide, 'Well, we're not going to allow this debate to happen or that debate to happen.' They'll move that the member be no longer heard, they'll shut things down and gag debates. The members of the crossbench have consistently—and they're actually the only ones of any side who have been consistent on this—voted in favour of debate and against debate being gagged. Be in no doubt that the motion from the Leader of the House is about gagging the penalty rates debate. That's what it's about. And that's the question that I am seeking to amend with this amendment. We should be dealing with this today. And today we should also be making clear—

A government member interjecting—

I will respond briefly to the interjection—'What about marriage equality?' Firstly, I have already offered additional hours. Secondly, this issue was meant to be dealt with last week. There was an entire week that disappeared. So, please, members opposite, don't pretend and use marriage equality as though that's an alternative to having a debate on penalty rates. I can guarantee to the House that, if this is voted for, we will deal with the penalty rates issue quickly and we will get back onto the marriage equality debate, which everybody wants to get back onto. But I simply ask every member of the House to observe the fact that, right now, we have the opportunity for cooperation. In a hung parliament, that is rare. We should take that opportunity. I ask members of the crossbench, each and every one of them, to vote, as we just did on an issue about asylum seekers, to say, 'When the parliament is a hung parliament, we will, at the very least, unite to make sure issues are debated.' Once we've been through the procedural issues the vote will fall where it will fall based on the individual views of members of parliament. But a hung parliament cannot function unless we work on the basis that the presumption will be that debate will take place. I move this amendment for one reason and one reason only: for debate to take place that otherwise this government will gag and not allow.

See this speech in context