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

The standing orders presume that we deal with the third reading on the following day. That's why you have to suspend standing orders to do it otherwise. Ordinarily, governments prefer to be able to get something through on the same day and so they seek leave, and cooperation is ordinarily given. But you've got to say two things. First: why does it have to go through today? When it finishes here it goes to the Senate, and the Senate is not sitting. Why is the Senate not sitting? There's a thing called Senate estimates! If you get on your TV and start moving through the channels—don't spend your whole time on Sky News—you will find there are all these committees called estimates. They're meeting at the moment, and that's why this motion shouldn't be agreed to. We should go through this in the ordinary way. We should deal with this in the normal way, which standing orders presume.

What those opposite have to understand is that so much of this building relies on cooperation, so much of the way parliament works relies on cooperation. If this bill were urgent, if whether we dealt with it today or tomorrow made a difference to how quickly this could be implemented, then I would not be arguing this at all, because there would be a difference in the real world. The only difference here is to the convenience of the government, and we're all a bit sick of everything being about the convenience of this government. There is an obligation, when people get elected to a parliament, for the parliament to function as a parliament, for the parliament to function as a place where ideas are debated and different points of view are heard. If you want cooperation to make life convenient for the government then you need to behave like one and allow the parliament to act like a parliament.

The last time we had environmental law dealt with in this chamber, everything was bulldozed through. I was on the list to speak. I'm a former environment minister; I had something to contribute to that debate. Members of the crossbench had amendments to move. But the legislation was steamrolled through. What was the urgency? It was sent to the Senate, and since it got there they haven't done a thing with it. The simple obligation and demand that this government had was that they wanted make sure that there would be no scrutiny in the chamber. They wanted to make sure that there would be no debate in the chamber. You behave that way and then turn up and say, 'Oh, can we have leave so that everything's more convenient?' No. No, you can't. Because a whole lot of members of the government—not all of them, but a whole lot of them—have gone through life where everything was about them. They have gone through life where they expect that the whole world is there to serve them and their privilege, and they then expect to be able to treat other members of parliament with such contempt that they will not allow them to speak on legislation of substance, where they will never accept an invitation for a debate from the Leader of the Opposition. They behave that way, and then the moment there's something for their convenience they'll ask for leave and they reckon they'll get it.

This won't be hugely inconvenient for those opposite. It's going to mean that, whatever meetings the ministers are having, they're going to have to wander down to the chamber for a non-controversial bill. It's all a bit silly that people will have to do that, but what else do we have to push back with? Because this chamber is being treated with contempt, and that matters. It does matter as to whether or not debate is allowed in this chamber, and if this is all we've got to push back on, then we will. Because this term those opposite have voted more times that the member be no further heard than they have voted in support of legislation. That is the major parliamentary contribution for those opposite this term. No other term has ever been like this. I know that some of the newer members have been told this spin of: 'The moment for the opposition to talk is the MPI. That's their debate, and everything else belongs to the government.'

Well, sorry, since Federation that's not how this place has worked. Even on the day of the Dismissal there was a suspension moved and it was accepted. When leave was sought for a debate, it was accepted. Even in the bitterness of that, the parliament was allowed to function. And I've got to say, if they were secret ballots I reckon we would have had a few more debates, from the number of corridor conversations people have had. Because some of us—and I dare say a majority of us; in fact, possibly everybody in the room now—believe it's okay for there to be debate in this chamber. They have enough belief in their own convictions to hold their own in those debates, and they're happy to bring the argument on.

But we have a Prime Minister of a different view. We have a Prime Minister with a glass jaw who is not willing to engage in debate. He's certainly not willing to engage in debate publicly on the floor of the chamber, and, from what I understand, not that happy when debate comes to him in private meetings either. That is the way Australia is run right now, and if the only chance we have to push back on that is procedurally, if that's all we've got between now and the next election, then, when leave is sought, it will be denied. When a suspension is moved like this, it'll be opposed.

Think of the radical nature of what Labor is asking for at this moment: we're asking that parliament be allowed to have debates. That's what we're asking for. We're asking that, when someone starts to speak, they will be allowed—as I have been allowed right now—to use their time. It might be persuasive for some—I reckon it's not that persuasive for some very close to me across there.

See this speech in context