Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

And I hear those opposite interjecting. Don't forget that up until now all that's happened is that the entire justification has been the words 'that the question be put'. That's the entire justification that we've had. Everything in front of us now is a significant improvement on where we've been for a very long time. But I'm happy to give that undertaking.

The member for Clark also raised the 10 pm finish time. I will tell you that I originally had it unlimited when I started consultation with the crossbench on this issue and the Jenkins issues were raised with me, and the concerns about that. That's why we've landed at 10 pm. I'm just very conscious that we start taking as much heed of that report as possible, and let's see how we go. But I'm very hopeful about the 10 pm cut-off—I wanted a process that meant everyone could have their speeches, and hopefully overwhelmingly that is what will happen. You usually find in these situations that you get fewer government members; I don't think it's reasonable to expect none, but you usually do find that you get fewer government members in these situations. That's the story behind how the 10 pm cut-off came into the standing orders.

In terms of the amendment from the member for Warringah, I hear the arguments that have been made. It's not my starting point, to be honest, because I'd like to think that when we get to the next morning we just have all of the votes. But I do believe that a reasonable case has been made in the speeches that have come from the crossbench about making sure that at least the mover gets to speak. Effectively the full in-detail stage, if we had that, can go for as long as people want to keep jumping, because everyone gets more than one speech, and then we're undoing the concept of something being urgent. So, in the terms in which the amendment is being moved, I'm happy to indicate that the government will be voting in favour of that amendment.

I would also say that the added advantage of the amendment is that there will be a reporting to the House of what people are about to vote on. Given that last term we had two occasions where ministers gave speeches on the wrong bill, I think that having people being reminded of what they're about to vote on by the mover, giving the reasons, is a pretty healthy thing for the House.

An honourable member interjecting—

They rewarded him with the Treasury portfolio!

Going to the comments that were made in the debate by Manager of Opposition Business: wow! Men in Black ends with that 'Neuralyzer' thing, which lets you forget the entire movie! You didn't have the sunglasses on, clearly, because the entire nine years apparently didn't happen: the entire nine years of coming in, steamrolling debate, stopping people—with the speaking list cutting off immediately and with no-one being allowed to move any amendments whatsoever—so that a bill could then be sent to the Senate and never brought on for debate there. That was the way this place ran. So I can understand why the Manager of Opposition Business is becoming passionate about this—'How dare the situation improve in terms of debate!'—because it is about to improve. That's what these standing order changes will do.

He said, 'There'll be no debate in the House about whether or not it's urgent.' Let's just unpack that. First of all, he's saying he wants a situation where we decide something's urgent, spend an hour deciding whether or not it's urgent and, as a result of that, take an hour of debate away from the bill that the House decided is urgent. On the second thing he's suggesting there, in saying there'll be no debate on whether it's urgent—how much debate do you reckon there is when you move that the question be put? How much debate happens then? The mover doesn't give a reason; no-one's allowed to say a word, under standing orders; and then the entire debate on the bill stops. But apparently that was fine for all that time. What happens to the in-detail process? 'Oh, there won't be enough argument on the in-detail process.' There used to be none! That was how you ran the parliament. This stopped being a debating chamber. This stopped being a situation where the arguments would go back and forth—and, can I say, this length of debate on standing orders was never allowed to happen either, because by now you would have moved that the question be put! That's what would have happened.

And then he raised opposition questions. How outrageous is it that, if there are more people on the crossbench, they get more questions. Part of what he said was that I'd made an admission, where I'd said that, in proportion, it's a bit more than the exact percentage of the crossbench. I'd like to know—you can let us know—exactly how do you give the crossbench 21.62 per cent of questions? Exactly how do you do that without rounding? It's an interesting argument. I'm on to discovering how you can do that. If there's a formula you've come up with, where you take away the number you first thought of and there's an answer to it, then we can look at that at a later time. Of course, it was always going to involve rounding, and what he's really saying is that rounding up is outrageous but that rounding down would have been fine. That's exactly what he's saying here. There's no objection to any of the areas in the sessional order where the opposition gets more than its proportion of speeches, on the non-government benches, but there's outrage about questions being rounded in any way.

But I am pleased to hear that apparently we are terrified of the high quality of their questions. Just hold this thought for 2.00 pm today, because apparently by three o'clock the government will have been destroyed. It's all going to be over and it's all on the Manager of Opposition Business. That's great expectation setting, and I'm glad he's done that, but the expectations for this House have been set in a bad way for nine years. For nine years this stopped being a debating chamber. Standing orders will always be imperfect, because you're dealing with what the rules will be for debates that have not yet occurred. They'll always be imperfect. But what I can guarantee is that what's in front of us now is so much better than nine years of spending hour after hour in here voting on whether or not people were allowed to talk. That's what happened. It wasn't fair in terms of this being a debating chamber, and it certainly wasn't fair on the millions of Australians who hadn't voted for the Liberal or National parties. So now, yes, there's going to be debate, and there'll be times when the opposition make speeches that I won't particularly enjoy hearing—that's fine. That's the way this place is meant to work. I commend both the amendment and the resolution to the House.

See this speech in context