Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. In considering our position on this set of changes to the standing orders being put forward, one of the things we have to consider is: what is the counterfactual? What happens if this change is not passed? What would the standing orders otherwise provide for matters that the government considers urgent? This is where the opposition's argument is pretty disingenuous, if I can use a parliamentary term. What the standing orders provide if these amendments fail is that the government can come in and move that the question be put, and bang, we vote on it. Everyone who's on the speaking list would fall away, and if you were waiting to move amendments in the second reading stage, you would lose your chance to do that. When that happens, as in previous parliaments—and, I have to say, I lost count of the number of times we were ready to move amendments or give second reading speeches, and the people who are now sitting on the opposition benches came in and just said, 'Right, time's up; we're moving on'—we lose the right to even have a say, and we lose the right to explain why we're moving amendments.

Whilst I share a lot of the concerns about this proposal's potential for abuse, at least it gives a chance that we might be able to have a say in the second reading debate. If the amendment is accepted, it also gives us a chance to move our amendments and explain why we're moving those amendments, and then there will be a vote on that. That's not perfect, because when governments come in, as the last coalition government did, and say, 'I move that the question be put', nine times out of ten—if not more—you find the crossbenchers saying, 'No, we're going to oppose that.' I suspect that one of the things this will do is kick the can a bit further up the chain, and you might find people saying, 'Perhaps that bill is urgent, but I'm not going to vote that it's urgent, because I might lose my slot.' There's still going to be that fight. But, because it probably leaves open a slightly greater window for us to be able to have a say than we might otherwise have had—as we found out during the coalition—there's some merit in it.

I want to say two things. Firstly, it will not be guaranteed that everyone gets to have a say. There's still only until 10 pm the night before. Whilst the shortening of the speeches to 10 minutes increases the chance that everyone will get to have a go, given that we're now in a situation where there are lots of crossbenchers coming from different parts of the country and different parts of the political spectrum, who are not in a position on the government or the opposition, where one speaker could put their respective side, I would hope that, firstly, this is never used during the course of this parliament, but, if it is used, there's an understanding that that should not be at the cost of crossbenchers, who don't get a chance to put their position on the record. That's probably not something that can be built into the standing orders right now, given that we're debating these very quickly, but I hope that's something that the government and the opposition take on notice.

If we are going to be moving to this situation where there is now a limited time to speak—albeit with more speaking opportunities than if there were a gag, which is why, on balance, this is better than just moving that the question be put—there has to be some understanding that that should not come at the expense of the crossbench, especially Independents, who will each want to put their own independent position about things and may not have the chance to do that if the speaking list cuts off at 10 o'clock and they are the ones who fall behind. I speak on behalf of the Greens. I don't know if I speak on behalf of others on the crossbench; I expect I might speak on behalf of at least some. I place that there squarely now, because I think that is going to be critical to determining whether this is ultimately used in a successful way or in a way that truncates debate.

Secondly, I support the amendment moved by the member for Warringah because, otherwise, you'd have moved your amendments but, if you hadn't got the chance to speak during the second reading speech, you wouldn't have had a chance to explain why you're moving those amendments. Even though we may not get to have a debate about it, which is unfortunate, the ability to, at a minimum, say, 'This is why I want to move the amendments,' is better than what would happen if we don't pass this. Because if we don't pass this all that happens is the question is put. To that extent, I support that amendment from the member for Warringah.

It merited about 20 seconds of the Manager of Opposition Business's speech, and it came at about the eight-minute mark, but I think the opposition's real concern is that the crossbench is now going to get more questions, in recognition of the voice we have in this parliament. To that extent, we welcome the move from the government to recognise that this parliament—chosen by the Australian people—is a very different-looking parliament than we have seen before and one where crossbenchers representing different parts of the political spectrum and different parts of the country have a guaranteed right to ask questions. We should have a guaranteed right to ask questions. Question time is a critical place to hold the government to account, and one of the very clear messages from the last election is that there are other voices that want to be heard in holding the government to account and to have their issues aired. To that extent—and I appreciate that the government is moving these as a block, which I know will cause the opposition some concern—that just reflects the numbers in this parliament. All it does is it reflects the numbers in this parliament. Many people on the crossbench have sat through parliaments where our ability to interrogate the government and to have the issues that matter—not just to our constituency, but to people who voted for alternative voices right across the country—has been curtailed in the past. We have not had the opportunity in previous parliaments to ask the kinds of questions of the government that we need and to that extent I support the thrust of what is being done here, but I ask the government to take those concerns that we've raised on notice.

See this speech in context