Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to indicate that the opposition does not support this debate management motion. The fact is that under the previous government, in the previous parliament, the then Manager of Opposition Business, now Leader of the House, was very passionate about the importance of debate occurring in a way that allows all in the House to express their views and speak to the fullest extent possible on matters that are of considerable importance to members. I will quote from one statement that he issued, in which he criticised coalition MPs for being 'part of a government obsessed with shutting down democratic debate and silencing its opponents.' It was an unfair characterisation, I hasten to add. He went on to say that he was very critical indeed of government MPs, who, he said, 'pretend to their electorates that they're the sort of people who listen and then spend all their time in Canberra silencing voices they don't like.'

It's interesting to see the position that the Leader of the House is now taking. Having been a vigorous champion, an enthusiastic champion, an unrelenting champion of the importance of debates being allowed to take their full period, he now has a different view. Apparently, it's enormously important that this particular bill get moved through the House within a particular period of time. It's a little unclear exactly why that is, when we look at the facts. Firstly, the changes outlined in this bill do not take effect until 1 July 2023. In fact, I am advised that the department has already told Services Australia to get the ball rolling on administrative changes that may be required. So that work is already underway. We also know that the legislation is currently in the middle of a Senate inquiry, which is not due to report until 16 November. So the suggestion that we need to rush this through, that consideration in the House needs to be truncated, really doesn't stand up to any detailed scrutiny at all. It is puzzling to see this change in perspective from the Leader of the House.

We know under quantum mechanics that it is possible for an electron to be in two states at once. Perhaps we have a new particle that's been discovered—a burkium. It is violently opposed to gag motions while at the same time an enthusiastic user of them. That may be it. I can't be entirely sure, but that may be the phenomenon that we are witnessing in the House at the moment, with this enthusiastic user of gag motions. He says to us that, in essence, this gag motion doesn't choke quite as tightly as others that may be available to him, and we should be very grateful for that.

The opposition's position is clear. This is a matter of very considerable importance to the opposition. It's of very considerable importance to many opposition members. Many opposition members represent regional and remote electorates, and regional and remote electorates around Australia are overwhelmingly represented by coalition MPs. We are very strongly committed to regional and remote Australia, and it's very important that the perspective of the people of regional and remote Australia is heard in relation to this bill. We know that although the bill proposes the very extensive spending of additional taxpayers' money it does not produce additional childcare places, and we've not seen any clear, well-developed plan to deal with the specific challenges of regional and remote Australia. It is enormously important that we have members representing regional and remote Australia who are able to express their views and subject this bill to the appropriate scrutiny.

I note also that this debate management motion involves a very serious contraction of the normal procedures in relation to consideration in detail. This is a very troubling aspect of what this government is repeatedly doing. Consideration in detail is a very important process in which the provisions of a bill can be put to detailed scrutiny and in which any member is able to move an amendment and speak to it but also to ask questions of the minister at the table. This is an enormously important process and it's one of the casualties of this particular debate management motion, as well as the broader gag mechanism which the government has empowered itself to use, really at the drop of a hat, by declaring a bill to be urgent. I acknowledge that the specific procedures to do with urgency have not been used here, but what has been used here is a debate management motion which includes many of the unattractive features of the gag mechanism that the government has empowered itself to use—and I might also add that the government gave itself those powers on the first or second day of the parliament sitting, at a time when, I think it's fair to say, a number of members on the crossbench had not had the opportunity to participate in consideration in detail and appreciate its importance.

So the opposition does have grave concerns about the use of this debate management motion and this gag process which is being imposed. It is troubling to us and it does not have our support. I want to be very clear about that.

We hear excuses along the lines of: 'Oh well, we've got a lot of stuff to get through, so let's not bother with all that messy and inconvenient legislative process. Let's not bother with all of that annoying scrutiny from elected representatives, because we're an executive government; we've got a lot to get done!' That tone, coming from the government, is troubling. It is, frankly, showing an inappropriate, inadequate level of recognition of the very important work of the parliament. Indeed, the Leader of the House, when he was in his previous role—as indeed did the Prime Minister in previous roles—spoke eloquently about the importance of the parliament performing its role as a mechanism for scrutiny and ensuring that debate can occur in an unconstrained fashion and is not subject to artificial restrictions and gags. So I put on record, on behalf of the opposition, our grave concerns with this debate management motion and our strong objection to what is being proposed here this evening.

See this speech in context