Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion:

That the following words be added:

"and that the House shall meet on Monday, 14 October 2024, Tuesday, 15 October 2024, Wednesday, 16 October 2024 and Thursday, 17 October 2024."

In moving this amendment, the opposition is making it very clear that it has some real concerns about the government's schedule for next year because it's very light on.

The Deputy Leader of the House and the member for Kingsford Smith are interjecting in a way which isn't consistent with the view they held only a matter of 18 months to two years ago, when they sat on these benches.

I well remember sitting here when the now Leader of the House, the former Manager of Opposition Business, stood with feigned indignation—outrage—ranting and raving about previous schedules put forward by the then coalition government. I'm sorry the Leader of the House isn't here today to participate in the debate. I understand he is unwell, and I wish him well in his recovery; he is a good man. But I cannot forget those moments when he was on this side of the House and he lectured, cajoled and ranted about the previous government's arrangements of up to 18 weeks in the sitting schedule, saying it was not enough for him. Now he has come forward with a plan that appears to have 16 weeks for sitting, which is very light on compared to previous years. What has happened to the legislative agenda of those opposite? Is it so light on that they would put forward this schedule for 2024, notwithstanding that they cancelled next week's sitting?

The member for Kingsford Smith is suggesting I'm filibustering. I heard him deliver a speech a moment ago, and I have never heard him pronounce so many syllables so carefully and so spread out, so he was filibustering himself. I take his interjection that I may be filibustering at this moment. But I will say this: we are here to talk about this sitting schedule, and I believe it is unprecedented in my time here that the government of the day would cancel a sitting week—next week—purely because the Prime Minister does not want to be here to answer questions on issues like the Voice. He does not want to be here, but the parliament can sit without the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not want to be here because he does not want us to ask any questions of the government. He does not want his ministers to be exposed to more questions on a range of topics because he is simply very, very nervous about leaving his colleagues unattended without him being on watch. He does not want them to be here unattended, meeting and talking about his appalling judgement. His decision to divide Australians on his failed voice proposal showed his appalling judgement. The Prime Ministers simply does not want to have his colleagues to have an opportunity to gather without him there to enforce discipline, shall I say.

In moving this amendment to the motion today, I urge those opposite to consider carefully the option being put forward by this side of the House. I urge them to support our amendment.

See this speech in context