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

I want to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I want to respond differently to the opposition issues from the crossbench issues. With respect to the opposition, for example, the debate management motion—that both opposition members who just spoke voted for—used to be, 'Take consideration in detail for 30 minutes,' full stop. That's what used to happen, not, 'You can have each amendment for 20 minutes and the minister can extend it if there are still people wanting to speak.' The whole thing was 30 minutes, full stop. I just don't accept for there to be any parallel drawn that somehow we're behaving the way the previous government behaved. Secondly, we now have a situation where the opposition have decided it is clever to filibuster and to keep debates going for no particular purpose. They did it when I was sick—on the calendar—just trying to keep it going for as long as possible. They did it in a moment of madness yesterday, which had the exact opposite impact of what they were trying to achieve. But they'd decided the game of filibustering was fun.

For that reason, in consideration in detail—where members can speak more than once, and you can actually have a couple of people just decide they're going to play sport forever—given the way the opposition is currently behaving, I believe we do need to manage that debate. I am mindful, though, of issues that've been raised with me privately by crossbenchers, and have been raised in the debate right now, about some of the challenges in a bill like this where a member feels that they need to move some issues separately. I am interested in finding a way to be able to deal with that. At the moment, this only allows each crossbencher to move one amendment, or a large amendment in block, and an argument has been put to me that that creates challenges for people being able to properly represent their constituency.

The final clause of this allows a variation on the arrangement to be moved by a minister. I give an undertaking to the crossbench that I want to negotiate with them and have a conversation. I accept they will vote against us on the amendment now. That has been made clear. Notwithstanding that, I think there is a reasonable point that has been made that doesn't go to the concept of filibustering forever but does go to the concept of being able to properly represent their constituencies by being able to move more than one amendment. Working out how we can do that without things going on forever and having fair rules across the parliament is something I think we can achieve. I want to give that undertaking to the crossbench, notwithstanding that they're about to vote against me.

See this speech in context