Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting this gag motion from the government. This is yet another time in which this parliament is being treated in this way. Let me be very clear to the Leader of the House that we never object to sitting late to deal with legislation, which is essentially covered by his clauses 1 and 2. We always, where practical, oppose the guillotining of debate, and that's really what the government is doing here in clauses 3 and 4, regardless of the words just spoken. These would require that any remaining questions be put immediately without a debate at 5.30 pm, as the manager said. But, ultimately and in practice, it means there will be no further speakers on the second reading. That is essentially where we're at. Irrespective of consideration in detail, we think it's very important that our members get an opportunity to speak on the second reading. Let's not forget housing is a monumental crisis in this country. That's what the bill deals with. I think it's only fair that all members get a reasonable opportunity to speak.

The bill can be debated when the House next returns in March. I can understand why the government would seek to move this bill. The Help to Buy scheme is quite an embarrassment at the time of the housing crisis, which has been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. We have this paltry bill lobbed up to the parliament to replicate a scheme that exists in virtually every state around the country to create more shared-equity places, when there are literally thousands of shared-equity places that are going unused in those state schemes because Australians don't want these products. It's clear—and we've seen this before from the manager—that the government is so desperate for a win on Thursday that they're again trampling on the rights of the House.

I had the benefit for many years of the very effective Manager of Opposition Business, as he was, being a bastion for the rights of members. He was a champion for the rights of members to have an opportunity to represent their electorates on matters of importance. The reality is that there are few issues more important to Australians at the moment than the housing crisis that's been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. How on earth does that Manager of Opposition Business that I recall in my mind accord with a now habitual process of this government guillotining debate? I think it's concerning. Unfortunately, it's left again to the opposition to make sure that we have orderly and proper legislative process.

I can understand why the government has not been particularly pleased with the debate on the Help to Buy Bill thus far. I can understand it is quite an embarrassment when you have inconvenient facts, like the futility of the scheme and the fact that it's very unloved around our country. I can understand why they would not want that being debated. But it wasn't the opposition who chose to introduce it. It wasn't the opposition who waited nearly two years before introducing this bill. It isn't the opposition who is hopelessly late. And, as I outlined in my contribution to the House at the time, when the government are two years late in delivering their homework and that homework is lobbed up in the state that this bill has been lobbed up, I can understand it is a source of absolute embarrassment.

But in the end the Leader of the House should take that up with his minister. His disappointment in the minister should not manifest itself in guillotining debate to spare themselves the embarrassment that is caused each time they hear inconvenient facts, like that there are thousands of shared-equity places already going unused around this country. So, what's the answer to the housing crisis? More shared-equity places. It's nuts.

That's why I move the following amendment to this motion:

That paragraphs (3) to (5) be omitted.

For the benefit of members, this simple amendment to the motion will just strike off the offending clauses (3) and (4) as circulated. It will also remove clause (5), which gives the government special powers to dictate the arrangement of business, again breaking every high-minded argument made by the now Leader of the House. I look forward to him channelling his former self and wholeheartedly supporting this motion.

See this speech in context