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

Yes, on a point of clarification. On that matter, which I understand that you have said you will consider, I want to ask about two matters. Firstly, I'd ask you to consider whether the Leader of the Opposition's speech was actually simply an agreement with what the Prime Minister said or extended to other matters beyond what the Prime Minister had raised.

Secondly, if that is the case, to consider whether it is appropriate in circumstances where speeches turn into wideranging political debates and political attacks, whether there is any requirement—because it is not apparent to me from practice—that indulgence is only ever granted when there is agreement. It is clear that indulgence, as I read the practise, can be granted on significant matters and can be granted to other members. In that instance, I ask you to reflect about whether there is a requirement that you can only speak on indulgence if there is agreement, especially considering the Leader of the Opposition's speech on that.

In a parliament where there is wideranging representation from parties and independents other than the opposition and the government, I'd ask whether it is appropriate for indulgence to be used only for two parties—an opposition and a government—to attack others, and then for those others not to be able to participate in the debate.

See this speech in context