Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to move government business notices Nos. 1 and 2 together.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House moving government business notices 1 and 2 together.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1)

That, unless otherwise ordered, standing orders Nos 2, 43, 98, 99 and 193 be as follows:

2 Definitions

Assistant Minister see Minister.

Minister includes Parliamentary Secretary*, except in standing order 98 (questions seeking information), and standing order 193 (Members’ three minute statements in the Main Committee).

*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries

43 Members’ statements on Mondays

At 1.45 pm on Mondays the Speaker shall interrupt business and call on statements by Members. The Speaker may call a Member, but not a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary*), to make a statement for no longer than 90 seconds. The period allowed for these statements shall extend until 2 pm.

*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries

98 Questions to Ministers

(a)

A Member may ask a question in writing of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary*), to be placed on the Notice Paper for written reply.

(b)

During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary*), without notice and for immediate response.

*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries

99 Questions to other Members

During Question Time, a Member may ask a question orally of another Member who is not a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary*). Questions must relate to a bill, motion, or other business of the House or of a committee, for which the Member asked is responsible.

*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries

193 Members’ three minute statements

If the Main Committee meets before 10 am the first item of business shall be statements by Members. The Deputy Speaker may call a Member, including a Parliamentary Secretary* but not another Minister, to make a statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members’ statements may continue for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.

*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries.

(2)

That, unless otherwise ordered, standing order No. 1 be as follows and be adopted for the remainder of this session:

	time (max)
Matter of public importance
Whole discussion	1 hour
Proposer	15 mins
Member next speaking	15 mins
Next 2 Members speaking	10 mins each
Any other Member	5 mins

If the Manager of Opposition Business had read the blue he would have seen that, after the presentation of documents, this matter was to be dealt with. There is one controversial matter and one, I think, relatively non-controversial matter being dealt with. The more controversial matter is the proposal of the government to allocate one hour for the matter of public importance on those days when there is such a debate.

I have listened to various criticisms that have been made of this proposal by the Manager of Opposition Business and by some of my Independent colleagues. The government is adding to the quantum of matter of public importance debate that has been allowed by the longstanding conventions of this House. Traditionally, the matter of public importance debate went for 50 minutes. The government is proposing to extend that to a full hour. Traditionally, the matter of public importance debate had two speakers: two on each side. The government is proposing to make that six speakers: three on each side. We are proposing to add to the traditional practice of this House in respect of matters of public importance debates.

I know that over the last 12 months or so it has become common for the traditional 50-minute debate to go on for well over an hour as, on a number of occasions, extra members have sought the call, particularly Independent members of this place. For 17 of the 52 most recent MPIs, debate has gone on for more than an hour. As I said, this is quite contrary to the longstanding conventions of this House and that is why the government is seeking to regularise the situation in the way that I have outlined.

Because members opposite will suggest that this is the death of democracy as we know it, let me put on the record that this government has been the best friend of debate in this parliament of any government of recent years. Not only does every minister of this government front question time every day, unlike the roster that operated under the former government, not only do we have 20 questions on most days as opposed to the average of 12 questions in the time of the Keating government, not only do we have a much better question time, but further initiatives of this government are member statements, adjournment debates and interventions in the Main Committee—a practice which will shortly be extended to this chamber itself. What we are proposing extends the traditional practice of this House. It mirrors the standard practice of the Senate. It is a worthy change and I commend it to all members.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise particularly to oppose the changes to the matter of public importance debate. As the name suggests, the MPI is the key debate of the day in this parliament. Indeed, the House of Representatives Practice says:

The MPI is one of the principal avenues available to private Members to initiate immediate debate on a matter which is of current concern.

On page 576 it goes on to say:

The matter of public importance procedure developed from a provision in the standing orders adopted in 1901 which permitted a Member to move formally the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

This provision has served this parliament for 106 years. What we have is an arrogant government that wants to stifle debate in an election year, a government determined to avoid scrutiny and accountability, a government prepared to take this extraordinary step in order to particularly stifle the three Independents in this House. But it is not just them the government seeks to stifle but also the members of the opposition and the members of their increasingly nervous backbench who they do not want participating in the key debate of the day. Why is this occurring? Last year there were 50 debates on matters of public importance in this House. Of those, only 13 went for more than an hour, but, of those 13, six went more than an hour by 90 seconds or less.

We have here the jackboots of the Leader of the House, coming in here and changing standing orders. This was due to be debated last night, but it was deferred until today. Why? So the government could gag this very debate about the gagging of matters of public importance in this parliament. The only debates to have gone for more than an hour have been over critical issues such as the war in Iraq. We saw today the refusal of the government leader, the Prime Minister, to have a debate on the war in Iraq. They do not want scrutiny outside the parliament—they will not turn up for debate—and inside parliament they want to stifle the debate. They want to cut off the oxygen from the right of members to put forward their views. We have had the war in Iraq.

What were the other issues on which the debate went for more than an hour last year?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Drought.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change and the drought. We might see a few more Independents from regional Australia, given the National Party’s abrogation of its responsibility and its sell-out of its own constituency. It is very possible that that will occur. What certainly should occur is that this parliament, in one debate every day, should have the right to have a proper exchange with proper time limits. This is an attack on democracy which is consistent with the Howard government’s approach to these issues.

It is quite clear why the Prime Minister wants to stop MPIs—because they hold him to account and he wants to avoid that accountability. During question time today, in the last question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I lost count of how many members from this side of the House were thrown out and excluded from the parliamentary process. Over on that side there were constant interjections but not a single warning, let alone anyone being thrown out of the parliament. We come into this parliament day after day and expect the odds to be tilted in the government’s favour. Every match is played on their home ground and in every match they appoint the referee. We understand that that is the case. But on the critical matter of public importance of the day we should not have a silencing of dissent—and that is exactly what we are seeing here.

In the Senate, since the government took control, we have seen a whole series of procedures put in place to remove accountability and to remove transparency. We have borne witness to gags and guillotines on fundamental pieces of legislation such as the debate on the most significant changes to workplace laws in over 100 years. We have seen one-day inquiries on significant legislation such as the full privatisation of Telstra. We have seen nation-changing bills rammed through the parliament: the draconian changes to the welfare system, the antiterrorism legislation and the abolition of voluntary student unionism, just to name a few. Now we are seeing a similar attack in this House.

Labor and the Independents—and, if the truth be allowed, many members of the government backbench as well who have complained to the opposition about these provisions—are united in our view that this motion is a gross abuse of parliamentary process and a gross abuse of democracy. The Howard government’s arrogant abuse of members’ rights to engage in parliamentary debate is treating not the members of parliament but the electorate with contempt. We are elected to represent the views of those who have sent us to this House, and we are privileged to be representatives in this House, but voters will remember how they and democracy are being treated.

The arrogance of this government, which this particular provision highlights, does not stop there. One of the other measures that the Leader of the House has moved seeks to clarify the role of the newly created Howard government rank of assistant minister. The Leader of the House has proposed changes to standing orders that seek to define the role of this new so-called assistant minister. When the list came out, when the Prime Minister appointed his new frontbench, many people would have wondered what this assistant minister status was. We know from today’s changes to standing orders, which rule out any scrutiny by the parliament of assistant ministers, that assistant ministers are essentially parliamentary secretaries with a different name. Take, for example, the new Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Parkes. Anyone who has seen the member for Parkes perform in this parliament will know why it is imperative for the government to shield him from parliamentary scrutiny, because he is incapable of answering a question on the floor of this parliament. Yet, if you go to his office, RG 85, the nameplate says ‘Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources’. If you visit his website it will say the same: ‘Assistant Minister’. He is no parliamentary secretary; he has been given this high status.

But you do not have to do that. You can just ask him. The member for Parkes was quoted as saying that he has a ‘dream portfolio’ because water will be his main responsibility. On ABC radio on 24 January he said:

The problem has been getting them [the states] to actually do anything about it, so I’m very excited about water being my area of responsibility in the future.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I fail to see where the member for Grayndler is drawing the connection to extensions of time.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for Grayndler is completely in order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parkes’s dream is Australia’s nightmare. Having this man in charge of water is something that no Australian would want, particularly not those Australians in rural and regional communities. But as the shadow minister for water, I cannot ask him questions, even though he himself says that he is responsible for the nation’s water crisis. We all know that his appointment is all about Nationals favours, not national interest. It is all about trying to hide the fact that he was demoted and that the member for Sturt was not promoted, because the member for Sturt is the other person who has been given this title of parliamentary secretary—in his case Parliamentary Secretary and Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing.

You have to feel sorry for the member for Sturt. We on this side are the great party of compassion in this nation. The member for Sturt was actually a shadow minister. It is hard to believe, but when the current foreign minister was the Leader of the Opposition—and, yes, that really did happen—he appointed the member for Sturt as a shadow minister. It was from 1994 to 1996. But since they came to government in 1996, the member for Sturt has sat up the back, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Imagine how you would feel after being let down again, if you are sitting there and you look at the minister for local government, the former Minister for Community Services, the minister for tourism—all these people who jumped the queue ahead of him, as he would see it, and he gets overlooked again. So you can imagine the discussion: ‘This is unfair. I have been loyal, Prime Minister. I have been loyal to you.’ We know that that is not true, but that is beside the point. He would have said that. Then: ‘Please give me something.’ So what do they do? They invent this title. This title has been invented—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can see the talent that they have on their front bench—the parliamentary secretaries who cannot read the Notice Paper! If you had read it you would know that the creation of the assistant minister position is all about the demotion of one person, the member for Parkes, and another person’s—the member for Sturt’s—failure to be promoted. These changes are symptomatic of a government that is out of control in its arrogance, a government that is under pressure, a government that is failing in its obligations to the Australian people on issues, and a government that is determined to hide from proper debate. We saw it again today: the Leader of the Opposition standing up saying: ‘You want to debate Iraq; let’s bring it on. Bring on a televised public debate.’

This is a government that wants to avoid scrutiny—from its own backbench, from the Independents and from the opposition. Labor will oppose these changes and we commit ourselves to overturning them in government, because we think that a good opposition and good parliamentary processes are a foundation stone of parliamentary democracy. You cannot have a one-way system. We accept that it is stacked against us day after day, that the rules are set by those opposite, that we play on their home ground, and that they set the rules and appoint the referee, but this is one debate in the parliament every day which is scrutinised by the Australian people. There are many people out there who are listening to this very debate, who listen to this part of parliament because they know it has been in existence for 106 years. This is not a conservative party; this is not a party that has respect for tradition; this is a neoconservative party that trashes tradition, trashes democracy and trashes open parliamentary processes and debate. If you do not agree with it, it will stomp on you. That is what is happening to the Independents and to the opposition with these provisions being put forward today.

Labor will oppose this proposition. We will stand with the Independents. I call upon those members of the government backbench who are concerned about these issues to join with us to uphold parliamentary standards, because this is an unnecessary attack. No case has been put forward by the Leader of the House to justify these changes. The fact that we will probably see, I predict, a gagging of this debate just underlines how undemocratic this government is—how it has changed since it got control of the numbers in the Senate. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a sad day for this parliament. For 106 years the standing orders have allowed members of parliament to represent their constituents on a range of issues and to debate an issue that may be important in the public arena. I think it is a very sad day. For the Leader of the House to go through his reasons there a moment ago I think is quite disgraceful. This is targeted very much at the Independents. When one looks at the times people have spoken, I am proud to say that in 2006 I spoke on 12 MPIs, Mr Beazley spoke on 10, Mr Rudd on nine, Mr Katter on six, Mr Abbott on six and Mr McGauran and Mr Andrews on eight. If Mr Abbott feels as though he has been left out, there has been an extra hour on most occasions that he—or other members of the government or the opposition—could have made a contribution to the debate. The Leader of the House has also misled the parliament in some of his press utterances. This morning he made the comment that on occasion the three Independents take up half an hour. The Leader of the House may like to prove that, because in the last 12 months the three Independents have never all spoken on the one MPI.

The MPI is the one occasion in this parliament—and I know we have grievance and adjournment debates—where there is a debate about a substantive issue that the general public may see as being important. The rest of the debate in this place is on legislative arrangements and changes or in question time itself. But the MPI is absolutely critical because it does allow debate on substantive matters such as drought, climate change, water, renewable energy, aged care and education. Those issues cross all electoral boundaries and do need to be embraced and discussed in this parliament.

The reason the Leader of the House has taken it upon himself to try and downgrade the contribution that Independents can make goes back a long way. In fact, it goes back to the first few weeks that I was in this parliament, when I was approached by the Leader of the House and was asked: ‘Can you keep your contribution down to five minutes?’ Why should an Independent member of the parliament be given five minutes when government and opposition members are allowed 10? Why should representatives of particular electorates be downgraded in terms of the length of the contribution that they can make? What sort of democracy does the Leader of the House believe in if there is this degree of inequity being built into the procedures of the parliament? Why is the Leader of the House leading this debate? What is the Prime Minister doing about this?

The Prime Minister spent some time only 10 days ago saying he was listening to the people of Australia and hearing them. The matter of public importance, for 106 years, has been the process in this place that allows members of parliament from all sides to address an issue that is of public importance so that the Prime Minister and the parliament can hear about that issue. Halving the time that an MPI discussion can be held for is in fact halving the contribution that members of parliament are able to make.

It is quite right, as the Leader of the House has said, that the average length of MPI discussions is 58 minutes. But on those occasions when there have been critical debates on issues such as drought, climate change, renewable energy or aged care, when there needs to be a greater contribution from the members of the House—those crucial debates, on non-political issues, where people can have their say—we do need that extra time. So I say to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister: if you really believe in democratic processes, do not start trying to devalue the contributions that certain members make, and revisit this process at a future time.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been cut off and gagged on numerous occasions in this place, including in the MPI debate. The honourable minister says that we get a fair go. On at least one occasion I have been cut off completely in the MPI debate. So we have not been getting a fair go in the MPIs to date. When I was a ranking minister in the Queensland government, there was never ever an occasion when the opposition spoke and I regretted them speaking. Sometimes their stupid remarks were enormously self-destructive and reflected upon themselves and on other occasions they were spot-on and they pressured the government to go in the direction that we should have been going in. I heard my own arguments from inside the cabinet room and the party room voiced by the opposition. And that is the idea of having open debate in this place.

The member for Grayndler was perfectly right in his remarks, as was the member for New England. Yes, we get the opportunity to speak on legislation, but the MPI is the only time we get to speak on timely issues. I believe, however stupidly or naively, after 32 or 33 years in parliament, that what members say in this place does have an effect. People do listen and sometimes take notes. If you are closing down debate then you are seriously damaging the political process.

And what an act of political stupidity this is if the honourable minister has political ambitions to go higher than he has. There are three Independents in this place. I may be reading the opinion polls wrong, but the government are not looking particularly good. In fact, they are looking worse at the polls than they have looked in all my time here since they got elected to government. To blatantly antagonise the three Independents is an act of monumental stupidity, which has been taken advantage of by the opposition. Of course, they have ingratiated themselves to us today by giving us a fair go. And the government have antagonised us by doing anything but giving us a fair go in relation to our ability to get up and say a few words on the timely issues of the day. It is only four or five times in the last 18 months that I have had an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes on the MPI. That is hardly earth-shattering. On issues such as climate change and water—the debate of last week—of course a person like me should be speaking. I am representing a third of Australia’s water resources. It would be a rather peculiar debate if I were not involved in it.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Cobb hasn’t spoken once.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand the legislation on that! You will notice none of us have spoken about that. I have to say that is not politically stupid. That is very politically wise—hiding your assistant ministers! But I want to continue talking about the political stupidity of the issue here. It may be a close election and there may be a balance of power. I think there is a very good chance of that happening. The three Independents, whether the government or the opposition like it or not, are all sitting on about 20 per cent and it is going to be pretty hard to knock us off—but it happens in politics; there is no doubt about that. But why would you antagonise these people needlessly and stupidly?

All I can say is: I give thanks for the contribution made last week. I do not think anyone listening to the honourable member for New England would not have said that it was not a very worthy contribution to the debate, and this House would have been poorer if he had been gagged on the issue. The deputised leader of the house in the state parliament said he would not gag debate. He told the then Premier, Bjelke-Petersen—and he was selected by Bjelke-Petersen to take his place—he would not gag. But unfortunately this minister has done it again and again.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposing both of these motions because they are all about the nonaccountability of the government. They continue the trend that has been quite apparent over the last 12 months of truncation of debate on key legislation, including industrial relations, Telstra, security bills and some others I cannot think of just now, particularly when the House has not had the advantage of any proper briefings or proper inquiry results into those most crucial pieces of legislation. And what we have here is again a process where the government is truncating debate and denying opportunities to Independent members. The Leader of the House said on ABC radio this morning that this was targeted at the Independents because in the last 12 months or so the Independents had used much more of their time. In saying this he is creating two classes of representatives in this chamber: one class representing the parties and another, which has a truncated amount of time, representing Independent electorates—which, I agree with the opposition speaker in this debate, will be increasing in spades in the next couple of years.

The Leader of the House says there is one controversial and one non-controversial motion here. I would suggest, firstly, that the one for assistant minister protection from questioning by members of the House is as controversial as the other one because, with all the lurks and perks of public office of all the parliamentary secretaries and now the assistant ministers sitting behind the bench and protected from any scrutiny, we have a continuation of a process that is all about nonaccountability, particularly of people who have carriage of legislation. They can make public statements on behalf of the government and they can enjoy all of the extra privileges of office, yet they cannot be questioned by other members of this House. What could be a more transparent attempt to deny proper scrutiny by members of this place?

They also, I must say, have privileges and entitlements of office which no doubt they will carry over into the election campaign. Their entitlements will become part of the war chest that is being built up through printing and other privileges. No doubt there will be the sending of staff from parliamentary secretaries’ and assistant ministers’ offices and ministers’ offices, as I have experienced during election campaigns, to run the campaigns of candidates for the National Party and others against candidates who may be running for the first time as mere Independents with very limited resources and who will be confronted with this rorting of the entitlements of office. That parliamentary secretaries process is not about just having people who are the gofers and the juniors; it is all about building up the resources of incumbency to favour the incumbent parties and, in some cases, the opposition, but particularly those in government. It is about building up the resources to make it so much more difficult for any Independent candidate to have an honest crack at running for parliament.

Most of the other issues have been covered by the other speakers, but I must say that the controversy is not that Independent MPs are taking too much time; it is that party MPs are not making the most of the opportunities. Why? Because the MPI is mostly about controversial issues, often of some embarrassment to the government. We have seen situations where there is but one speaker on the government side and half-a-dozen speakers on the non-government side because the issue—whether it be climate change or the war on Iraq—is of absolutely vital importance but it is not of importance to the government because they do not want those views aired.

Perhaps this has been shown up by too-active Independents. Perhaps the too-active Independents have been too active around rural issues which have been embarrassing to the government. They want to shut down this debate, to shut down the opportunities in an election year, because it is all getting a little bit hot, particularly in rural and regional areas where the Independents represent such a threat in this election year. The constituents should be asking why their government members are not speaking up on these MPIs and defending positions the government have taken, whether those positions are around climate change, water, the war on Iraq, our energy options or all of the matters of public importance that are going to be so crucial in this election year.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Chairman of the Procedure Committee I have listened very carefully to the comments from the opposition and in particular to the comments from the Independents here this afternoon. I have to say to this chamber that the gross hypocrisy of the Independents is quite unbelievable. Where were you last night when you had an opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate? Where are you on three-minute statements? Where are you on 90-second statements?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been misrepresented—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy has an opportunity to rectify that after the member for McPherson has spoken.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Chairman of the Procedure Committee I can say we move heaven and earth to ensure that we have an interactive chamber and that every member in this House has every opportunity to speak. In fact, that is why we try and facilitate it. The MPI is not a debate; it is a discussion of a matter of public importance. I think what we need to do is look at the statistics for 2006. The member for New England referred to his own statistic of speaking 12 times in an MPI in 2006. Mr Deputy Speaker, 54 MPIs were submitted to this chamber last year; 50 of those were discussed; 35 of those had four or fewer speakers—that is 70 per cent of those MPIs. Fifteen of the MPIs, or 30 per cent, had more than four speakers. We have already heard that the average time for an MPI in this chamber is 58 minutes.

What the Leader of the House is proposing through his motion is to put in place a procedure that would give the Independents or the opposition two extra speakers. It would be part of the standing orders so that we would have two speakers at five minutes. It would actually encourage you to come into this chamber and make a contribution to an MPI. This is not about devaluing your contribution to any discussion or debate in this chamber. This is about encouraging you into the chamber. How often are you Independents in this chamber to make a contribution to the debate that occurs on the floor of this House? Not very often.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Katter interjecting

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We as the Procedure Committee want to see interactive debate. We want to see contributions from the Independents but we do not see it very often. The Leader of the House is proposing to allow two extra speakers to the current norm. The practice in this House over many years has seen two speakers for 15 minutes, two speakers for 10 minutes and two for five minutes. Let us ensure that the hour on the MPI on Tuesdays and Wednesdays is used. Let us see the Independents come in here and make the most of the time that is going to be available to them.

It is true that the Procedure Committee did look at the MPIs and whether the current arrangements were adequate. Yes, the standing orders do allow for two hours on an MPI under standing order 1. The statistics show that that time has not been used. The Leader of the House is proposing a formal time to allow for two extra speakers at five minutes. I would encourage you to use that time and also the other times you have available to you in this chamber to put some comments on the table.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McPherson will address her remarks through the chair.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we looked at the times the Independents participated in debate in this House, they would be seen to be wanting. There are many opportunities and last night was a great example of no Independent in this House using the adjournment debate to put on the record comments about anything in their electorates or any other issue that may be of importance to this country. The Procedure Committee will certainly monitor how this process will work and whether the time is now taken up with those extra speakers, and we will bring it back to the Procedure Committee if we feel that we should have a look at what is being proposed by the Leader of the House today.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy wants to clarify the record; he claims to have been misrepresented.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last speaker—it is probably a bit of an exaggeration to call her that—said that we were hypocrites because we were not here for the adjournment debate last night. For her information as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, we were not here last night because we did not have a speaking slot, which we have been chasing for six months.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is not a personal explanation; the member for Kennedy is debating the point. He will resume his seat.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.