Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

I will speak to this motion now, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is unprecedented for a government to move such a motion. Clearly, the Labor Party have not worked out that they actually are in government. They are moving this sort of spurious motion to try to get television time tonight. The Leader of the House rang me yesterday and said, ‘We want to get through our bills tomorrow. Can you cut short your speakers list so that we can get through our bills?’ and then the government moved an absurd motion like this.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, which is in your interest. You would be aware that this is a motion of dissent from your ruling. The member opposite has to refer to your ruling, which upheld a point of order moved by me, based upon House of Representatives Practice, that the House had determined a question. He has to refer to your ruling. He has not mentioned one thing about your ruling.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the House. I call the honourable member for North Sydney, who will focus on the grounds for his motion of dissent from my ruling.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely; I am more than happy to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have moved a motion of dissent from your ruling, because there has been a rich history in this place on these issues, particularly in relation to when the now member for Warringah was Leader of the House. On numerous occasions the then opposition moved motions, and then subsequent motions, to close him down. If this is the way they are organised in the chamber, Lord knows how they are organised on the Expenditure Review Committee and Lord knows how they are organised in relation to getting the budget right. It should come as no surprise that they have not got any answers in relation to the Chinese trips by the now minister for agriculture, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that the member for North Sydney has lost his way, does not know what he is doing and is now talking about issues that have nothing to do with your very specific and, might I say, correct ruling.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for North Sydney, who will focus on the grounds for moving a motion of dissent from the chair’s ruling.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason I moved a motion of dissent is that the Labor Party in government have sought on numerous occasions to try and get us to pull our speakers on various bills so they can speed up the activities of the House in relation to legislation, and they brought this motion on without any consultation.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for North Sydney is straying again. You want to move a motion of dissent from a ruling by someone from your own party—that is up to you, folks. It is just absurd.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House ought not to cast aspersions on the neutrality of the chair. As a Deputy Speaker, I exercise this authority regardless of the political party of which I might happen to be a member.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the background to our motion of dissent, Mr Deputy Speaker: the Leader of the House rang me and said he wanted us to drop speakers off bills that were scheduled for today so that he could bring on those bills and have them finished with today. So what happens today is that they put on this stunt.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member opposite has been given a number of opportunities to speak to the motion. He cannot, because your ruling is right. I take up the invitation that was given by him and the member for Warringah and I move that the motion be put.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House cannot move that the motion be put, because the question has not been stated from the Chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not understand the standing orders and you are the Leader of the House. You do not understand the standing orders that you have put in place. Mr Speaker, it is interesting that—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for the promotion, but I am only a Deputy Speaker.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They run the parliament. It is the government that set down the order of business for the day. It is the government that set down the legislative agenda for the House. Here they are moving a motion on their own time during government business. They do not understand the standing orders. This is what you call a political stunt by the government.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for North Sydney is not referring, and has not referred once, to why your ruling is wrong. He has to do that—not state the obvious, that politics are conducted in this place and that we are against Work Choices and they are for it. We know that.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How ironic it is that the Labor Party now have not yet realised that they are in government. They are moving motions in this chamber to suspend standing orders. I have no recollection in 11 years of the Howard government that the government ever lost control of the chamber in the way that the Labor government have lost control of the chamber today, let alone their having moved a motion like that one—there is no precedent for it. We are going back into the Hawke years as we stand, trying to find a precedent. This just illustrates that these people are more interested in stunts, more interested in the charade of government, than in making hard decisions. How ironic it is that they had to move 34 amendments to their own Work Choices bill. I bet the old Greg Combet would be turning in his old union grave if he knew they would have to—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. He should focus in his speech on identifying why, in his view, the ruling of the chair is not correct.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my view the reason that the Deputy Speaker’s ruling should be overturned by this chamber is that the decision is wrong. The decision is clearly wrong. The decision is wrong, based on precedents involving the member for Warringah and based on precedents involving the previous Manager of Opposition Business, who on numerous occasions moved that the Leader of the House be no longer heard and moved subsequent motions within the speaking time allocated to the Leader of the House. Of course, what we know is that the Leader of the House in this place does not understand his own standing orders. He does not understand his own standing orders, and that is why he tried to move that we be no longer heard, in a debate on a motion of dissent.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a dissent in your ruling.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From my ruling.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney must refer to your ruling and why it is wrong.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I consider that the member for North Sydney is indeed focusing on the reasons for dissent from my ruling.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’ll tell you what; I will give a little warning to the minister: he should not be too outspoken at the moment.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney ought not to warn anybody in the chamber. Only the occupant of the chair has the capacity to warn people.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just giving him some advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that that threat be withdrawn. You cannot make threats across the chamber—not even from the party of Work Choices.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening. I draw the minister’s attention to what I believe the Manager of Opposition Business said, which was that he has ‘a warning for’. I do not consider it a threat.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want to get on with the business of the House. We want to get on with dealing with the government’s legislative timetable. It is the government that have suspended their own standing orders to bring on a motion full of politics, vitriol and rhetoric—the same old tired stuff that they had been running in opposition. They ran it in opposition. They won the election; we accept that they won the election. But now that they are in government they actually have to make some decisions. I know it is going to come as a rude shock to the Treasurer, who should be out there studying the economics books rather than in here being party to a political stunt. Economics for Dummieswe’ll send you a copy.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under any circumstances, that was not referring to the motion. I ask you to see if the member for North Sydney can refer to why your ruling was incorrect.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat as his time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. If I could take you back to the circumstances from which this dissent motion has arisen, the Deputy Prime Minister has moved a ludicrous, ridiculous and embarrassingly foolish motion in the House to suspend standing orders today to move a particularly foolish motion. The opposition, quite rightly, are incensed that the government, having not made the transition to government, would reduce the House to this mockery rather than getting on with the business of government. The Australian today has made a point in its own editorial about how this government is big on symbolism and very short on making decisions in government. Unfortunately, today in this lunchtime debate the government is fulfilling the worst thoughts of the editorial in the Australian. The circumstances of this dissent motion—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will resume his seat or I will deal with him.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a dissent on the Australian editorial.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point of order is that the member for Sturt has not referred to the motion that was moved. This is a motion of dissent from your ruling, and he has to speak to that.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Sturt, and I would ask him to be very focused in his contribution on his reason for seconding the motion of the dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think I was, quite correctly, pointing out the circumstances of this dissent motion. The member for North Sydney quite rightly is concerned by the ruling that you have given that a motion that a member be no longer heard cannot be moved against the same person speaking at a particular point in time. The dissent motion is that that ruling was incorrect—in fact, a motion that a member be no longer heard can be moved at any time. The precedent for that is very clear. I have been in this parliament since 1993, and the member for Warringah has been here since 1994. I remember times when such motions that a member be no longer heard were taken by the then opposition against the member for Warringah when he was the Minister for Employment Services.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if standing order 87 has been complied with, particularly the second sentence.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Sturt.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I was being entirely relevant to the motion, which was pointing out that, in fact, we are dissenting from your ruling because it breaks with previous precedent. The precedent for this—after the Prime Minister had slipped out of the House, wanting to avoid the embarrassment of this stunt by his deputy—was when the member for Warringah was the Minister for Employment Services and such motions were taken against him by the then opposition—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is another frivolous point of order because they don’t want to hear—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. It is a matter for the chair to determine whether a point of order is frivolous or otherwise. I call the Leader of the House, presumably on a point of order—hopefully not a frivolous one.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing order 87 is:

A Member moving a motion of dissent must submit the motion in writing.

Has that happened?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that it has been submitted in writing. There is no point of order.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have not called the honourable member for Sturt. However, I now call the member for Sturt.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, it has been complied with. It was complied with right at the beginning of the debate. Unlike you, we know that you have to put dissent motions in writing, have them moved and seconded. That is why it was put down right at the beginning of the debate, you silly goose! No wonder everyone behind you is talking about getting rid of you as Leader of the House. My point is that we have dissented from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling because his ruling was wrong. It breaches precedent previously established in this House. If the right of the House to ask a member to be no longer heard is taken away from the opposition or, in fact, any member of the parliament, it would be a huge breach of the parliamentary requirements of the Westminster system. This right allows the opposition or any member to move that a member be no longer heard when they are being irrelevant, when they are traducing the good name of the parliament and when they are using motions such as the one moved by the government for stunts rather than for getting on with the business of government. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, I am pleased to rise in support of your ruling. I refer to page 514 of House of Representatives Practice, which clearly neither of the speakers opposite referred to, nor did they refer to the standing orders. Under the heading ‘Closure of Member’, it says the following:

With the exceptions stated below, any Member may move at any time that a Member who is speaking ‘be no longer heard’ and the question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

It then says:

The motion cannot be moved when a Member is giving a notice of motion or moving the terms of a motion, or if, when the same question has been negatived, the Chair is of the opinion that the further motion is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business.

House of Representatives Practice is very clear. We know the reason the opposition have moved this dissent motion is so that they can work out whether they are for or against Work Choices today. They have done it so they can have a tactics committee meeting. Your ruling is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your ruling should be upheld.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, not because it gives me any pleasure to see this motion of dissent in the House. I want to say that, in every other respect, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, your chairmanship has been exemplary—absolutely exemplary—but in this important respect you have, I regret to say, breached the ordinary standards, procedures and conventions of this House.

I have been in this House for some time and I have been involved, dare I say it, in a few pretty rugged parliamentary debates. I can remember being in this chamber when I was the Minister for Employment Services and moving a suspension motion on the then member for Dickson. I can remember—and I invite the clerks to go back and look at the Hansard and advise you on this very point—being subject to successive closure motions by the then opposition. If it was good enough for the then opposition to close government ministers within a few seconds of the resolution of a previous motion, if it was good enough for the occupant of the chair on that day to allow successive closure motions, the precedent has been set and we are perfectly entitled to move a closure motion on this minister, who has not learnt a new script since she got into government. It was all very well in opposition to run this anti Work Choices script—but you have got to govern now.

When you are a minister in this country, you cannot govern this country by constantly repeating a mantra of opposition; you have actually got to make decisions—and that is what this government has not done in the 3½ months in which it has been in office. I refer to no greater authority than the former Leader of the Labor Party, the former member for Werriwa, who has said that this new government has engaged in nothing less than a circus of symbolism since it has been in office. This stunt today is the very quintessence of symbolism. It demonstrates that, rather than get on with government, it is still running the same tired old script. It is basically an opposition which found its way into government because of the longevity of the incumbents, and now it is trying to work out what to do. That is the problem that this government has: it does not actually know what to do now that it finds itself in government. Come on! I say to members opposite, ‘Surely after all those years as union organisers, surely after all those years of delving deeply into workplace law, you must know something about this.’

I do not like it, but I accept that the former government lost the election. But, with our losing the election, members opposite are now in government, and they simply have to get on with the task of governing. Constantly running the sorts of stunts that we saw this morning, having deceived the opposition about their desire to get on with government business, having engaged in a rank act of deception, pulling on this stunt and then pulling that bogus point of order, which, unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have upheld, really demonstrates that the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, is right—these guys do not know what they are doing. They are engaging in a circus of symbolism.

Frankly, the time of this parliament is being needlessly consumed by a government which should know better. It is constantly running the old lines at the behest of a minister for workplace relations who was moderately effective in opposition—I will grant her that. But the task is not to criticise the former government; the task now is to be a good government in the stead of the former government. I have to say that the longer this mob opposite is in place, the better the Howard government is going to look. The longer this mob is in place, the more likely that the people of Australia will look back to 2.1 million new jobs, a 21 per cent increase in real wages and a doubling of the real net wealth of Australians as a golden age to which they would like to aspire at the next election.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak against the dissent motion and in favour of your ruling. In doing so can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is apparent from the quality of the debate that this dissent motion is not actually about your ruling; it is about buying time for the opposition and the Liberal Party to work out how they want to vote on the motion I have moved. They are trying to characterise that motion as unimportant, but it calls on them to do a very important thing. The reason this dissent motion has been moved is to prevent them for some time from having to come to this point of decision.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Sturt ought not to talk before he gets the call. I call the member for Sturt.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the presentations by myself—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the member for Sturt—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the member for North Sydney and the member for Warringah, the government was very clear that we had to stick to the dissent motion.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt ought not to talk down the chair! What I was about to say to the member for Sturt, who has been here long enough to know, is that the correct reference to the person occupying the chair is Deputy Speaker and not Acting Deputy Speaker. I now call the member for Sturt on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your clarification. The government members have to be relevant to the dissent motion. Obviously, they pointed this out during our presentations, and we were relevant to the dissent motion. The Deputy Prime Minister is now talking about Work Choices and issues that are in the past. I ask you to draw her to the debate.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. On the dissent: it is a device. Why is it a device? Because the opposition does not want to declare its hand on the motion I have moved.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you talking about? You don’t realise you’re in government!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are only three choices: they vote for it, despite their secret desires to keep Work Choices—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the dissent motion!

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

they vote against it, and absolutely show themselves to be the party of Work Choices with a secret plan to reintroduce AWAs—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. There are far too many interjections from the opposition front bench. I draw the attention of members to the provisions of the standing orders.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or, thirdly, they can cower in the corner because they do not know what they stand for any longer. There are only three choices: cover-up, Work Choices or cower. Those are the three choices: which are you going to choose?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the tradition that was established by the Leader of the House earlier in this debate, the Deputy Prime Minister is required strictly to debate the dissent motion, not to make extraneous points. I would also suggest that she stop shrieking at us. Really and truly, it is an assault on our hearing—it really is!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Warringah will resume his seat. I call the Deputy Prime Minister and counsel her to focus on the debate before the chamber.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am focusing on that debate by showing that this dissent motion is a device to prevent the Liberal Party being put to the embarrassment that they obviously cannot face. They are out now in a series of crisis meetings because we are requiring them to declare to the Australian people: are you still pro Work Choices, or are you cowering because you cannot decide?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the matter in hand is in fact a dissent motion. The people of Australia—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Is the honourable member seeking to address the chair on a point of order?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Cowper.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I repeat that we expect the Deputy Prime Minister to address the issue of the dissent motion. The people of Australia are waiting for some serious debate—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I know they do not want to face this decision. I know they do not want to tell Australians the truth. They are a party with form when it comes to deceit on workplace relations. But you will be required to vote. And you will have to vote in favour or against, or cower in the corner. What are you going to do?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have drawn the speaker’s attention to being relevant to the motion before the House. We are hearing time and time again the Deputy Prime Minister make reference to Work Choices. This is not about Work Choices. We know that the original motion was a stunt by the government.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But in this case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to bring the Deputy Prime Minister—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat or I will deal with him! The Deputy Prime Minister will focus on the motion before the House, which is a motion of dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling. I have been advised that the Deputy Prime Minister’s time has expired. I apologise to the House for not noticing the expiration of her time. I call the honourable member for Cowper.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly respect your position in this House, but I regret that this—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. One is not able to hear the speaker. I certainly am not able to hear the member to whom I have given the call.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure it is a matter of much regret to you and the members opposite that they were unable to hear my contribution in this debate. It is of great concern to us that, whilst we respect your ruling, in this case the matter has not been appropriately dealt with. The people of Australia are really expecting action from this government. There are very important matters before this House today that the people of Australia are expecting to be dealt with. But what do we have? As a result of the opposition-like tactics of the members opposite we see the time of this House wasted and, rather than the important matters of the day such as the cost of living, such as how carers and pensioners are going to continue to live against the backdrop of rising prices, we see a childish and trivial stunt by this government, taking up the time of this House. I know that this government can kick carers around, and it can kick seniors around, but we as the opposition do not want to see that happening and we do not want to see it attempt to kick the parliamentary process around. I know that the actions of this government are already causing great distress amongst the people whom I represent. I recommend that the government should be putting its energies into good government rather than political stunts. There is no mileage to be had from this government pulling political stunts and embarking on endless symbolism when in fact—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has expired.

Question put:

That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.