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

I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2009. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the program of sittings for 2009 be agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not speak for long, but I think there are some points that need to be made about this program of sittings for 2009, which comes on the heels of the program for 2008. The incompetent leader of government business in the House has yet again managed to restrict the number of weeks of sitting to 18 for 2009, on my understanding—18 for this year and 18 for next year. I have been in this House much longer than most of the people in the House, and I can tell you that most of the time that I have been in this House the normal sitting period has been 20, 21 or 22 weeks of the year.

This is a government which prided itself at one stage on having openness, transparency, scrutiny and accountability. The government even got the poor Governor-General in his address at the opening of the parliament to give a speech about accountability and openness and a new era of transparency; yet in 2008 it managed to limit itself to 18 weeks of sittings and in 2009 will manage to limit itself to 18 weeks of sitting. It is not an open, transparent and accountable government; it is far from it. The people of Australia expect us to serve our electorates and legislate, not to spend 18 weeks here when we should be spending 20 or 21 or 22 weeks. This is especially the case with a new government which, even in its second year in office, cannot think of enough work to do in parliament to sustain more than 18 weeks of sittings in the year. So the first point to be made is that, yet again, this government is squibbing on transparency and accountability and trying to avoid the parliament.

The second point I would like to make is that the program for 2009 follows on the heels of the extraordinarily incompetent attempt at unconstitutional Friday sittings. The opposition managed to ensure that the Constitution of Australia was upheld by stopping those Friday sittings. It was an unconstitutional act on the part of this government. It was one of their earliest bungles—although not as serious as their latest bungle on the financial crisis. I am glad the Treasurer has come in to hear my speech on this matter today, because I am sure he wants to highlight the bungle of the financial crisis following hot on the heels of all the other bungles of the government over the last 12 months, starting with the unconstitutional attempt to have Friday sittings.

This is the third example of the poor old hapless leader of government business in the House introducing yet another deficient schedule of 2009 sittings. Again, he has managed to schedule four occasions when there will be a one-week non-sitting period between two weeks of sittings. So members of parliament will be sitting four weeks out of five rather than a properly scheduled sitting program. There is also a seven-week break in April and May, a six-week break in July and August and a four-week break in October. Why can’t your leader of government business get it right? You have got four times when we have one week back in our electorates between two-week sitting blocks—which is the worst thing imaginable—and three major blocks of seven weeks, six weeks and four weeks when the parliament will not be sitting. There is no good reason or justification for this other than the fact that the leader of government business has his hands off the wheel when he should have both hands on the wheel focusing on what matters in this House—the schedule for 2009.

The opposition cannot do anything to change this sitting program. The government manage the schedule of business, and we are prepared to let them keep on being incompetent. We will turn up. We will keep showing them up for the failures that they are. We will scrutinise them and hold them accountable right through to the next election. But I point out to honourable members opposite that you need a new leader of government business. I think even my counterpart, the Minister for Education, or even the Treasurer—although he might have a bit on his plate at the moment—would do a better job than the leader of government business in the House. So, while the opposition will not oppose this motion, we certainly place on record our dismay and disdain for the management of this House by the current leader of government business in the House.

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

I am happy to close the debate on the 2009 program of sittings and note that the opposition are once again walking both sides of the street. They say they are supporting this; they are going to vote for this. There are no amendments to this motion, but they criticise, complain and whinge about the program of sittings that has been put forward.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We weren’t given any notice about it.

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

It was on the Notice Paper. Of course, the Manager of Opposition Business is away, and I am not sure what has happened to the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Cowper. What has occurred is that the member for Sturt has jumped over the member for Cowper in order to make sure that the deputy could not fulfil the role he normally would have had. And, meekly, the National Party, who have the deputy’s position, have just given it up. They have just rolled over and had their tummy tickled by the member for Sturt. That is what the member for Cowper has done with his failure to take on that position.

I want to address the issues of substance raised by the member for Sturt. He suggested that it was appropriate that the parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. I went back and had a look. In 1996 it sat for the 16. In 1997 it sat for 20. In 1998 it sat for 14. In 1999 it sat for 19. In 2000 it sat for 19. In 2001, 14. In 2002, 18. In 2003, 19. In 2004, 16. In 2005, 18. In 2006, 18. So not once while they were in government, in not one of the 12 years, did parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. But here they say that is what should happen.

On behalf of the electorate and constituents of Sturt, I can understand why they would not want their member in Sturt, or why the constituents of Cowper would want their member in Cowper. The fact is they did not do it for their entire time of office. But this is typical of this opposition. It does not matter whether it is over organisational issues or whether it is issues affecting the economy, the global financial crisis and the response of this government to it, they say they are for it essentially, they do not propose any alternatives—we saw the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 Report last night—but they just snipe from the sidelines.

The member for Sturt referred to Friday sittings. In the life of this parliament, what issue has the opposition had most speakers on? Was it about pensions? Was it about the global financial crisis? Was it about workplace relations and their defence of Work Choices? No. It was about Friday sittings. That has been their No. 1 priority as an opposition. That had a speakers list where every one of their members had a view. So parliament sat for the longest first-day sitting since Federation because of their strenuous opposition to working five days a week. That is what motivated them more than the economy, more than pensions, more than the response to climate change. That is what really got their backs up: sitting five days a week. They behaved in a way which brought disrepute to this House during that Friday sitting. Because of that, they lost their opportunity to have a day at the end of the week when they could raise issues of concern to their constituents, be they local electorate issues or responses to the economy or alternative viewpoints. Most of that is now put on Monday night in the Main Committee, because they were not prepared to have that opportunity for real parliamentary reform that was given to the opposition and was of great advantage to the opposition.

We know that when it comes to work and procedures the Manager of Opposition Business does indeed have a record of which he should be very concerned. Because they have no real agenda—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it costs $11,000 a minute to run the parliament—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will come to his point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

so we have now wasted $66,000 of taxpayers’ money.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt is warned! And that will last for the whole day because it was an abuse of the opportunity that is given to members to raise genuine points of order.

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

They do not understand the standing orders, which is the little book, or the House of Representatives Practice, which is the big book. There isn’t anyone on that side who has ever picked it up. They did not pick it up when they were in government. But I give them a bit of advice: they should pick it up when they are in opposition. That was the 502nd point of order moved during this year. They have interrupted you, Mr Speaker, in one of every three questions during question time because they do not have anything to say and are not prepared to engage in the real forms of the House for proper discussion.

The fact is that the number of sitting days under the Rudd government is higher than the number of sitting days under the Howard government. The fact is that the number of question times under the Rudd government is higher than the average number of question times under the Howard government. The fact is that the number of questions without notice answered by the government in this House is higher per question time than the number of questions answered by the Howard government. The fact is that we have had 53 ministerial statements in this House during 2008. They had two during 2007.

The fact is that during 2007 in the run-up to the election, when you would expect there to be more issues of conflict between the government and the opposition than during a post-election year, there was one dissent motion before this House. You will recall, Mr Speaker, there have been four so far this year from the opposition. In terms of censures or suspensions of standing orders to do similar actions, to disrupt question time, in the run-up to the election in 2007 there was a total of just 10—during the entire year in the lead-up to an election. So far this year the opposition has done that on 21 separate occasions. This took five hours of debate in 2007. The opposition has taken 12 hours and 40 minutes of the parliament’s time—more than double—so far this year in debating censures of the government or condemnations of the government or sometimes we are not quite sure what. ‘It’s Thursday so we’ll move a suspension.’ That is their attitude. And we await post question time today to see whether once again there is a predictable motion to suspend standing orders from the opposition—on who knows what and with no build-up whatsoever.

The fact is that the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, was served very badly indeed by his tactics and strategy committee. We all recall him fumbling at the dispatch box, not having the appropriate motions to read, not being given any assistance by the Manager of Opposition Business, not being given assistance by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business and not being given any assistance by the member for Sturt. The former Leader of the Opposition knows that he was served very badly by his tactics and strategy committee, because it was part of the undermining of the former Leader of the Opposition. But what we are seeing in respect of the new Leader of the Opposition is service just as bad, frankly—a tactics committee that is all over the shop, an opposition that thinks that it is okay to essentially vote for things, not put up alternatives or be prepared to put up any other options.

The opposition are doing it again today when it comes to the sitting schedule for 2009. They are going to vote for it. They know it is sensible. They know it is practical. The program put up raises the issue of one-week gaps in sittings. Go back and look at what occurred under them. In 2001, there were one, two, three, four, five one-week breaks. In 2002, there were one, two, three one-week breaks. In 2003, there were one, two, three, four one-week breaks. So do not listen to anything they have to say about either policy or organisation or running this parliament, because they are completely incapable. They walk both sides of the streets but somehow manage at the same time to stay in the gutter. That is where they are at—walking both sides of the street but somehow managing to stay in the gutter at the same time.

I commend the sitting schedule to the parliament. Also, for the benefit of newer members, we have given more notice than the former government gave. We waited. Often the schedules were released in November or December. That was when we got the schedules. This is a government that is well organised on policy and well organised in running this parliament.

Question agreed to.