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

by leave—I move:

That:

(1)

the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 1.20 p.m.;

(2)

so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the order of business for the sitting tomorrow being as follows, unless otherwise ordered:

(a)

Notices and orders of the day, government business;

(b)

Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.);

(c)

Presentation of documents;

(d)

Ministerial statements, by leave;

(e)

Matter of public importance; and

(f)

Notices and orders of the day, government business; and

(3)

standing order 31 (Automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (Limit on business) be suspended for the sitting tomorrow.

I will just speak briefly and then reply if the Manager of Opposition Business has comments to make. I do so just as a courtesy to the House so that members can be aware of arrangements. This is the last fortnight of sitting. It is my objective, as Leader of the House, to have you leave here next Thursday—some of that is beyond this House’s control and will be determined by the deliberations of the Senate. However, I think it would be the preference that the sitting ends when it is scheduled. I will keep the House updated as to how that is going in terms of next week.

As a courtesy to let people know at the earliest possible opportunity, this motion proposes we start at 1.20 pm. It is the intention of the government to introduce its Fair Work legislation at that time. The reason it is 1.20 is that the Acting Prime Minister has a 30-minute contribution—of course, the procedural opening of the parliament takes some time—and then we will have other introductions of bills later in the afternoon. We will sit through until 11 o’clock tomorrow night, with the adjournment debate intended to be at 10.30.

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

The Leader of the House kindly informed us this morning of this initiative, and even then it was meant to be 1.30. What I note is that this is about political tactics, and we can see it because the Chief Government Whip has got a big smile on his face. The political tactic is that, before the Prime Minister gets back on Wednesday, the Acting Prime Minister wants her moment in the sun. So that the government’s political message of the day is not derailed, they will introduce their changes to the workplace relations system, come straight out of caucus before anyone who dissents in caucus has a chance to express a view to the media and come into this place and immediately introduce the bills, trying to give the impression that in fact the Labor Party are united in their stand on the repeal of Work Choices. That is quite clearly part of the political strategy of the government. The fact that the government do not stick to the script when it comes to the running of the parliament and are constantly changing the hours of parliament to suit their political purposes is well exemplified by the fact that tomorrow they want to change the hours of the parliament so that they can bring on the political issue of the day and the Acting Prime Minister can have her moment in the sun.

During the last few weeks and months we have seen that the Acting Prime Minister has suffered relevance deprivation syndrome and needs people to take notice of her. She has that little part of the Prime Minister’s DNA that says, ‘Look at me, I’m important,’ which the Prime Minister has used in relation to conversations with presidents. He has used it when acting as an interpreter between world leaders. He was even witness to those conversations between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Russia, where the Prime Minister said, ‘Look at me, I’m important.’ Now we have the hours of the parliament changing so that we can all look at the Acting Prime Minister, because the Acting Prime Minister, suffering relevance deprivation syndrome, says, ‘Look at me, I’m changing the workplace relations laws and I’m going to change the hours of the parliament to accommodate this significant moment.’ It is so significant that they have to change the hours of the parliament. There is only a political motivation here—nothing more than a political motivation.

The government are concerned that they will not be able to get their political message up during question time; therefore, they have to have a speech before question time so that they can make the television news from five o’clock. It is interesting, isn’t it? The normal process is the bills would be introduced on a Thursday. That is the normal process of the House. Even if the government were to introduce bills outside of the normal requirements of the House, it is usually the case that bills would be introduced after question time, and even then it would be after the matter of public importance. So it normally occurs around 4 o’clock, 4.30 or quarter to five, but of course the difficulty for the government tomorrow is that they might not make the TV news if they have to introduce their changes to workplace relations at quarter to five tomorrow afternoon. The bill is not even being debated tomorrow, yet it is so urgent that they are changing the sitting hours of the parliament. It just smacks of policy on the run. It smacks of the fact that the government are desperately focused on politics rather than policy—desperately focused on running the politics of the issue rather than focusing on the details of the policy at issue.

We still wait with bated breath for the legislation and even consultation on the details of the legislation. We are all keen to see it, but the government of course have not provided that draft legislation to us. Therefore, they feel the need to change the sitting hours. I can divide on this, although I am not going to, but I do want to make a point. I am a fair-minded guy. I recognise that the government will ram this through no matter what. I think the parliament should get on with the job of doing what it should be doing—that is, governing in the best interests of the Australian people. Therefore, even though we oppose the fact that they are starting parliament early tomorrow simply for political purposes, we will let this through.

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

This legislation is about getting a focus on Work Choices, and I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for ensuring that there is a focus on Work Choices through his giving of that speech in this chamber just then. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for focusing in on the fact that tomorrow we will be introducing legislation to get rid of Work Choices—and, yes, we want a focus on Labor’s legislation to get rid of Work Choices. But where the Manager of Opposition Business is wrong is that it is not about the Acting Prime Minister or any member on this side of the House. It is about the ordinary men and women who work in workplaces throughout Australia who want to get rid of Work Choices. That is what it is about. That is why we have consulted extensively on this legislation. We are bringing in this legislation to fulfil the commitment which we gave to working men and women in the last election campaign, and those opposite, particularly the former minister for Work Choices, just cannot move on. Those opposite remain attached to Work Choices. They remain ideologically committed to withdrawing the rights of ordinary working men and women throughout the nation.

Tomorrow will be a good day for the nation. It will be a good day for the House of Representatives when the Deputy Prime Minister introduces this legislation and there should be a complete focus on this legislation. We have been extremely cooperative with the opposition and I thank them for the fact that they are voting for this legislation.

We were asked this morning to put off the return of bills from the Main Committee because the Leader of the Opposition was speaking at the Press Club, and we did so. That is one more time than we received that courtesy when I sat in the position of the Manager of Opposition Business. What they used to do during those times was ensure that there used to be votes all the time on the basis of just inconveniencing for the sake of inconvenience. There can be no more pathetic example of that than the quorum that was called last week during Matt Price’s book launch.

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.

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

I seek indulgence.

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

No indulgence is granted. The indulgence is in my hands and I am not giving you indulgence. I wish to get on with the business of the House.

Question agreed to.