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

I move:

That in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, the Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, and the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1)the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2)at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 October 2011, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, in respect of all the bills with the exception of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011:

(a)   one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members;

(b)   any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(c)   one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3)   then without delay, any questions necessary to conclude the second reading stage of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 being put;

(4)   if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;

(5)   the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together until no later than immediately after prayers on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, with no business intervening, at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with:

(a)   one question being put on all the Government amendments;

(b)   one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;

(c)   any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(d)   any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(6)   then without delay, any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with;

(a)   one question being put on all the Government amendments;

(b)   one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;

(c)   any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(d)   any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(7)   at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills, except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, together and then one question being put on the remaining stages of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; and

(8)   any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

This debate management motion is to ensure that there is absolute certainty about what the process is for dealing with the Clean Energy Future bills. Under the timetable set out in a resolution of the parliament, we introduced the bills prior to question time today. Debate will of course be permitted over the next fortnight, leading right up to the second reading being put to a vote of the parliament on 11 October, the consideration in detail stage occurring after those votes and final votes taking place on 12 October. What the government is proposing here is a full month to facilitate the participation of the parliament in these processes. The joint committee that has just been established through a resolution of the House will meet to allow for community input prior to any votes being held on these bills. We have just altered the reporting date; the government accepted an amendment that the reporting date would be on 7 October. What I find quite extraordinary is the fact that the opposition voted, through that last division, against the existence of the joint committee—they voted against the very process, in spite of the fact that, of the two amendments that they put up, one was supported completely and the other was supported as amended by my amendment to their amendment. It just shows that nothing can alter them from their path of relentless negativity and opposition. Indeed, regardless of the fact that the amendment that they moved to change the reporting date of the joint committee was accepted by the government, they then went and spoke against that very process—quite an extraordinary performance before the parliament.

This debate management motion adds to the consultation and debate that has already occurred on these bills and the issue of climate change; the exposure draft of the bills that was released on 28 July, with 300 submissions received; the MPCCC where the opposition refused to participate—1,300 submissions received; and the 35 parliamentary reviews over 19 years.

This stands in stark contrast to the way that they conducted themselves when they were the government. The infamous Work Choices legislation, which took away the rights of working people right around the country, was introduced into the parliament on 2 November 2005 and passed on 10 November 2005—eight days later. We are allowing a full month of debate. Indeed, the walking vuvuzela, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked about gagging the Work Choices debate, said—this is what Hansard records—on 10 November 2005:

… how much more debate could this bill possibly require? I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the members opposite are not interested in debating this bill, they are not interested in trying to improve this bill; they simply want to reject this bill.

Well, I say that the Leader of the Opposition got it right then. We did want to reject the Work Choices legislation, lock, stock and barrel. And we were right to reject the Work Choices legislation. But what those opposite want to do is to come up with methods of delaying the debate in this parliament.

There is no doubt what the opposition's position is on these bills. How long does it take you to say 'No'? That is what they are going to say to this legislation. And here is what the Leader of the Opposition said in his doorstop on 11 July 2011: 'I mean, I have dedicated my political life, whatever's left of it, to stopping this carbon tax.' Isn't that something extraordinary—that you would dedicate your political life not to any positive reform, not to improving the lives of Australians, not towards making a big economic reform, not towards assisting in an area of the environment, not towards assisting in an area of social policy reform, but to stopping something. It says it all about the Leader of the Opposition. And he repeats, every day, that he will be campaigning until his last breath against this tax. And where it is leading them is to the sort of behaviour that we saw expressed in the parliament today.

We had the bills introduced by the Prime Minister, by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, by the Treasurer and by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Then, in question time, immediately after the introduction of those bills, the opposition did not even bother to ask any questions about the substance of the legislation that had been introduced before the House. They did not seek to raise the issue at the beginning of question time in any of their earlier questions. It went to their obsessions—indeed, they were even in the extraordinary position whereby they had a question ruled out of order. And of course they were all pumped up today. From the time that the Prime Minister answered her first question, they were pumped up with their interjections. But today they took it to a new level. Today they decided that they would not just disrupt on the floor of the parliament but that they would also disrupt in the galleries—with people who had had lunch upstairs, with leading members of the opposition, they decided that they would disrupt upstairs.

Indeed, so pumped up were they that they even disrupted a question about the visit of the United States President, Barack Obama. I was reminded that they had form on this issue, because Prime Minister Howard had said on 11 February 2007 on the Sunday program:

If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a statement!

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

A disgraceful statement, made by Prime Minister Howard, and disgraceful behaviour today on the floor of the House of Representatives when the Prime Minister was announcing the visit of President Obama. And we had the extraordinary position whereby the Leader of the Opposition had to play catch up at the end of question time and seek indulgence to actually try to put something positive on the record so that he could at least have some mitigation of his humiliation when the Speaker refused to give him the call to respond to the Prime Minister's answer to the first question today. But what it shows—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have given the Leader of the House a great deal of licence.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

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

This is a debate about a motion—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

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

My point of order is that what he is saying is utterly irrelevant to the debate before the chamber.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, you have made your point of order. Take your seat.

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

And you should have called him out.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just be very careful, Member for Sturt! Your point of order is on relevance. I ask the Leader of the House to remember the topic that we are discussing now.

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

I certainly am, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the point of order and the response to you which reflected on the chair, once again the Manager of Opposition Business has shown just how unfit for government those who sit opposite are.

What this process puts in place is absolute certainty. We have had the absurdity of those opposite arguing in terms of the time frame for this legislation—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Sturt, I ask you to wait to speak until you get the call, and that goes for all people at the table. I want to hear the speaker.

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

Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we have had is an attempt to delay this legislation. We know that they delayed: they had over 12 years to act on climate change and they refused to do so. They took a couple of steps forward but then would take three steps back. They signed the Kyoto protocol but would not ratify the Kyoto protocol. They were not quite sure where they were in terms of the renewable energy target and support for industry. From time to time every election they drew out support for a particular solar project or support for a particular water project or for some environmental initiative, and particularly if it was someone who was known to senior members of the then government frontbench it got a run, but there was no consistency and no framework.

What this legislation does is put in place a comprehensive package of reform to ensure that we move towards a clean energy future. What this motion before the House does is manage the process so that there can be absolute certainty. We know that those opposite have been trying to raise all sorts of issues with regard to whether pairs would be granted and when the votes were to be held. They have said, 'We don't know when they'll be held; it will be up to the government to schedule it.' What we are doing here today is providing that absolute certainty, so that everyone knows when the votes will be held, in a way which is appropriate. Every time they have gone a step too far, such as saying that they would deny the right of a father to be present at the birth of his child, they had to backtrack from that position.

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

That never happened!

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

The Manager of Opposition Business says that never happened. He went on radio and said that that would happen, as did the Leader of the Opposition, as did other members of the frontbench—the so-called family-friendly party, out there exposed for all to see for the gross opportunists that they are.

What this motion before the House does is give that certainty for people. It should be supported by the parliament. It provides for an orderly process whereby every member will be able to participate. I repeat for the Manager of Opposition Business: we are prepared to sit extra hours in the parliament if required for people to speak before the parliament—unlike the way that they dealt with Work Choices, the war on Iraq, the Tampa legislation; all of those serious issues. We are ensuring, one month ahead, that there is a proper process. Indeed, I gave notice of this process, that this was the way we would proceed, in a press conference more than a week ago—last Tuesday morning. And, indeed, I had discussions with the opposition, which is more than was ever accorded to me when I was Manager of Opposition Business, when I had one conversation with the then Leader of the House over an entire term of parliament—one conversation about any process that was occurring before this House.

What occurred under the former government was that they would come in, move the first reading, move the second reading and move immediately through to deal with debate, without adjourning it at all, and then just crunch and guillotine the debate. That was the way those opposite dealt with parliamentary processes and the rights to participate. We are a different government. We are a government that supports transparency, that supports openness, that supports participation and that supports a proper process. We believe that through proper processes you get better outcomes. That is why we have put together this motion that is before the House, and I commend it to the House.

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

It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I intend to move an amendment to the Leader of the House's motion. I now formally move the amendment:

That the motion be amended to read:

That, in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—-General) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, the Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011 and the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;

(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, in respect of all the bills with the exception of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011:

(a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members;

(b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;

(3) then without delay, any questions necessary to conclude the second reading stage of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 being put;

(4) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;

(5) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together and, at the conclusion of consideration in detail, Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with:

(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;

(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;

(c) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(d) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;

(6) then without delay, any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with:

(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;

(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;

(c) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and

(d) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put; and

(7) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills, except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, together and then one question being put on the remaining stages of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011.

The amendment is extraordinarily long so I will explain what it achieves. It outlines the process for dealing with the package of carbon tax legislation but has two important elements. The first element is that it removes the dates for the cutting off of the debate. The first date in the motion moved by the Leader of the House is for the debate to be cut off on 11 October, at 5 pm, and for the second reading summing-up and vote to be held at that time on the legislation, on any amendments moved by the government, any amendments moved by the opposition and any amendments moved by the crossbenches. The second date is Wednesday, 12 October, which is for the vote on the third reading of the package of 19 bills. The amendment that I have moved removes both of those dates, so it still outlines the process for dealing with this package of legislation but without the guillotine or gag that has been introduced by the Leader of the House this evening. The second element, which will be the third thing we are amending, is to remove from the motion these words:

(8) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.

Dealing with the first amendment first, obviously the government could not expect the support of the opposition for this gag or guillotine motion. The government has decided to jackboot this legislation through the parliament. It has decided to make the claim that the bills have already been properly debated and scrutinised in many different ways. But I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are 19 bills in this package of legislation—over 1,000 pages of legislation—and there are members in this House who wish to debate properly the biggest change to our economy in the last 111 years since Federation. Worse than that, the government has provided a mere few hours for the consideration in detail stage of these 19 bills. The consideration in detail stage is the opportunity for members of this House to question the minister about the specifics contained in this bill.

We know that the government have not yet been able to answer our questions, whether in question time, in the media, at doorstops or at the National Press Club. They have been unable to answer the detail of how these bills will fundamentally change the lives of Australians as consumers, in their households and in their businesses. They have been incapable of handling the detail in question time, so they have decided to truncate the period of time in which the House will be able to question them in the consideration in detail stage of these bills. So, of course, we are opposing the government's attempt to gag this debate to reduce the consideration in detail stage to a mere few hours and, of course, we will oppose the attempt to have a specific time for a vote on this package of bills.

The government has decided that members of the House of Representatives, elected in my case by about 100,000 electors in north-eastern, eastern and south Adelaide, should have one minute per bill per member to debate this crucial change legislation. It is not enough that 19 bills, over 1,000 pages of legislation, have been introduced in one package. The real insult, the rubbing of salt into the wound, is that members in this place who take their job seriously are being expected to have one minute per bill to debate this legislation. That speaks volumes of the contempt in which this government holds the parliament.

We are already sitting the shortest sitting periods in the history of Federation this year, in a non-election year. The government will do anything to avoid the scrutiny of the parliament. We have already seen the unedifying spectacle of the government substituting a joint select committee for the five specialist committees of the House that these bills should be being sent to by the Selection Committee for proper scrutiny and now we see the unedifying spectacle of the government gagging this debate on the basis that these bills have already been scrutinised.

The first time this parliament saw these bills was today, yet tomorrow members of this House are expected to start debating the most fundamental change to our economy since Federation. In past parliaments, governments like the Howard government actually respected the parliament; governments like the Howard government recognised the need to scrutinise legislation not just because the opposition was opposing the bills but because it was good for the government to have that scrutiny to make sure that inadvertent mistakes were not being made by the government. After all the failures over the years, whether it was the home insulation debacle, the Building the Education Revolution fiasco, the live cattle export disaster, the Malaysian solution, the East Timor solution, the Green Loans policy, the cash-for-clunkers policy—one fiasco after another—the government believe that the people and the parliament should take them at their word that they have got the most fundamental change to our economy in 111 years right. I for one am not prepared to give them that trust. I am not prepared to accept that the government have got this legislation right when they cannot even answer questions in question time about the detail of these bills. We will not support truncating this debate to the mere week or so that the government expects the parliament to deal with it.

The great precedent is the GST legislation. Not only did John Howard take his GST, his goods and services tax, to the people to get a mandate before he introduced it, unlike the carbon tax legislation introduced by the government, but John Howard had the common decency to seek a mandate from the people and receive it and then introduce the legislation. The bills were introduced in the House on 2 December 1998. They sat on the table, as is expected for such an important piece of legislation, till 7 December. Almost 15 hours of debate was allocated to the second reading on the goods and services tax legislation and the bills were passed on 10 December 1998 after they had sat on the table for a week.

The GST legislation then spent five months in Senate committees being scrutinised by the Senate. On 25 November 1998, the Senate established the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System. The Senate committee also referred certain matters to three separate Senate references committees, all of which reported by the end of March 1999—namely, the Community Affairs References Committee, the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee and the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee. So the Howard government went through the correct process. It introduced the bills. They sat on the table. They did not try to rush them through the next day, having given members of parliament no time. Members have been given 12 hours to consider these 19 pieces of legislation of over 1,000 pages before they start speaking on these bills tomorrow. They have 12 hours to consider 19 bills, over 1,000 pages of legislation, in order to start debating them tomorrow. In the Howard government they had the decency to let the GST legislation sit on the table to give members of this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise the legislation and prepare their remarks. Then there were 15 hours of the second reading debate. They had Senate committees. Four different Senate committees reviewed the GST legislation before these bills were passed. This was not the jackboot democracy we are seeing from this government.

So of course we will oppose this legislation. This parliament is not a stranger to lengthy second reading debates. I have participated in many of them over the years. The research involving embryos and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill in 2002 took 23½ hours of debate. There were many amendments moved. I moved 14 amendments myself with Alan Cadman, the former member for Mitchell, and there was no gag put on that debate by the government at the time. The parliament was given the opportunity to properly consider one of the most significant issues facing that parliament.

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 took 23½ hours of debate. Parliament was given every opportunity to scrutinise the legislation, to go through it line by line. But in this government there are 19 bills of over 1,000 pages and members have been given 12 hours to consider their contributions to this debate before tomorrow morning—one minute per member per bill! The government should hang its head in shame.

Many other debates have occurred in this parliament where gag motions were not applied. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 was not gagged. The Native Title Amendment Bill, and I was part of that debate in 1997, took about the same time as the GST bill—15 hours. The government at the time gave proper time for these debates to occur to allow proper scrutiny, because the Howard government respected the parliament. The Howard government did not hold the parliament in contempt.

In conclusion, there is a point that the Leader of the House made about how the government was prepared to give extra time to debate this legislation. Let us just examine for a minute the illogical position being put by the Leader of the House. Apparently these bills need to be gagged, guillotined, cut off from debate on 11 October and 12 October. Yet the government is admitting, because they need to give more time for the debate, that in fact they have not got the time on the schedule to deal with these bills in the comprehensive way that they should. So the illogical position of the Leader of the House is that we are going to gag the debate whilst at the same time offering more time for debate. If more time is needed for debate, why are you gagging the bills? Why are you gagging the bills if you have already admitted that we need more time for debate and offering extended hours?

We are not going to let the government off the hook by allowing them to have extended hours in this place whilst at the same time they are gagging 19 bills of over 1,000 pages, giving each member one minute per bill. We are not going to let you off the hook. You have made your bed and you are going to have to lie on it.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no, I have not made my bed yet; I have not been in it. Please speak through the Chair.

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

I accept your admonition, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government has made this call that they will gag the most important pieces of legislation, the most significant economic reform in the history of Federation. We are not going to allow them to then try and wriggle out of their situation by pretending that we will somehow allow them more time when, in the first place, they should not have gagged this legislation.

I call on the Leader of the House to remove this motion from the Notice Paper, to not proceed with it, to allow the House to properly consider the 19 pieces of legislation. It is in the interests of the government. We know from their record that they have got most of their policies wrong in the last 3½ years of government. If I were them, I would rather get these bills right now, even though we oppose them, rather than have to come back here, cap in hand—which I predict they will—and have to change and amend these bills in order to make up for the mistakes that have been created because of their failure to get them right now.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

In closing the debate I will be brief, because I know that the Manager of Opposition Business has an important event to get to. The fact of the matter is that this resolution is more reasonable than anything that was ever done for serious issues by the former government. Indeed, the extraordinary proposition that they put forward over the debating of the GST bills in this House was that there was less time for scrutiny and less debate. The Manager of Opposition Business is exposed by his absurd argument, which seems to be that we do not have enough time to debate the bills, but we are going to oppose an extension of time to debate the bills because he says that would let the government off the hook. That is quite extraordinary, bizarre and weird logic from the member for Sturt—even for him. I give him credit for creativity in coming up with such an absurd piece of logic.

The fact is this: if more members wish to speak, there will be time allocated for them to do so. I have proposed to the Manager of Opposition Business, for example, that on the coming two Tuesdays of parliamentary sitting week would sit from 9 am to 2 pm. That would allow an extra 10 hours of debate on the second reading. Given that the Manager of Opposition Business has acknowledged that that alone is half the entire time that was allowed for the GST debate, it is quite extraordinary. But the opposition, of course, has a very short memory. The opposition has a short memory about Work Choices, about the Iraq War, about the Tampa legislation and about a range of other pieces of legislation that it rammed through this House.

This debate management motion is more democratic than any process that has ever been established in this House of Representatives. It is more democratic because it is allowing for one month a process where everyone is clear about what that process will be. I commend the motion to the House and reject the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sturt be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.