Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the member for Hughes under standing order 99. I refer to the member's motion on the Notice Paper which relates to the National Energy Guarantee and says that it provides certainty for investors and reduces price volatility. Under standing orders, this motion will be removed from the Notice Paper if it's not selected for debate again. When will the motion be debated again, and has the member sought any intervention to have it debated?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thinking time won't help him!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler! I warn you on irony first.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes does not have responsibility for what the Selection Committee decides, and therefore he's not capable of answering that question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, to the point of order: I refer to your previous ruling on exactly this matter.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. That previous ruling said that certainly the member who has a motion on the Notice Paper can be asked a question. It's well written up in Practice. But the only part that is in order is the matters that go to procedure and timing. I think almost word for word I could say, just as I said last time, that the member doesn't control the Selection Committee. It doesn't prevent him being asked the question.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are correct: it is up to the Selection Committee. But there is a big difference between the previous National Energy Guarantee and one that has a 45 per cent target. The 45 per cent target that you lot over there have is a replica of what we've seen in South Australia. It delivered the highest electricity prices in the entire world, and that is the policy that the Labor Party wants to inflict upon every single Australian. I'd ask you to think about the old age pensioners sitting at home that are unable to heat their homes in winter. You lot don't care one bit about them. Think about the pensioners this summertime that won't be able to cool their houses when it's 40 degrees in Western Sydney. You don't care. If you really cared, you would scrap your 45 per cent target and get on board with the coalition's policy.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 1, I move:

That the member's time be extended.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I dealt with this previously. By logic, an extension of time can only—

Honourable members interjecting—

No, it's very clearly written up in Practice. Can I explain this very simple concept: an extension of time can only be moved when someone has run out of time. That's when they need more time.