Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022:

(1) from 8 pm on Wednesday 26 October, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being reduced to 10 minutes;

(2) from 9 pm on 26 October, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being reduced to 5 minutes;

(3) the second reading debate continuing until either:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) a Minister requires that the debate be adjourned at no earlier than 10 pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday 27 October at 9 am;

(4) during the sitting of Thursday 27 October, the bill being called on and questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(5) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with any detail amendments to be moved together, with:

(a) one question to be put on all government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; and

(c) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to;

(6) should a Minister require, any question provided for under paragraph (5) being put after no less than 10 minutes of debate on each set of amendments;

(7) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and

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

I won't delay the House long. The notice is on the Notice Paper, so members have had a chance to be across it.

For the final sitting fortnight of the year, there are pieces of legislation that we will need to have through the House and across to the Senate by that point. There will be a few when we return for the single week as well. In terms of managing that time, rather than simply coming in and moving that the question be put and guillotining speeches immediately, I prefer, and I think most members have preferred, a process where we set a deadline which allows people to make speeches that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to, and then have the votes the following morning. That's the reason that this is being moved. Once again, while there can be some inconvenience for people in terms of the timing of later speeches, I do think it's a much better procedure than simply moving that the question be put and crunching things through.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to indicate that the opposition does not support this debate management motion. The fact is that under the previous government, in the previous parliament, the then Manager of Opposition Business, now Leader of the House, was very passionate about the importance of debate occurring in a way that allows all in the House to express their views and speak to the fullest extent possible on matters that are of considerable importance to members. I will quote from one statement that he issued, in which he criticised coalition MPs for being 'part of a government obsessed with shutting down democratic debate and silencing its opponents.' It was an unfair characterisation, I hasten to add. He went on to say that he was very critical indeed of government MPs, who, he said, 'pretend to their electorates that they're the sort of people who listen and then spend all their time in Canberra silencing voices they don't like.'

It's interesting to see the position that the Leader of the House is now taking. Having been a vigorous champion, an enthusiastic champion, an unrelenting champion of the importance of debates being allowed to take their full period, he now has a different view. Apparently, it's enormously important that this particular bill get moved through the House within a particular period of time. It's a little unclear exactly why that is, when we look at the facts. Firstly, the changes outlined in this bill do not take effect until 1 July 2023. In fact, I am advised that the department has already told Services Australia to get the ball rolling on administrative changes that may be required. So that work is already underway. We also know that the legislation is currently in the middle of a Senate inquiry, which is not due to report until 16 November. So the suggestion that we need to rush this through, that consideration in the House needs to be truncated, really doesn't stand up to any detailed scrutiny at all. It is puzzling to see this change in perspective from the Leader of the House.

We know under quantum mechanics that it is possible for an electron to be in two states at once. Perhaps we have a new particle that's been discovered—a burkium. It is violently opposed to gag motions while at the same time an enthusiastic user of them. That may be it. I can't be entirely sure, but that may be the phenomenon that we are witnessing in the House at the moment, with this enthusiastic user of gag motions. He says to us that, in essence, this gag motion doesn't choke quite as tightly as others that may be available to him, and we should be very grateful for that.

The opposition's position is clear. This is a matter of very considerable importance to the opposition. It's of very considerable importance to many opposition members. Many opposition members represent regional and remote electorates, and regional and remote electorates around Australia are overwhelmingly represented by coalition MPs. We are very strongly committed to regional and remote Australia, and it's very important that the perspective of the people of regional and remote Australia is heard in relation to this bill. We know that although the bill proposes the very extensive spending of additional taxpayers' money it does not produce additional childcare places, and we've not seen any clear, well-developed plan to deal with the specific challenges of regional and remote Australia. It is enormously important that we have members representing regional and remote Australia who are able to express their views and subject this bill to the appropriate scrutiny.

I note also that this debate management motion involves a very serious contraction of the normal procedures in relation to consideration in detail. This is a very troubling aspect of what this government is repeatedly doing. Consideration in detail is a very important process in which the provisions of a bill can be put to detailed scrutiny and in which any member is able to move an amendment and speak to it but also to ask questions of the minister at the table. This is an enormously important process and it's one of the casualties of this particular debate management motion, as well as the broader gag mechanism which the government has empowered itself to use, really at the drop of a hat, by declaring a bill to be urgent. I acknowledge that the specific procedures to do with urgency have not been used here, but what has been used here is a debate management motion which includes many of the unattractive features of the gag mechanism that the government has empowered itself to use—and I might also add that the government gave itself those powers on the first or second day of the parliament sitting, at a time when, I think it's fair to say, a number of members on the crossbench had not had the opportunity to participate in consideration in detail and appreciate its importance.

So the opposition does have grave concerns about the use of this debate management motion and this gag process which is being imposed. It is troubling to us and it does not have our support. I want to be very clear about that.

We hear excuses along the lines of: 'Oh well, we've got a lot of stuff to get through, so let's not bother with all that messy and inconvenient legislative process. Let's not bother with all of that annoying scrutiny from elected representatives, because we're an executive government; we've got a lot to get done!' That tone, coming from the government, is troubling. It is, frankly, showing an inappropriate, inadequate level of recognition of the very important work of the parliament. Indeed, the Leader of the House, when he was in his previous role—as indeed did the Prime Minister in previous roles—spoke eloquently about the importance of the parliament performing its role as a mechanism for scrutiny and ensuring that debate can occur in an unconstrained fashion and is not subject to artificial restrictions and gags. So I put on record, on behalf of the opposition, our grave concerns with this debate management motion and our strong objection to what is being proposed here this evening.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister, the following—and I have copies of it if anyone wants:

(1) Before paragraph (1), insert:

(1A) notwithstanding standing order 31, at 8 pm on 26 October, the bill being called on for further consideration;

(1B) any division called for from 7.30 pm until adjournment being deferred until the first opportunity on Thursday, 27 October;

(1C) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House from 7.30 pm until adjournment, the Speaker announcing that he will count the House at the first opportunity on Thursday, 27 October, if the Member then so desires;

Just briefly, the intent of this is to preserve the half-hour adjournment speeches that we have. That's important because this is the first adjournment post the budget, and, over the last couple of parliaments, it's been the case that the crossbenchers especially have used that opportunity to respond to some of the matters that have been raised in the budget. For many of us, it's our first chance to do so in parliament. So this preserves that half hour. I will certainly be availing myself of that, should the Speaker give me the call, and, whilst I would hope that every member is going to be here, and I would love it if they were, I don't want to compel them to have to be here. So I think it's appropriate—especially if we are now going to be sitting later as well—that divisions and quorums are deferred. That has previously been part of recommendations to the House about what happens when we are going to be sitting late, and I think it's appropriate that that occur on this occasion as well.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment to the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Brisbane. The Leader of the House?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be supporting the amendment that was moved by the member for Melbourne. It does improve the motion from what was on the Notice Paper and makes sure that it's completely consistent with the Jenkins recommendations. So I appreciate that being raised.

This now gives us potentially a new way, whenever we have to use this sort of mechanism, of being able to make sure that the people who had planned and scheduled to speak on the adjournment debate are able to do so. At some point we'll make a reference to the Procedure Committee to have a look at this. I think this will be the third different way we've tried to do this, to try to work out which one works best for the House.

In closing, to respond to the issues raised by the Manager of Opposition Business: in terms of shutting down debate, the impact of what we're about to do will be to allow 30 extra members to speak on this bill. That's the impact. Shutting down debate looks different to that.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment. The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.