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 Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023:

(1) on Tuesday, 27 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and continuing without interruption until:

(a) no further Members rise to speak, at which point, debate being adjourned; or

(b) the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;

(2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bills being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) 10 pm; or

(c) a later time, specified by a Minister prior to 10 pm;

at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 28 February at 9 am;

(3) on Wednesday, 28 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and continuing without interruption until debate concludes or no later than 5.30 pm, at which point:

(a) questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill, and any message from the Governor-General under standing order 147 being announced;

(b) any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without amendment or debate; and

(4) following the conclusion of proceedings on the Help to Buy Bill 2023, the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 being immediately called on, and any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without amendment or debate; and

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

For the information of members, if you look at the pace at which this debate has been going, while allowing people their full speaking time, a whole lot of people have been going short. I expect we'll probably be able to come close to finishing the debate tonight. If we're able to do that, it will leave time tomorrow for a much longer consideration in detail period than we've had for any other bill. I expect that would be more than enough.

This motion simply says that, at 5.30 pm, if there are any remaining procedures to take place, they would take place at that point in consecutive occurrence. The reasons we're doing this on Wednesday rather than leaving it to Thursday are twofold. One is that, by going late tonight, we should have more than enough time for everyone to speak, including people who want to go for their full speaking time. Secondly, on Thursday—and I'll move the motion for this tomorrow—we have the address from President Marcos, which means capacity to finish the legislation at that point won't be available. I commend the motion to the House.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting this gag motion from the government. This is yet another time in which this parliament is being treated in this way. Let me be very clear to the Leader of the House that we never object to sitting late to deal with legislation, which is essentially covered by his clauses 1 and 2. We always, where practical, oppose the guillotining of debate, and that's really what the government is doing here in clauses 3 and 4, regardless of the words just spoken. These would require that any remaining questions be put immediately without a debate at 5.30 pm, as the manager said. But, ultimately and in practice, it means there will be no further speakers on the second reading. That is essentially where we're at. Irrespective of consideration in detail, we think it's very important that our members get an opportunity to speak on the second reading. Let's not forget housing is a monumental crisis in this country. That's what the bill deals with. I think it's only fair that all members get a reasonable opportunity to speak.

The bill can be debated when the House next returns in March. I can understand why the government would seek to move this bill. The Help to Buy scheme is quite an embarrassment at the time of the housing crisis, which has been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. We have this paltry bill lobbed up to the parliament to replicate a scheme that exists in virtually every state around the country to create more shared-equity places, when there are literally thousands of shared-equity places that are going unused in those state schemes because Australians don't want these products. It's clear—and we've seen this before from the manager—that the government is so desperate for a win on Thursday that they're again trampling on the rights of the House.

I had the benefit for many years of the very effective Manager of Opposition Business, as he was, being a bastion for the rights of members. He was a champion for the rights of members to have an opportunity to represent their electorates on matters of importance. The reality is that there are few issues more important to Australians at the moment than the housing crisis that's been necessitated by the poor decisions of this government. How on earth does that Manager of Opposition Business that I recall in my mind accord with a now habitual process of this government guillotining debate? I think it's concerning. Unfortunately, it's left again to the opposition to make sure that we have orderly and proper legislative process.

I can understand why the government has not been particularly pleased with the debate on the Help to Buy Bill thus far. I can understand it is quite an embarrassment when you have inconvenient facts, like the futility of the scheme and the fact that it's very unloved around our country. I can understand why they would not want that being debated. But it wasn't the opposition who chose to introduce it. It wasn't the opposition who waited nearly two years before introducing this bill. It isn't the opposition who is hopelessly late. And, as I outlined in my contribution to the House at the time, when the government are two years late in delivering their homework and that homework is lobbed up in the state that this bill has been lobbed up, I can understand it is a source of absolute embarrassment.

But in the end the Leader of the House should take that up with his minister. His disappointment in the minister should not manifest itself in guillotining debate to spare themselves the embarrassment that is caused each time they hear inconvenient facts, like that there are thousands of shared-equity places already going unused around this country. So, what's the answer to the housing crisis? More shared-equity places. It's nuts.

That's why I move the following amendment to this motion:

That paragraphs (3) to (5) be omitted.

For the benefit of members, this simple amendment to the motion will just strike off the offending clauses (3) and (4) as circulated. It will also remove clause (5), which gives the government special powers to dictate the arrangement of business, again breaking every high-minded argument made by the now Leader of the House. I look forward to him channelling his former self and wholeheartedly supporting this motion.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

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

The question is that the amendment 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 the discussion of the matter of public importance today.

Debate adjourned.