Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

Can I say that I am somewhat disappointed in the contribution that has been made by Senator McAllister in response to answers to questions during question time, mainly because I actually thought better of Senator McAllister. I have to say I was not overly surprised at the contribution of Senator Cameron; he is a bit of a regular at this sort of behaviour.

I might point out, though, that one of the things that really amazed me about the contribution we have just heard from Senator McAllister was that she refers to a number of contrary views. There is no doubt in the coalition that there are a number of differing views, and what we seek to do is to debate them, so everybody gets their say, so we can have a robust and open debate about many of the issues that face the Australian public.

The parliament of Australia is the greatest place in Australia for public debate, and it does seem a little strange for people to come in here and complain about the fact that there are differing views within the coalition.

There has been some comment about yesterday's so-called filibuster because of the lack of legislation coming through this place. Senator McAllister's contribution failed to mention that there was no legislation earlier in the day because of the fun and games that were being played downstairs by her colleagues in the Labor Party and their refusal to allow the legislation to pass the lower house and come up here for a respectful debate. I think it is somewhat ironical that this is the comment that we have been hearing. It seems a little bit rich for those opposite to complain about the fact that the government is seeking to deliver a respectful, fair and transparent process for the plebiscite. This is not about us telling you what we want to do—whether we want to vote for the plebiscite or vote for gay marriage or not vote for same-sex marriage. It is incumbent upon governments to provide a framework which enables both sides of the argument to put forward fair, balanced and equal debate so as not to prejudice or jeopardise either side's position. That is what a government is here for.

We in this place need to set the tone for this debate. The irony seems to be lost on those opposite that it is those opposite with their politicking and their loud and hysterical behaviour who are setting the tone. What we on this side of the house would like to do, what we in the government are seeking to do, is to have a respectful and mature debate about this issue—an issue which is very important to many, many Australians. It will be the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, who will have to accept and shoulder the consequences of his actions by beating this issue up into hysteria. It will be his actions that decide whether this plebiscite goes ahead or not, and it will be him that decides whether the people of Australia are able to have their say on an issue that they feel very, very strongly about.

It does strike me as an extraordinary waste of the time of this place that after an hour of question time we are debating issues that I would refer to as issues that play the player, not issues that play the game. I refer to Senator Gallagher's question to Senator Brandis about leaks out of cabinet and leaks out of some Liberal Party function or meeting, and I also refer to a question asked by Senator Collins once again of the Attorney-General representing the Prime Minister about comments of a previous employee of government. This is typical of the debate in this place: we are not hearing serious questions, we are just seeing stupid stunts that have no positive bearing whatsoever on the important issues that are facing this country. Did we hear anything today about budget repair? Did we hear anything about fiscal responsibility? Did we hear anything about national security? Did we hear anything about counterterrorism? Did we hear anything about border protection?