Page 3399 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Speaking of notice, Madam Speaker, such poor practice this week in the discussions of this. It had been brought to my attention—no offence I do not actually follow Mr Pettersson’s Facebook—that he had posted on his social media about the upcoming debate today. As whip this had not been brought to my attention. At 3.30 yesterday I asked what the program for Thursday was. I was not advised until about six o’clock. I did not get any notice either from the government whip or the manager of government business. I understand Mr Gentleman was away yesterday and today, but surely the whole process of government business does not come to a complete halt because one member of the government is away. Surely that is not the point; surely that is not the way this government operates. But apparently, that is the case. That is the case. There were discussions in the hallway with people about it, there was a phone call, I think, on Monday night between a couple of people, but in terms of process as whip, I was not told that this was going on. It was a very, very poor process.
We have an allocated number of private members business and we have stuck to it, in my experience, until the precedent was set a few months ago. Labor and the Greens are just running roughshod over good process, over established process in this place. I am very disappointed. We will not be supporting this because it gives the government endless bites of the cherry. Endlessly bringing on whatever they like without prior notice. It is very disappointing. I cannot express what poor process this is and how disappointing it is. We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders today.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Business and Better Regulation, Minister for Human Rights and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (10.32): Well, what an absolute performative response from the opposition this morning. It seems to have borrowed from the approach yesterday regarding the least hidden approach to filibustering that I have seen in the past six years. And here we go again. Can we just be clear here that this has not been sprung in any way, shape or form. Yes, Mr Pettersson’s Facebook post is very useful in detailing what an iterative approach this has been and also that the government amendments were circulated months ago, not weeks ago, Madam Speaker, but months ago. That there were rumours, as Mr Hanson alluded to, of this being brought on and Ms Lawder not having awareness of this when the opposition was told—they were told on Monday. If they want to bare to all in this chamber that they have a communication issue within their party, then it is their right. But it is quite extraordinary that we are getting this response from them today. It is not a breach of the standing orders, Madam Speaker, this is—
Mr Hanson: It is a suspension of the standing orders. It is exactly that.
MS CHEYNE: The suspension of standing orders is not a breach of a standing order. Mr Hanson, you know that. I am not going to take up any more time. Can I acknowledge that I recognise the Greens support with this. We have been abundantly clear. As Minister Stephen-Smith has referred to, this was always coming on for debate once the budget concluded. This is where we find ourselves. So let us get on with it. As Mr Hanson alluded to in his performance, it is not about the suspension of standing orders, it is about the substance. So let us actually have that debate today and move on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video