Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I will not speak for long, but I think there are some points that need to be made about this program of sittings for 2009, which comes on the heels of the program for 2008. The incompetent leader of government business in the House has yet again managed to restrict the number of weeks of sitting to 18 for 2009, on my understanding—18 for this year and 18 for next year. I have been in this House much longer than most of the people in the House, and I can tell you that most of the time that I have been in this House the normal sitting period has been 20, 21 or 22 weeks of the year.

This is a government which prided itself at one stage on having openness, transparency, scrutiny and accountability. The government even got the poor Governor-General in his address at the opening of the parliament to give a speech about accountability and openness and a new era of transparency; yet in 2008 it managed to limit itself to 18 weeks of sittings and in 2009 will manage to limit itself to 18 weeks of sitting. It is not an open, transparent and accountable government; it is far from it. The people of Australia expect us to serve our electorates and legislate, not to spend 18 weeks here when we should be spending 20 or 21 or 22 weeks. This is especially the case with a new government which, even in its second year in office, cannot think of enough work to do in parliament to sustain more than 18 weeks of sittings in the year. So the first point to be made is that, yet again, this government is squibbing on transparency and accountability and trying to avoid the parliament.

The second point I would like to make is that the program for 2009 follows on the heels of the extraordinarily incompetent attempt at unconstitutional Friday sittings. The opposition managed to ensure that the Constitution of Australia was upheld by stopping those Friday sittings. It was an unconstitutional act on the part of this government. It was one of their earliest bungles—although not as serious as their latest bungle on the financial crisis. I am glad the Treasurer has come in to hear my speech on this matter today, because I am sure he wants to highlight the bungle of the financial crisis following hot on the heels of all the other bungles of the government over the last 12 months, starting with the unconstitutional attempt to have Friday sittings.

This is the third example of the poor old hapless leader of government business in the House introducing yet another deficient schedule of 2009 sittings. Again, he has managed to schedule four occasions when there will be a one-week non-sitting period between two weeks of sittings. So members of parliament will be sitting four weeks out of five rather than a properly scheduled sitting program. There is also a seven-week break in April and May, a six-week break in July and August and a four-week break in October. Why can’t your leader of government business get it right? You have got four times when we have one week back in our electorates between two-week sitting blocks—which is the worst thing imaginable—and three major blocks of seven weeks, six weeks and four weeks when the parliament will not be sitting. There is no good reason or justification for this other than the fact that the leader of government business has his hands off the wheel when he should have both hands on the wheel focusing on what matters in this House—the schedule for 2009.

The opposition cannot do anything to change this sitting program. The government manage the schedule of business, and we are prepared to let them keep on being incompetent. We will turn up. We will keep showing them up for the failures that they are. We will scrutinise them and hold them accountable right through to the next election. But I point out to honourable members opposite that you need a new leader of government business. I think even my counterpart, the Minister for Education, or even the Treasurer—although he might have a bit on his plate at the moment—would do a better job than the leader of government business in the House. So, while the opposition will not oppose this motion, we certainly place on record our dismay and disdain for the management of this House by the current leader of government business in the House.

See this speech in context