Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Banks puts himself on the record as one of them. He said the opposition could take advantage of that. It was a day when there was focus on what members of parliament—not ministers—did and they operated in exactly the same way as the Main Committee does. We do not have divisions or quorums in the Main Committee and it has operated successfully, exactly the same way, with the Monday and Tuesday meetings. But those opposite chose to destroy and wreck that opportunity for backbench members. Backbench time occurs in other parliaments. For example, New South Wales sits on Friday. Backbench members have an opportunity to raise issues of concern to their electorate but, here, they decided to trash it. They did so in a way that was extraordinarily disrespectful to the Prime Minister, by bringing in a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister—and they think that is pretty funny.

We would never have brought a cardboard cut-out of John Howard into this parliament. We would never have done that. They still do not seem to understand that the Prime Minister is not a backbencher. This was a specific opportunity. It was a reform for backbench members. It is one that I supported strongly. It is one, as the member for Banks has said, that was not unanimously supported by those on this side of the House because many members thought that an opportunity was being given to the opposition that we were not given over that previous period of time. Think about, for example, the opportunity at the end of budget week. You have the budget on the Tuesday night and on the Friday you would have private members’ motions and eight speakers in the grievance debate having 10 minutes each to give a critique of what they thought of the budget without a focus on what ministers were doing. This was a real opportunity for reform that they blew. I think that the smart ones amongst them, by the way, Manager of Opposition Business, have certainly recognised that was an opportunity lost. Many members on your side have said that they regret the fact that they did not take a constructive opportunity in terms of parliamentary sitting.

But of course opposition and behavioural problems is something that has characterised those opposite, because when they are essentially not able to put forward an argument about something—and they cannot because they do not know what their position is on the CPRS, they do not know what their position is on asylum seekers and what they will be doing there and they do not know what their position is on economic stimulus—and they cannot put forward a position, they end up having an argument about nothing because they do not stand for anything. That is why, extraordinarily, we have now seen over 1,200 points of order moved by those opposite. The Manager of Opposition Business has well over 200 points of order. The former Manager of Opposition Business is also over 200. The Leader of the Opposition, someone who is supposed to be engaged in high policy debates, has moved over 100 points of order during that time. The comparison is extraordinary: it took them half the time to move more points of order than were moved during the entire term last time. Those opposite interrupt one-third of questions. Then they stand up and move suspensions and censures. Remember Utegate week? They did not move anything on the Monday and they waited until the Wednesday, when we knew it was a fake email, and then moved a censure motion. That was a highlight of the tactical geniuses opposite. The fact is that they have no issues of substance to be able to advance. They have moved more suspensions, more points of order, more dissents from the Speaker than were moved—(Time expired)

See this speech in context