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

The member for Cook says it was last year. The Leader of the Opposition said it never happened. Let me read you the bit of it that was rejected by this parliament: 'The reopening of a third-country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. That was rejected by the House of Representatives.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

And now the member for Cook maintains that it was good policy. It was defeated by this House but it was good policy. But the position that this government is advocating, with a real solution to break the people smugglers' model, they say is not relevant. The fact is that not only was it defeated, not only did members of the government oppose it, not only did members of the crossbenches oppose it, but members of their own party opposed it. The member for Pearce and the member for McMillan indicated very publicly and in the caucus room that they would not vote for this position. So they had to pair them out, and the Hansard of 28 October 2010 indicates that. I await the personal explanation from the member for Pearce saying that it is not true what I am saying. She will not do that because she has more integrity than the member for Cook, who is engaged in this cheap-jack opportunism that we see before the parliament here today.

The fact is that there are a number of issues which should be debated in this question time. There are a number of issues which should be able to be asked by all members of the parliament. We have the challenge of climate change. We have the reintroduction of a form of Work Choices by their New South Wales Liberal Party colleagues. We have ongoing issues in terms of job creation and the economy. We have a budget with major initiatives, including mental health reform, superannuation, infrastructure development, child care and family assistance. All of these issues could be asked about if question time had not ended prematurely as it has been yet again today, for the 12th time. The fact is that we are now up in the order of 120 questions lost because of the failure of those opposite to value question time—the failure of those opposite to regard parliamentary procedure with the respect that it deserves. So we are not going to be lectured by those opposite about resolutions of motions that are debated and voted upon in this House.

The extraordinary proposition is that a resolution of the Senate should be binding on the government. I well remember before they got control of the Senate and introduced Work Choices and went too far, which resulted in us sitting on the government benches, the Senate day after day, week after week, carried all sorts of resolutions, without any consequences whatsoever. No-one in the Howard government ever noticed what resolutions were being carried by the Senate. This suspension should be rejected because we should return the parliament to the processes and the orders which should take place. Question time has been ended today as a result of this, and that is simply because those opposite are not interested in holding the government to account.

See this speech in context