Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is due to the way in which the government is organising the program. I have never seen a parliamentary program arranged in such an extraordinarily fractious way. The idea seems to be that you can set yourself a program and then, believing that you have to hold to the timetable, try to pretend by way of a fiction that people are going to have sufficient time to discuss legislation. I think that that is what this motion is about. We have now essentially put the parliament sittings at the very time when parliamentary parties would normally be having their party meetings. I have been here for a number of years—as of tomorrow, it will be 38 years—and I am struggling to recall a time when the government of the day has put on sittings when party meetings were held. I cannot say that it has never happened; only that I do not recall that having happened in the time that I have been here.

I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might be able to help protect all of us who are concerned that there ought to be proper time for deliberation on matters that are likely to come before this parliament and that we not be denied the opportunity here the debate on climate change legislation or have to make a choice about the consideration of all the other bills that might be considered by our parliamentary party meetings when we return. I notice that we are going to have to deal with the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill, the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill—and I am sure that there is a migration bill that we may need to have a look at again!

There is a range of matters which come before our parliamentary parties and which demand all of our attendance, and to put us into a situation where we have to make choices as to how we are going to carry out our functions diminishes our role as effective federal members of parliament. I do not like what is being proposed. I understand that we are not going to vote against it, but even so I think the principle is one that we ought not to give succour to. I hope that the Leader of the House will come and say, 'We realise now that we haven't really set aside sufficient time for the consideration of this very important legislation.' You could, in fact, if you wished to indicate that there should be proper discussion and that time should be available, extend the time for debate, and we could have the vote. It is not so imperative that it be done as proposed. You could extend the time of the committees—in fact, you could have a number of the committees that want to work at it dealing with the climate change legislation. I am sure that if parliamentary committees had the time to do that, members could help the government very considerably in improving the legislation—though I have some fundamental doubts about whether now is the time for us to be implementing legislation of this character.

See this speech in context