Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was going to respond to the point of order. You made a clear ruling in relation to it and he still persisted with a point of order.

We have been asked to delay action in response to what is going on, and we cannot afford to do that. At the same time those opposite, by virtue of their amendment, ask us to delay and to wait—for what? At the point when they get in, what will they do? In a speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave to this chamber he dedicated 3,743 words in response to the Prime Minister, 244 of which actually outlined what they were proposing to do. What is interesting in this debate is not just what is said but also what is not said by those opposite and what they propose to do by in effect forcing us to delay implementation. To then not outline what they propose to do to meet their bipartisan target is completely irresponsible to the Australian public.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot tolerate an idea that we would delay action—given the consequent cost on the general economy of $5 billion a year in not acting beyond 2015—in meeting a bipartisan approach. We simply cannot afford to wait. This is what their amendment would seek for us to do. It would make us wait and delay further any action.

See this speech in context