Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

The government doesn't support the suspension of standing orders, because the government already has a significant business program on the agenda today. I note for the benefit of the House, and I would say to the member for Grayndler, that one thing we do respect is his passion for policy and issues. He has a genuine passion for policy and issues. It is refreshing. It is a different style of leadership than that of the Leader of the Opposition. It is rare in the opposition, but we welcome it. We welcome a refreshing new take on policy and issues from the member for Grayndler, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's approach on policy.

The government, when you look at the agenda for today, has put forward some very important matters that the House needs to finalise its consideration on before the end of the year, the first of which is the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill. This is the second time that the opposition has attempted to defer consideration of this bill. Why is the opposition seeking to push back consideration of the family and domestic violence leave bill? It's first on the agenda. We need to pass this bill through the House. This is a reform of this government that will allow for domestic violence and family leave for the first time in Australia from the federal level. Not once but twice now the opposition has said, 'We have more important business than the family and domestic violence leave bill that we want considered by the House.' The government doesn't agree. The government agrees that this should be the first priority for today. We have only a few speakers left on all sides. We can pass this bill. It can go straight to the Senate and, hopefully, we can get this passed by the end of this year. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I think the House would agree that that is a very important bill.

When you look at the other matters on the Notice Paper for today, we are talking about the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill and the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill. These bills are national security related matters. We know that the opposition is attempting at the moment to politicise the area of national security. They are not agreeing with the government's bill, which is deliberately designed to give the powers to our agencies that they need and that they are requesting, to deal with the difficult matter of encryption of serious crime, serious terrorism and serious matters like paedophilia.

We would ask for their support on such an important piece of legislation. We need their support on such an important piece of legislation. We should all be in this parliament to be on a unity ticket. But to suggest it isn't a priority for the parliament or isn't a priority for this House before the end of this year, when our national security agencies on a daily basis are now saying that 80 to 90 per cent of the traffic of terror-related suspects is now encrypted and they are unable to access it, should really put into perspective for every member of this House why we are asking for this legislation to be considered before the end of the year.

Dr Aly interjecting—

Yes, I will take the interjection from the member for Cowan. You might want to have consideration of various elements of the protections and safeguards in this legislation. That's fine, but you can't deny that it is an important and necessary matter for today for us to consider. We need to consider it, and the government needs to be allowed to get on with its agenda, as well. That isn't to say that we don't agree with high-speed rail. I have to say that we do respect the member for Indi and the passion she evokes for centres like Albury and Wodonga, which stand to benefit the most from greater rural and regional infrastructure. That's why this government has pursued the inland rail program.

Today, the real reason that the House is seeing this motion in an attempt to change the business paper is because of the action of the New South Wales Liberal government. I will read from a press release that the New South Wales Liberal government issued today about high-speed rail. This is real government action:

The NSW Government will start work on a fast rail network in the next term of government, linking regional centres to each other and Sydney …

So, when the member for Grayndler says this is urgent and we need to do it today, well, the New South Wales government is doing it. They have appointed Professor Andrew McNaughton to confirm the most appropriate routes, the train speeds and the station locations.

The member for Grayndler says that these are just small routes and small things. This is the reality of how high-speed rail will actually work in Australia. It will be by increment. It will not be by one big bang. It will not be done in one big hit. It will be from point to point, from viable centre to viable centre. That is the reality of how high-speed rail will happen in Australia. This government announcement that we have seen made today—already made, before this motion came to the House—is saying that the routes they are identifying are, for example, the northern route, including the Central Coast and Newcastle, the southern inland route to Goulburn and Canberra, the western route to Lithgow, Bathurst and Orange, and the southern coastal route, including Wollongong and Nowra.

You can respect a Liberal-National government in New South Wales that is in surplus, that has its budget under control, that has the money now to pursue real improvements to people's lives with a fast-rail network—and they're doing that work. They are announcing it today and getting on with it, now that they have their budget under control.

For the past five years it has been this government that has had to get its own budget under control after the fiscal mess we saw from the opposition when they were in government.

See this speech in context