Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027:

(1) immediately after prayers on Tuesday, 2 June, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027:

(a) returning to the House for further consideration;

(b) when called on, the questions being put without delay or debate on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; and

(c) standing referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) when the order of the day for the further consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 is called on in the Federation Chamber, consideration of the schedule being in accordance with the following order, and the question 'that the proposed expenditure be agreed to' being put for each portfolio in accordance with the timeframes indicated below, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak:

(a) Education Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.45 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(b) Defence Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(c) Health, Disability and Ageing Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Tuesday, 2 June;

(d) Industry, Science and Resources Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Wednesday, 3 June;

(e) Finance Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Wednesday, 3 June;

(f) Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(g) Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(h) Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 4.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(i) Attorney-General's Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 5.15 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(j) Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(k) Treasury Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 6.45 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(l) Home Affairs Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 3 June;

(m) Social Services Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 11.15 am on Thursday, 4 June;

(n) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12 noon on Thursday, 4 June; and

(o) Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio, at the first opportunity after 12.30 pm on Thursday, 4 June;

(3) any questions necessary to complete the consideration in the Federation Chamber of each of the bills being put immediately without debate;

(4) the bills returning to the House and, when reported, any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of each of the bills to be put without amendment or debate; and

(5) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

Each year, the government allows consideration in detail to happen in the Federation Chamber. This is to allow the opposition to do what was originally thought of as a House of Reps equivalent to Senate estimates. It's never quite landed that way, but, effectively, it allows us to go portfolio by portfolio in the Federation Chamber, which is something that the opposition traditionally would have already requested. It's moved for those reasons.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first acknowledge the manner and the way in which this motion has been put. Normally, there are some discussions between the government and the opposition as to how this might work. That's something which, unfortunately, hasn't taken place on this occasion. I would just remind the Leader of the House about his own words at the Press Club in 2023:

The consultative approach that we have applied to the Parliament itself and to the way we have governed is of itself not just a difference in the way Government functions.

If we could just make sure that there are the appropriate discussions of these things—as there always are—that would be great.

I now want to talk to the substance of this motion. The Leader of the House did mention the fact that this is like a House of Representatives version of Senate estimates. But, for it to work and for it to be taken seriously, it does require ministers to turn up. The last time that this was done, ministers failed to attend. Now, we can understand there would be some ministers who would be away, some ministers who might be on leave et cetera. But the list, for the record, of ministers that failed to attend is thus: the Treasurer; the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and Minister for Cyber Security; the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—maybe he was on a plane to Fiji; the Minister for Defence; the Minister for Education; the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Cities; the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, and Minister for Emergency Management; the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors; the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; the Minister for Communications and Minister for Sport; and the Minister for Social Services. As you can see, it is a long list.

Every member of this House, I'm sure, agrees that, whether it was scrutiny when we were in government or scrutiny now that Labor's in government, we do have to take these processes seriously, because there are serious questions that can be put to ministers around the appropriation bills. So I think we need to make sure that we can do this. As a result, I would like to move an amendment to this motion, which will, if carried, compel ministers to actually show up and to answer questions. I understand it's not the most rigorous of processes, but I think it is important that the ministers are there to the largest extent possible, at least to be able to try and rebut what has occurred. It was something that we took seriously when we were in government, because I think it really demonstrates and shows respect to the parliament if you do turn up. I'm hopeful that, in a bipartisan way, the government might agree to this amendment. Basically, the amendment asks for responsible ministers to be present in the Federation Chamber for the consideration of each portfolio. So I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House:

That after paragraph (2), paragraph (2A) be inserted as follows:

(2A) the responsible Minister being present in the Federation Chamber for consideration of each portfolio;

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll second the motion, and I acknowledge the Leader of the House being here. I know the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Prime Minister have always said how much they respect the processes of this chamber and the parliament and the importance of transparency and the parliament itself, and I think to maintain rigorousness about this chamber—within this chamber, the Federation Chamber and the Senate—is very important to our parliamentary democracy.

I'd also like to reiterate and remind those opposite that, when this government got elected the first time, four years ago, they said one of their main aims was going to be improved transparency within this chamber and in the parliamentary processes and the rigorousness of this chamber and the consultative nature of what they wanted to undergo. I think what we've seen ever since they've been elected, with all due respect, is everything the opposite of that. There have been changes to the standing and sessional orders—with, indeed, suspensions of standing orders and the way those processes would work—that I think have weakened the transparency of this chamber, parliamentary democracy and parliamentary processes.

I reiterate what the Manager of Opposition Business just said, listing 13 ministers who couldn't be bothered to turn up to consideration in detail last year. I think it's especially important, with all due respect too, this year more than any other and this time more than any other. We have quite a controversial budget. There are a lot of opposition shadow ministers who have real questions and ramifications and things they want to ask about—if things have been modelled, if things have been looked at in relation to this current budget and their portfolios.

The fact of asking—the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business feels he needs to move an amendment to encourage ministers to turn up to this—is a bit embarrassing in itself. But we're here to help, and we are doing this in a consultative and transparent manner. It was a positive suggestion to give to the Leader of the House, who I know respects these processes. He says he respects them. I actually heard him say one day that, if he could, he would spend every day of every week sitting in the parliament rather than going home. If he's so enthusiastic, as he says, about the processes within these chambers, I don't think he'll have a problem with this. I think he'll go: 'You know what? Let's do this. Let's make sure our ministers are there defending the budget. Let's make sure the Treasurer does go in there and defend what he thinks are the bravest reforms this government has ever done.' Of course, all his ministers would support this because all his ministers think this is brave reform transforming our country to the positive. So let's see them turn up and defend it in consideration in detail.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there's no-one else, I'll speak in reply. The amendment here is a solution looking for a problem. It's the case across a range of portfolios that there are multiple people sworn in to that portfolio. For example, there are two cabinet ministers in this House sworn in to Home Affairs. There are a further two assistant ministers in this place sworn in to Home Affairs. It is the case that there is always someone sworn into the relevant portfolio who is there for this process. If those opposite have a problem with that, then I simply say this. It's a brand new sense that they have to have a problem with this.

Let me give a simple example. The member for Calare, who is now sitting on the crossbench, used to be a government assistant minister. In 2021, he turned up as an assistant minister in the Morrison government, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment in this process. Who do you think the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment was who he was representing in the Federation Chamber in 2021? Could the trade minister at that time possibly now be the Manager of Opposition Business himself? The exact person right now who's in this place wanting to say, 'But you all have to turn up,' is the same person who had an assistant minister represent him in this precise process. It's not the first time that the Manager of Opposition Business has called on things and been outraged by things that were actually done by him personally.

Let me give you one more example while we're on it. You'll often hear the former minister for trade say a line used by those opposite on immigration, 'They're letting in all these yoga teachers.' You'll often hear that when the skills list comes out. Why do you think yoga teachers were added to the skills list? Because there is an agreement with India that was done under the Morrison government that said they would be added to the skills list. Who do you think was the person who announced that agreement to say that they'd be on the skills list? Once again, it was the Manager of Opposition Business. So, if you want to know what makes the Manager of Opposition Business the angriest and what really gets under his skin, it's anything he has done. So the next time he gets up and complains just know, if he's getting really upset, if he's passionate about it and if it really angers him, it's probably something that he's done.

So I'd say, members of this House, when this amendment comes up, we should defend the record of the Manager of Opposition Business. Even if he won't, we should stand strongly by it and say: 'We think you did the right thing.' Even if you're having buyer's remorse, our view is the way the Manager of Opposition Business behaved with respect to this procedure when he was in government was right and accurate. Even if you won't, we will defend you in this House and oppose this amendment.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.