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

on indulgence—When the government seeks to have a debate management motion, there's always discussion in the House as to whether or not that is reasonable. In order for us to make sure that we can respect all 150 members of the parliament, there are a number of things that members ordinarily do. One is to follow the advice of the clerks in terms of when amendments can be grouped together. I would note that the opposition, even though it could be disruptive for them to do otherwise, have in every situation where amendments can be grouped together sought leave to do so and leave is granted and we get constructive debate. Similarly, people make strategic decisions, when they know the outcome of a division, as to which divisions are called for and which are not.

I think it's fair to say that that sort of respect is ordinarily there regardless—it's nothing to do with the gravity of the issue. It's just an acknowledgement that each of us is one out of 150, to make sure that we are conscious that, if everybody acted the way we might want to act in a particular moment, the House could itself become unmanageable.

I have been asked by some people for further consultation on this. I would make clear to the House that the motion that I put on the Notice Paper, government business notice No. 4, remains the government's position. But I've been asked to have further conversations about it, which I am happy to do. But I want to be absolutely clear. No-one should pretend that this is a gag or a denial of democratic process or anything like that. The reason for this is we cannot have a situation where any one member of parliament acts like they're the only person in the room. That's what we can't have. It takes a lot for me to point to the opposition as an example of being constructive—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Yes, don't talk me out of it! But the concept of amendments being grouped together and being sensible about deciding whether or not divisions need to occur means that there is a standing order that was put in place at a time when there were fewer than five crossbenchers that does not quite work now that the crossbench is so much larger, and we will have a point where we have to reckon with that. But, as a matter of good faith for the requests that have been made to me, I will instead, under standing order 45(c), move that we move to the next item of government business.

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

on indulgence—This is obviously an issue between the teals and the government. There's obviously been some disagreement about how the House should be managed. Our hope is that the teals and the government will be able to work it out and that this issue won't further delay all the bills.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

For the purposes of this debate—I know how the manager is very consistent on correct titles in the House, as we indicated last week during question time. I know he is particular about that, so if we could perhaps just—

An opposition member interjecting—

Order! We'll just refer to people by their titles or members in the House. I think it'll be a lot easier for the debate.

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

The crossbench and the government. Our hope is that this won't delay the House any further, that they'll be able to work it out and then we'll be able to move on with the business of the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgenceI just want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and thank you for considering this in the way of a conversation with us. I think the crossbench has become a large crossbench because of the way that we engage with legislation in a very detailed way and seek to collaborate and seek to improve legislation. We do that in good faith. I acknowledge that the workings of the House have to continue in a way that makes sense and progresses things through the parliament without losing the parliamentary tools that we all have at our disposal. The crossbench uses those parliamentary tools, I think, in good faith, and I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss with you how we do that in a way that doesn't diminish that but enables the House to get on with its work.

I just want to point out to the opposition that grouping the crossbench into nomenclature which makes no sense, frankly, doesn't assist in having a really good parliamentary process, which is something we're all very, very committed to.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgenceI also acknowledge that it's a very good idea that we do have a conversation about this because it's a critical thing. We here on the crossbench are representing our constituents, and we are giving them a voice here in this parliament. Any potential suppression of that is a suppression of the voices of our constituents. I'm very concerned that other constituents across Australia, with this kind of motion and this move, would not understand how their own representatives had voted. I think it's really critical, particularly on very, very important and life-changing bills, like we saw yesterday with the NDIS, that individual constituents in those electorates actually understand what their MPs have voted for or voted against. So I think it's really critical for the retention of democracy and the voices of the millions of people that we represent to make sure that our voices are still heard in this democracy.