Mr BEAZLEY (Leader of the House)(2.19) —Mr Acting Speaker, we will of course not be suspending Standing and Sessional Orders for this ridiculous little motion the Opposition has got together. There is a leadership problem in this House but it is not addressed by the substance of the motion. It is not a leadership problem that arises out of the fact that, after a period of 5 1/2 years in office, we have on this side of the House the most popular, well respected and trusted Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that, historically, this country has had. The leadership problem, and this motion is a reflection of it, lies in the fact that on the Opposition side we have a leader who is out of control of his Party. Do not think that we do not know what goes on in the Opposition's parliamentary tactics meetings. We do. We know very well that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has opposed this line of activity-in this instance sensibly, almost uniquely-because he recognises how ridiculous he looks in this Parliament standing up here and moving what is effectively a dissent motion from Speaker's ruling yesterday, which is when he should have moved that dissent motion.

All that the Opposition has done is to confess to the pathetic nature of its parliamentary tactics. The Opposition is absurd. It has been demonstrated to be absurd not only on this occasion but also in regard to all the other parliamentary tactics that it has designed to disrupt the proceedings of this House. The time has come for the Opposition to look seriously at whether its parliamentary tactics ought to be run by the competent people on its front bench, such as the official Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), or whether it wants this perambulating idiocy from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to persist as the style of dealing with Opposition front bench business for time foreseeable; and it will be for a very long time indeed.

It is absurd to hear the honourable member for O'Connor ask the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) whether he ought to make some public comments about what are alleged to have been his views about his Leader when we look at the published views of the honourable member for O'Connor about his Leader. He was asked by the Northern Advocate, that devastating journal of political investigation, whether he had any nice comment to make about his Leader. He first asked the journal, `Can we give this off the record?'. The Northern Advocate said that it would be on the record. When the honourable member learnt that it would be on the record he had nothing to say. That is helpful as far as the Opposition is concerned, because even though his opinion of his Leader is obviously totally contemptuous-which is why this motion is before us, against his Leader's advice-other members of the Opposition in leading positions are not quite so unforthcoming on the public record.

Another thing that the Opposition might learn at its parliamentary tactics meetings is that when an Opposition member has something to raise in the House, he should make sure that he is a clean skin and that no-one on the other side of the House has anything to wave at the same time. If Opposition members had done a bit of reading this morning, instead of being involved in an Opposition tactics committee meeting, in their own little whirlpool of fatuousness, they might have taken time to read the views of the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate (Senator Stone). What did he write today about the quality of conservative leadership in this country? I suppose that he has a view not only about the Leader of the Opposition but also about the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Senator Stone said:

People today wish to vote conservative-

that is a view with which we on this side of the House would not necessarily agree, but it is a lead-in that might be expected-

However, they will not vote for parties which they perceive to be poorly led; in particular, they have no intention of exchanging any reasonably moderate Labor government for a Liberal, or Liberal-National alternative led by someone who, for whatever reason, commands no respect (as distinct, however, from popularity).

He then qualified his remark slightly by saying:

Thus the key lesson of Victoria is that you can't win with losers.

Indeed, that is true.

Mr Hawke —Who said that?

Mr BEAZLEY —That was said by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, a person who takes a leading position in the affairs of the coalition. How can the Leader of the National Party in this place bring forward this sort of proposition with these sorts of remarks hanging over his head? It is not just a problem for John Howard's leadership; it is a problem for the Leader of the National Party. What does he lead? His equivalent in the Senate is capable of writing something like that about conservative leadership in this country in which he referred not only to the Leader of the Opposition but also to the Leader of the National Party. He could not have been more specific: the Leader of the National Party is incompetent. That is what he has said. The Leader of the National Party is not only unpopular; he is incompetent. He is unprincipled and incompetent, yet he has the hide to suggest in this place that we have something to explain on the leadership issue.

Mr Tuckey —Mick Young would have been into the jokes by now.

Mr BEAZLEY —I do not have to be a Mick Young to deal with honourable members opposite. That is one thing that I have learnt pretty rapidly over the last few months. A former secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, on a recent radio program, stated:

. . . I think it's unwise to consider the Coalition's problem of both parties is only a leadership problem.

We think that it is fairly wise, but he thinks that it is a bit unwise to say that that is the only issue. He continued:

It goes much deeper than that. There's a problem of leadership succession. There's a problem of front bench performance. There's a problem of backbench performance. There's a problem of party administration performance. There's very deep-seated problems and the discussion whether from Senator Chaney or anyone else about the leadership issue really confuses the real issue, which goes much more deeper than leadership.

Indeed, it does, as the Opposition's parliamentary tactics today confirms. I ought to make one or two other points about the way in which the Opposition conducts its parliamentary tactics. Ever since it has given the honourable member for O'Connor a bit of a run in this place it has just put itself into one ridiculous position after another. This is only the latest formation. Honourable members opposite have had something to say about whether we answer enough questions. It made a complaint about whether parliamentary business was being allowed to proceed in a sensible, normal fashion. Let me point out a few statistics: in 1982-at the high point of the discussion of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, we, then in opposition, showed the then Government how an Opposition could operate, which the present Opposition has never managed to achieve in the 5 1/2 years in which it has been in that position-61 points of order were taken during Question Time. The reason that we did not have to rely on points of order was that we raised matters of substance which were very different from the matters raised by the present Opposition.

Mr Tuckey —Dawkins on tax.

Mr BEAZLEY —Last year, when the Leader of the National Party was in control of Opposition tactics, 144 points of order were taken during Question Time.

Mr Tuckey —Total hypocrisy.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor.

Mr BEAZLEY —A change of about three. The Opposition's tactics in this place have been disruptive, and nothing else. Why? The answer is simple: the Opposition has no policies and no leadership. The only resort for an opposition that cannot ask questions in this place, that cannot dispute matters in this place, is to try to disrupt the parliamentary proceedings. Consistently, over the last few months, honourable members opposite have challenged the Speaker's authority. They have consistently reflected on the Chair. What amazes me about the performance today, given their past record of disorderly behaviour, is that they did not take theopportunity to raise this as a matter of question-ing--

Mr Spender interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney.

Mr BEAZLEY —As a matter of questioning the way in which the Speaker made her interpretation of those affairs yesterday. The fact that they have not done so gives a pretty fair indication of how far behind the game they are. They are absolutely absurd. Their tactics today have continued that absurdity. As I look at the glum faces of back bench Opposition members as they contemplate years and years in opposition ahead of them, we on this side of the House develop a certain degree of sympathy for their agony, but not enough for me to allow this ridiculous nonsense to continue.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung-

Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is now 2.28 p.m. Has the time for the debate concluded?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The time for the debate has expired. I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that yesterday during a division some members moved from one seat to another. That is not only disruptive for the Whips but also disorderly. I just bring that to honourable members' attention to see that it does not happen again.