Mr JENKINS(4.39 p.m.) —I wish to briefly speak to this motion. I think it is important for the House to be reminded why we are required to go through this procedure. Basically, on the last day of sitting there were events in the Main Committee. The opposition was unable to get the cooperation of the government to have the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled Finding a balance: towards fair trading in Australia properly debated in that place. This was at a time when there was a great deal of discussion about the propriety of the conduct and the position of the then Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Prosser.

Mr Melham —He was a carcass swinging in the breeze.

Mr JENKINS —He may have been that, but the point was that, in wishing to discuss the committee's report, it was not the intention of the opposition to pursue those matters because they were being well pursued in the main chamber through question time, MPIs and other motions. We wished to have this committee's report debated, but we were being muzzled. Importantly, not only opposition members of the committee who had participated in the inquiry but also a number of government members, who had been very diligent in their work on the committee and who had participated and shared in making the recommendations of the committee unanimous, were denied the opportunity to speak to the inquiry's report.

As we go through this procedural motion, I seek an undertaking from the government that it will allow the committee report to be brought up on the Notice Paper to ensure that it will be debated tomorrow. That is all I seek. On the last day of sitting of the last session the intention was to have the committee's report and the important recommendations contained in the report fully debated by this parliament. In the conduct of this procedural matter today I hope that, on behalf of the government, either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) or the Chief Government Whip, the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), will be in a position to indicate to the House that we will have the important debate that is required.

The House needs to be reminded that, in answer to a question yesterday, which was the expiration of three months since the tabling of the report in the House, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) indicated that there would be a delay in the government's response on the basis that he was consulting with various parties. He said in his answer to the question yesterday:

I have seen most people, and some I have seen twice. There are some I have not yet seen. I hope to see them this week or next. We are obviously having discussions also with our own back bench and others.

I hope to widen the discussion further—not just with those on the government back bench.

Mr Ronaldson —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matters that are being referred to by the honourable member are the subject of matters that are on the Notice Paper and will be raised by the Chief Government Whip. They do not relate to any of the matters that are the subject of this motion. Therefore I believe these comments are out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams) —The member for Scullin is dealing with the issues that have arisen from the question before the chair. He is dealing with the matters of why they came before the chair in this general debate. I rule your point of order out of order.

Mr JENKINS —I am only intending to remind the House of the circumstances in which these matters, which will be subject to this suspension of standing and sessional orders and subsequent action, came about to be unresolved questions from the Main Committee. I am seeking some form of assurance from government members and members who can speak with some authority on these matters that, in tomorrow's meeting of the Main Committee, the report I have referred to will be able to be debated and that we will not be back in the same circumstances where this procedure would have to go forward on the matters that are before the House at the moment.

Mr Ronaldson —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: with the greatest respect, the matters raised by the member for Scullin do not relate to the motion before the House. The motion was that the debate be now adjourned on those unresolved questions. This is not a matter that is a subject of this motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to rule that the comments of the member for Scullin do not relate to the matters at hand.

Mr Leo McLeay —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion before the House is about suspending standing orders so that we can deal with some matters that the government mucked up in the Main Committee in the last session. The major part of that was precisely what the member for Scullin is talking about, which was the government's disgraceful taking away of the quorum to cause the Main Committee to collapse so that the report on small trading could not be addressed. What the member for Scullin is doing is asking the House to accept that that should be made a priority in the Main Committee tomorrow. The suspension of standing orders is about precisely that, and I think the member for Scullin is in order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not uphold the point of order. The matter being discussed goes to what is before the House.

Mr JENKINS —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your ruling. I just wish to indicate to the House that I probably would have been finished by this stage if I had not had the delightful interruptions of the honourable member for Ballarat in his capacity as the parliamentary secretary.

In any case, I think that I have made the point that I wished to make that what we would like to see as a result of these procedural motions is the suspension of standing and sessional orders to enable the motion to be put, the carriage of that motion and subsequently a motion by the Chief Government Whip referring certain matters to the Main Committee; and, as a result of that mechanism, we can have some indication that finally the House will get to have a full debate on the fair trading inquiry.