Mr McMULLAN (4:00 PM) —Of course we need the suspension of standing orders, because we need the opportunity to move this censure motion and establish to the Australian people the evidence that this censure motion makes clear and which today's question time has made clear. What do we know? We know there has been collusion between the government and Patrick's stevedoring and there has been government foreknowledge of a scheme to sack Patrick's work force and replace it with an alternative work force. We know that in so doing the government has undermined the employment security of every Australian worker with precedents set by the use of the aggressive and non-consensual tactics involved in the strategy adopted in the waterfront.

We know there has been a cover-up. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) said, `I am really pleased you tabled this document,' after spending months trying to prevent it and every other document being tabled. They even went to the Senate and refused to confirm there was a cabinet subcommittee because it was sub judice. We say: if you are so pleased about this document, table the rest. Table all the others that the Senate has asked for. That is all you need to do, and we will have as much fun reading those as we did reading this.

We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) thinks that disputes like this on the waterfront are divisive and damaging. What these documents show is that the government deliberately set out to provoke those disputes. If they knew it was going to be divisive and damaging, they should be censured, and we should have the opportunity by suspension of standing orders so to move. We know they think rorts are terrible, but when we today tried to legislate to close scams like Patrick's scam they all came in here and voted against us. They all said, `Keep the opportunity open. Someone else might want a sack a few unionists around the country.'

We all know that the Prime Minister insists that everything was lawful, but that they are scuttling off looking for indemnities so that the taxpayers will pay the bill in case it is found not to be. We know that they have deceived and misled the Australian people. We know that Mr Reith said on 8 May:

As to what decisions they have taken—

that is Patrick's—

the fact of the matter is we were not aware of any decision taken by Mr Corrigan to replace his work force.

This document proves that that is untrue. We know that Mr Reith has said:

What I can say is that both companies—not just Mr Corrigan but both companies—had given consideration to various strategies but, as to which strategies they might adopt in the future, that was always a matter for them.

Always a matter for them, except that the Prime Minister went to see them to say, `Cabinet thinks you ought to adopt this one.' This minister is always on the telephone ringing every company trying to provoke a bit of dispute, and the demise today of his late and unlamented political friend the member for Hume (Mr Sharp) is only a precursor; it is only a bell tolling for some others whose demise might follow.

What else do we know? We know that Mr Reith misled. He was asked:

Your own adviser says he advised against the wholesale sacking of MUA members and replacement. Who do you reckon came up with the idea in the first place?

Peter Reith said:

Well, I'm not sure anybody came up with the idea.

Well then, the fairies must have written the cabinet document!

Ms Ellis —Mr Nobody.

Mr McMULLAN —It must have been written by Mr Nobody, because it has got Peter Reith's signature on the bottom of it. What we know, and what the suspension of standing orders would allow us to establish, is that this government has had an agenda which it has assiduously carried out at least since July of 1997, and it has deceived this parliament and the Australian people about that agenda. At its very core, that plan was for the stevedores to sack their workers, illegally as it turns out, and rehire new people under different arrangements.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allowed for the debate on the suspension of standing orders has expired.

Question put:

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