Mr RIPOLL (12:22 PM) —I want to speak on this amendment because I feel it is important that my views are actually recorded in the Hansard as to why we are actually still in this place discussing this legislation, particularly this amendment. I too have strong views, as the member for Rankin just expressed—much the same as the member for Sturt has strong views, much the same as every single member in this House has strong views—not only on this legislation but also on these amendments that are before us. The thing that separates us, though, in this case is what I am now terming the abuse of this parliament—the abuse of the processes of this parliament. The Attorney-General got up and basically asked us if we would just end this debate. There has been an inordinate amount of hours set aside, and there has been a good quality debate not only on the substantive matters within the bill but also on the amendments. Members should appreciate that, and I think the community should also appreciate that. But I think there comes a point in time when the debate is no longer a debate, when the amendments are no longer amendments to make a bill better and when you have come to a point where a decision needs to be taken. You just cannot put this off. The parliament is here to make a decision.

We have to understand that six states have already agreed to the substantive matters within this legislation, that the Prime Minister and this government actually put forward this bill, and that the majority of members in this House have overwhelmingly supported the legislation. On that very basis, those who oppose—while their view is respected—should respect the view of others and they should allow this debate to end. It has to have a finish point when we actually get to make a decision on this legislation. No further argument can be brought forward in terms of the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! I remind the member for Oxley that we are debating clause 60.

Mr RIPOLL —I am aware of that—in terms of the repeal of clauses 36(3)(b), 39(1)(c) and 39(3). We had an opportunity in this place just recently to decide whether this debate would continue ad infinitum or whether we would actually decide to make a decision on the amendment that we are speaking about. But it is obvious that some people in this place want to ignore the processes of this House, ignore the agreements that were in place and ignore the commitments they made yesterday as to the time they would take. I might get a few quizzical looks from the member for Sturt, but he is the one who has broken the promise that he made yesterday. There was an agreement that he would sum up and that we would get on with this business, but that has not been the case. Instead, what we have seen, as I have said, is an abuse of the processes and time of this place.

What we are going to see, though, is that the government will come back to us and say, `We haven't got time to debate very important legislation in this chamber,' and instead we are going to be forced to talk about clause 60. I think enough has been said about these amendments and it is time that we actually move on. It was made clear by the Attorney-General on these very amendments that only a very small number of members have actually spoken and they have spoken on this issue some eight, 10, 17 times—a whole range of times. I do not know that these members can further their argument any more. I think what they are doing is wasting the time of this parliament and making this legislation less valuable than it should be and are treating it without the respect that it deserves—the respect that we gave others in terms of their views on this legislation and on their views in terms of this amendment with respect to clause 60. If those people want to respect this parliament and respect the members in this parliament, then they should respect the views expressed and the decisions that have been taken here by the majority. They should respect those views, as we have respected their views.

Earlier in this chamber—talking about a conscience vote—I saw a division down party lines; not 100 per cent but pretty close to it. People were being coerced to come over and support their colleague. This is not about supporting your colleague or your party; this is about making a conscious decision on the actual views and the amendments contained in clause 60 within the legislation. That is the conscience vote. People should not, as we saw before, be forced or coerced into making a decision. So it now rests with the government. It is up to the government to decide to make the decisions. When will you end this? Or do we have to stand up here and continue to speak on this and continue to put our view? (Time expired)