Mr ABBOTT (Leader of the House) (3:33 PM) —The Leader of the Opposition’s matter of public importance claims that the government has in some way denied the parliament the opportunity for a proper debate. Let me make it very clear that this parliament has had every opportunity to properly debate these bills. When discussion on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 concluded at about 11 o’clock this morning, there had been 24 hours and 21 minutes of debate, including 88 speakers. This is probably the longest single debate in the history of the Commonwealth parliament. The previous record was set by the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. That involved 23 hours and 36 minutes of debate. This government, because it cares about the parliament and because it cares about workplace relations, has allowed this parliament to debate this bill for longer than any other bill, it seems, in the history of this parliament. Not only has an unprecedented length of time been given for debate on this bill, but the government has debated this bill up hill and down dale. In question time we have debated this subject up hill and down dale for the best part of 10 years. So let no-one think that this government has not allowed ample opportunity for debate.

Let no-one think that this government has somehow ruthlessly used the guillotine. This government rarely uses the guillotine. Since 1996 there have been just 42 occasions when this government has used the guillotine. I point out for the benefit of the chatterboxes opposite that in the previous two parliaments, between 1990 and 1996, when members opposite were in charge, the guillotine was used no fewer than 437 times. In just six years members opposite used the guillotine 437 times. In almost 10 years the guillotine has been used just 42 times by this government.

We have had from members opposite for the last couple of weeks a constant demand that this bill be debated. ‘Debate the bill! Debate the legislation!’ they say constantly. Yet every time a member of the government has stood to debate this bill, members opposite have denied that member a serious opportunity to speak by taking constant points of order and raising the level of interjections to a level unprecedented in my experience of this parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, it has probably been the most infantile display, from supposedly responsible adults, in the history of this parliament.

What can we expect from people led by the Leader of the Opposition? Members opposite should pay more attention to Mark Latham’s book. In many ways it is a vile document; nevertheless, as the member for Lalor has said, the truths in the book should not be ignored. Let me just turn to one truth, on page 112 of the book. The former member for Werriwa says of the Leader of the Opposition:

That is precisely what we have seen from members opposite over the last—

Mr Melham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister cannot hide behind quoted words. I ask you to call on him to withdraw those comments. They are offensive in the extreme to the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—I thank the member for Banks. They may be hurtful but I do not believe they are unparliamentary.

Mr ABBOTT —Obviously the last thing I want to do is offend the member opposite, but let me point out that the words I have used were used by the person that the member for Banks wanted to make Prime Minister just 12 months ago. He is the person being offensive to the member for Banks, not me. It says something about members opposite that this person whom they were trying to foist on the Australian people as Prime Minister just 12 months ago is the one person whom they will not allow into this parliament today, even by way of quotation.

The Leader of the Opposition in his speech today tried to find some sanctuary in the views of former Prime Minister Mr Keating. Let me quote back to members opposite the views of former Prime Minister Mr Keating. I quote from the Bulletin of 30 August this year:

that is, Paul Keating—

So there is not much of a defence—

Mr Snowdon —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: can you tell me whether or not you regard those—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is the point of order?

Mr Snowdon —Relevance. They are not relevant. I cannot see how they are at all relevant—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari has not got a point of order. It is relevant.

Mr Snowdon —To what?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari wants to debate the chair?

Mr Snowdon —With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the topic for discussion is industrial relations, not the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari has been in this House long enough to know that there is a right of reply. It is not unparliamentary and it is not outside the standing orders. The minister is in order.

Mr ABBOTT —We have had the Leader of the Opposition up here for 15 minutes accusing this government of attempting to destroy everything which is sacred and true and good about our society, even though the record of this government has been the delivery of unprecedented benefits to the working people of Australia. We have had the Leader of the Opposition constantly blackguarding members of this government. The least I can do is to quote back to members of the opposition what their former leader really thinks of the Leader of the Opposition and what their former Prime Minister really thinks of the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me explain to members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition talked today about termites. He said that what the government is doing is like a termite attack on a house. We have had 10 years of ‘termite attack’ now, and I have to say the house is bigger, stronger, more substantial and more beneficial to the people who live in it than ever before. What have we had from this government’s workplace relations reforms? We have had more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes. We have had a 15 per cent increase in real wages over the last 10 years, compared with just a one per cent increase in real wages under the 13 years of the former government. We have had unemployment fall to five per cent. That is still too high, but by modern Australian standards it is an outstanding result. And what did we get when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for employment? We had unemployment at 11 per cent and the Leader of the Opposition saying that in no portfolio had he found fewer opportunities to do what he wanted to do than in the employment portfolio.

What we have really been seeing over the last few days is a desperate attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to redeem himself with his colleagues. He has been clutching at this opportunity to repeat the tired old shibboleths of the union movement as a drowning man clutches at straws. Members opposite know that this is not a man with any ideas or any real conviction for the future of the people of Australia. As testimony to this, let me quote this truthful diarist—in the words of the member for Lalor—speaking of the Leader of the Opposition on page 118:

You could certainly say that after today’s MPI debate. Also on page 118, Latham says of the Leader of the Opposition:

On page 49 Latham says:

The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Oh, yes, just wait and see. We will come in with these policies and, by gee, you will quake to see them.’ But what does the man whom he wanted to make Prime Minister a year ago say? On page 52 Latham says:

(Quorum formed)

I simply want to know why the member for Lingiari is so scared of the words about the current Labor leader that the former Labor leader put in this book. Let me quote to the member for Lingiari the words of the man he wanted to make Prime Minister just 12 years ago. The former Labor leader says about Beazley:

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lingiari is warned!

Mr ABBOTT —He continues:

Then on page 61 of The Latham Diaries, he says:

On the next page, page 62, he says:

On Page 112, he says:

On page 129, he says:

I do not mind plagiarising the former Leader of the Opposition: the current Leader of the Opposition is a windbag. But the daddy of them all is on page 112, where he says about Beazley:

I make this fundamental point: if the Leader of the Opposition cannot convince his own party, he will never ever convince the Australian people that they should make him the Prime Minister of this great country. (Time expired)