Mr ALBANESE (Leader of the House) (4:28 PM) —I move:

That is actually the appropriate way that we conduct affairs in this House. We do it professionally and we do it in a way which brings credit to all those who have the privilege of being in this chamber. That is an extraordinary motion. You cannot refer something to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members’ Interests for determination by moving a two-page motion containing innuendo, a position and assertions of fact. Those on this side of the chamber have nothing whatsoever to fear from the privileges committee investigating any member at any time.

This is a very interesting precedent, however—I do say that. A number of interjections have crossed this chamber from time to time—I just make that point—including from the member for Indi. I look forward to an appropriate investigation of just these matters, because those opposite, as obsessed as they are by short-term political opportunism, need to understand that, every time they choose the short-term political opportunistic road, eventually it comes around. Just as the behaviour before this House in relation to the Friday sittings led to a diminution of private members’ business and a diminution of the ability of private members to put things before this chamber, just as the four motions of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling that have been moved lead to a cheapening of the way that standing orders are discussed in this chamber, and just as moving over 280 points of order means that, when points of order are raised, they are taken less seriously than they would be otherwise, those opposite need to understand that there is a consequence for their short-term political opportunism.

Those on this side have made it very clear—the Prime Minister made it clear and I made it clear this morning when asked—that, if the opposition want to refer things to the Privileges Committee, then the government would have no objection to that whatsoever. They are so predictable, in fact, that we prepared the amendment. One of the things characterising those opposite is that they always go a step too far. Today, in trying to make a point about supermarket prices, they ridiculed people who would look for specials. In the way that they conduct both policy debates and procedural debates in this chamber, they continually go a step too far because they are so desperate. It is not about the people of Australia; it is about their internals. Everything that they do is about their internals. Today we had the shadow Treasurer—

The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the House that he has to refer to his amendment and the original motion.

Mr ALBANESE —due to move a matter of public importance on the economy. That is trashed by what they have done before this chamber. It is all about whether the member for Wentworth, the member for Curtin, the member for North Sydney or the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity—

Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I hesitate to take a point of order on such a serious issue as a reference to the privileges committee, but the Leader of the House is required to speak to the motion, not about other internal matters.

The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will return to the amendment and the original motion.

Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I will respect your ruling because this chamber functions when there is a bit of respect and a bit of decency across the chamber. That is why we will be voting for this amendment. I call upon those opposite to stand up for a bit of common sense and vote for this amendment. This is a big test of the Leader for the Opposition. Is he fair dinkum about the reference to the privileges committee? Our amendment, and not the thing that he moved, represents a true reference. This is how you refer things to the privileges committee. To help the member for North Sydney and all of the members, this is what you are going to be voting on: ‘That the House refer the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson at 9 am on 29 May to the Privileges Committee.’ That is the appropriate motion—vote for it.

The SPEAKER —Order! The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the Leader of the House has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.