Mr ALBANESE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (6:22 PM) —I move:

What we are seeing today is absolute hypocrisy from those opposite. They say that we need to have high-speed broadband but they oppose the vehicle to deliver that high-speed broadband, the National Broadband Network. They say they are concerned about pricing, whether in regional Australia or in urban communities, but here they oppose—even having debated in this house—this resolution, which will be supported by government members and by Independent crossbenchers.

The fact is that there are people in regional Australia who have stood up for their local communities, but there are not any over on that side of the chamber. They ignore the benefits that the National Broadband Network can give. The fact is that this resolution, because it is a suspension of standing orders, will not get a statutory majority of the House; therefore, it will not occur. They had an opportunity tonight. They were given notice more than an hour ago in my speech when I foreshadowed this resolution that would be moved before the House today—this resolution to give more weight and further commitment regarding a community impact statement being prepared on all future policy decisions on technology, speed and/or price to assess impacts.

We believe that the National Broadband Network will be the great leveller between regional Australia and those in inner urban communities. We believe that it is a great opportunity to overcome the tyranny of distance. We live in a country where we have a relatively sparse population spread over such a large land mass. If any country in the world should be addressing the issue of the National Broadband Network—

Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As much as I hate to interrupt the Leader of the House, the truth is that this is a motion to suspend standing orders, and what the Leader of the House has to address is why it is that standing orders should be suspended so as to debate this motion at this time without any notice. That is the question he has to answer.

The SPEAKER —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for putting the point of order on the record, but it has not been the way that suspensions of standing orders have been conducted over the past few weeks. I would urge the Leader of the House to keep in mind the point that the Manager of Opposition Business raised, but he has the call.

Mr ALBANESE —I certainly will bear it in mind. I will bear it in mind at the Play School time of 10 to three every day, when question time is interrupted by those opposite so that the Leader of the Opposition and the seconder can get on TV before Play School. I will bear it in mind in terms of that point of order by the Manager of Opposition Business and, when it happens during the next suspension, bear it in mind when I am on my feet moving points of order at a regular interval. What we need is a bit of consistency around here. But this is what this debate is about—consistency. Forget about no notice—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —On a point of order, it is required under the standing orders that the minister address the question of why the standing orders should be suspended. I would draw the distinction between this and other motions that have been moved because we have for hours been debating this topic. The minister clearly has nothing new to say and therefore must return—

The SPEAKER —The member will resume her seat. I will draw any distinctions on the suspensions. I have given the Leader of the House an opinion. Whilst I am not upholding the points of order, the Leader of the House has the call.

Mr ALBANESE —I gave notice of moving this motion to the shadow minister and indeed to the entire House, which you will see if you check Hansard. I read out the words of this motion more than an hour ago. We had a debate that was participated in by more than a dozen members of this House about this very question but, when you put up a resolution that is about a solution, what do they do? The oppose it. Not only do they oppose it—which is their right—but they try to stop it even being debated. And that is why we should suspend standing orders. We should suspend standing orders to allow this debate to happen, because we on this side of the House are happy to debate uphill and down dale—whether it be in Sydney, Port Macquarie or Adelaide or even in the electorate of Wentworth—the issue of the National Broadband Network. We are certainly happy to debate it in Tasmania, where it is being rolled out and is very popular in the electorates of Lyons, Franklin, Braddon and Bass—it is very popular indeed. The member for Denison is supporting this resolution as well.

Through their opposition to leave being granted, their opposition to the suspension of standing orders and getting in the way of this resolution being moved, they are once again fulfilling their commitment to destroy the NBN—to block, to oppose and to not put up anything constructive when it comes to the future agenda of this country. This suspension of standing orders should be allowed because we will see those opposite oppose it, but we will also see majority support this suspension. It might not be an absolute majority—I suspect it will not be—because we are being very generous with our pairing arrangements on this side of the House, but there will be a majority.

Those opposite came in here at 10 o’clock and moved their typical suspension of standing orders. We did not have points of order while the Leader of the Opposition spoke, unlike in my motion for the suspension of standing orders here. We let him have his say and we thought we would get the little games out of the way by 25 minutes past 10. What did we see then? Twice today we saw votes and debates on the amendments being considered immediately. If they had their way we would have brought the House back today to consider the amendments that were carried on Friday night and the House would not have even considered them. We would have gone home and returned another day.

Their destructiveness is out of control. They debated it for hour after hour and then their backbench got restless. They started to ask the Chief Opposition Whip, ‘What are we doing here?’ and they went home. They voted with their feet. The fact is that we had an arrangement in writing last Thursday night about pairing arrangements and on Friday it was reneged on by those opposite because they do not want to engage in the substance of this—

Mr Pyne —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: loath as I am to interrupt the Leader of the House, he is trying to cover the embarrassment of his reneging on the pairing arrangements this afternoon with this fig leaf of a discussion.

Mr ALBANESE —The suspension should be agreed to and the resolution should be voted on and supported, if they are at all fair dinkum in their rhetoric on this issue. (Time expired)