Download Fragment

Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Page: 8314

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) (11:56): I want to make an observation. I have been in this parliament off and on for 24 years. I have seen different tactics used in this place to try and thwart debate. I have seen filibustering and attempts to change the dynamic. But it is a bit of an affront, given the history of this legislation and the detailed briefings the shadow minister has received around this legislation, to have him and his colleagues doing this. They are genuinely nice people by and large. We get on okay; we can all be mates. But I think it is worth while for them to ask themselves why they are doing this at this point. What is your attitude to the legislation—do you support the health reform process or not? If you do not, if you plan to vote against the legislation in any event, given that the amendments will have already been voted on, why are we participating in this farce? I think it raises serious questions about the judgments which are being made.

I have been in my office engaging in meetings since the last division and I have had on in the background the parliamentary debates. With great respect to the shadow minister, I have not seen the minister demure; I have seen her fully engaged in the discussion. She has chosen, rightfully, to hear you out and to provide the capacity in other places—because this will be dealt with in the Senate as well—to deal with this. If your concerns are genuine you could have raised them in direct dialogue, through the process of briefing. You have not done that, and today we see you, after this legislation has been in place for a number of months, reading from the Bills Digest. It makes one wonder what your game is. I say to the shadow minister—with great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker—that, if he is genuine about a discussion around these issues, this is not the tactic to adopt. We expect that, when these amendments are voted on, they will be opposed by the opposition. So what is this process all about? I suspect that the shadow minister, if he were in our shoes, would be asking the very same question. I say to the shadow minister—and I heard the member for Lyne, whose views I respect—that this is culminating in a filibuster. I say to the shadow minister that it is in our best interests that this debate be concluded. Vote against the amendments if that is your desire. They will be dealt with somewhere else and we will have a further discussion. This is not the end of the debate, as you know. If you were concerned about the content of the Bills Digest, why was it not raised previously? You have had plenty of opportunity to do so. I support the views being expressed by the member for Lyne. It is about time you took a mature approach to this discussion and conceded that we should finish this part of it and get on to the next stage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Before I call the next speaker, I point out, as the member for Paterson has rightly done, that this is consideration in detail of the bill before us. I have allowed a latitude around what we are debating, but we will return to the bill before us. We will understand that consideration in detail is to consider the bill; it is not a question and answer session. The standing orders do not provide for anything otherwise. If you wish to establish a new procedure, you should take it to the Procedure Committee.