Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:23): Standing orders should not be suspended and the government's agenda and program for the day should be allowed to continue as was planned, for a number of very important reasons. Firstly, this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business is a sheer stunt. Secondly, there was absolutely no preparation for this motion whatsoever in question time. Labor spent the entire question time talking about every other subject until the final question. You would have thought if it was so important that standing orders be suspended that this was a subject that would have taken up the entirety of question time from the Labor Party. You would have thought that if they were so outraged and so offended and regarded this as the No. 1 issue that requires the government's agenda to be put on hold for the rest of the afternoon, they would spend all of question time building for the suspension motion, as we used to in opposition when we thought something was that important. Instead, Labor waited until about 3.04 pm to ask their first question about this subject and then, trying to gather the necessary outrage within a matter of about a minute and a half, the Leader of the Opposition launched this extraordinary suspension motion. It is not my responsibility to give the opposition advice on how to run tactics from opposition, but I would give them some advice. I think the Manager of Opposition Business is not serving them very well— Mr Burke: Madam Speaker— Mr PYNE: I am talking directly to the suspension of standing orders, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke: I respect your ruling earlier, Madam Speaker, that there is some leeway given during suspension of standing orders. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the House has strayed far and wide and is now reverting to issues— The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER: I asked the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I said there is no point of order. The minister has the call. Mr PYNE: He cannot simply try to disrupt the debate with constant points of order. It is quite clear to the House and anybody listening, though I note we are not broadcasting, that what I am explaining to the House is the context in which the suspension of standing orders should be moved if it was so important that the opposition believe that the government's program should be suspended for the rest of the afternoon. Quite obviously if the Labor Party thought that this was the most important issue of the day it should have been the subject of question time, building to a suspension of standing orders. I make the point that Labor's tactics have never been good but on this particular day are spectacularly bad. Why should standing orders not be suspended? Because there are very important matters that need to be debated this afternoon in the House. I for one was looking forward to the speech from the member for McMahon on the government's attempts to wind back investor protection for consumers seeking financial advice, which he regarded apparently as a matter of public importance needing to be debated. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business thinks that the member for McMahon's speech is not as interesting as I was looking forward to listening to it because he wants to suspend standing orders to delay our attempts to get to that matter of public importance. On the program for the afternoon are bills like the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. What a spectacular own goal for the Labor Party to move a suspension motion today to stop that bill being debated—to delay it further, potentially to delay it too long for it to be properly implemented—which would benefit 57,000 veterans in Australia, who stand to gain the same indexation mechanism as that which exists for the age pension. We think that is very important and that is why we put it on the agenda to be debated today. But the Labor Party does not think so. The Labor Party thinks a stunt such as this is more important than the 57,000 veterans who have waited four years for this measure to be passed. They think it is more important than debating the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014. It speaks volumes for the priorities of the opposition that they always elevate politics above good policy. For the 57,000 veterans waiting to hear that this bill has been passed and gone to the Senate and for every one of those people listening or reading the Hansard in the future, know this: Labor wanted to delay the DFRDB (Fair Indexation) Bill; in fact, they wanted to stop it from happening today and potentially never happen. So a spectacular own goal. They also want to delay the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The Green Army is a very good public policy measure by this government promised before the election. It is being looked forward to in the community and will be a tremendous asset to repairing our environment in a very practical way. It is one of the measures the government has introduced as a direct action part of our policy for better environmental outcomes, for combating climate change, for improving the area in which we live, the environment in which we live. But Labor think that this stunt they have moved today is a more important priority. That is why they want to suspend standing orders to delay the government's program for the rest of the afternoon. I happen to think that we should get on with introducing the DFRDB bill on fair indexation. I think we should get on with debating the Green Army Program, because I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House, who were proud to promise the Green Army Program before the election, are looking forward to debating it, to allowing their colleagues to have a go as well on that subject, and to passing that bill and sending it to the Senate. Labor want to delay that bill further, because they would prefer to elevate politics over good policy. Finally, the other example I will give is the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014, which we also want to debate and pass, because we want to take a hard line with people who gain their wealth through unexplained measures. We want to take a firm line to ensure that law and order is elevated in this country—but not Labor; Labor think political stunts should be elevated, that political stunts are more important than ensuring that the unexplained wealth and other measures bill is passed through this House. Ms Macklin: It is Labor's bill. Mr PYNE: If it is Labor's bill, Member for Jagajaga, why don't you support it and pass it through the House? Ms Macklin: We do. Mr PYNE: You have just confirmed how hopeless your tactics are. If you are still supporting that bill—in spite of all of your own policies from the last parliament that you are rejecting and the ones you are rejecting in the Senate—why are you continuing to delay it through these kinds of stunts and pathetic tactics? We cannot be lectured by the Labor Party on issues to do with veterans or anything to do with their families or their children. The member for Fadden has provided me with a very useful book, The Little Book of Labor's Defence Backflips. Let me just go through them, because they highlight why this motion for a suspension of standing orders should not be carried. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no way in the world a member of the opposition would get away with this. The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I was very, very lenient indeed with both the mover and the seconder of the suspension order, and the Leader of the House has been exemplary in the way that he has dealt with the motion. Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, that is absolutely true. In fact, I have tried to show the opposition how to do a motion to suspend standing orders—of which I did many in the last parliament. I am trying to give you a master class on how to do it, because you need a bit of help. I allowed the Leader of the Opposition much latitude in ranging over this subject. I would say to the opposition that the Rudd Labor government said that they would ‘maintain a generous military superannuation system in recognition of the importance of the ADF and the immense responsibility placed on personnel in securing and defending Australia’—but 'Labor has never, and will never, fairly index military superannuation pensions.' I am showing how the hypocrisy of the Labor Party should not be rewarded by— Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House is not being relevant to the resolution before us. The SPEAKER: He is being entirely relevant to the motion. Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I am explaining why this suspension should not be carried—because of the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party. For example, they said: Federal Labor will continue to focus on maintaining high recruitment and retention levels in the ADF. Only problem is: Labor entirely cut the ADF Gap Year Program, a program which was particularly successful in recruiting women into the ADF. Labor said that they placed a high demand on people and their families and: A Rudd Labor Government will reduce this burden and assist ADF personnel to manage the unique challenges they and their families face in serving the nation. Only problem is: Labor cut trips home to single soldiers to see their families at Christmas. And on and on it goes. That is why standing orders should not be suspended. The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.