Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:22): If ever there was an example of overreach in a government behaving as though they are in opposition, it is what we are seeing right now. Sorry, do not expect me to get really angry about a stunt like this. This is silly, from the Leader of the House—really silly. A large number of things was said yesterday. The Leader of the House has not been willing to give me a copy of this in advance. If one of the details that is referred to is whether this happened under Leo McLeay, and if that occurred and if that detail is true—he has given me no evidence he has allowed me to read—then I am sorry that that particular statement was made. Of course I am. Of course I am willing to say I am sorry for that statement if it is inaccurate. Of course I am. But the Leader of the House waited until the end of question time and said, 'Here's the gotcha moment,' read it out, did not provide the material across the chamber and did not acknowledge the critical point: the then opposition, following that, called for the resignation of Leo McLeay and ultimately— The SPEAKER: Sixty thousand dollars for a bicycle accident. Mr BURKE: he did retire and he did stand down from that role. What we see here is something that you almost never see from a government. You see, there is a reason why governments do not normally move a suspension of standing orders to debate a political issue of the day. The reason, complex as it is, is that normally they are governing. Normally on that side of the chamber they have government business to get through. Normally on that side of the chamber they have a budget that they are proud of. Normally on that side of the chamber they actually want to talk about their own agenda. But such is the embarrassment of those opposite that they have decided it is more exciting to try to get a gotcha moment on one point in a 15-minute speech. As I said earlier, if that detail was wrong then I apologise for that. But it was only one of the many issues that I referred to. What I do not resile from for one minute is that this issue should have been referred to the Privileges Committee. What I do not resile from for one minute, Madam Speaker, is that you should have done what other Speakers would do, and that was actually reflect on the issue, get advice from the clerks and then report back to the House. It was completely open to you, Madam Speaker, after that resolution yesterday, at that opportunity yesterday, to reflect on it and to come back—even if the clerks had said that they did not believe there was a matter of privilege—and to say that, given it referred to you, you would give it to the committee anyway. They would do a quick inquiry and report back. Mr Nikolic: Why don't you stop digging and just say sorry? Mr BURKE: I have said it three times. Calm down over there. What no-one, no observer of this chamber, should apologise for is the claim that this Speaker is biased. What no person in the chamber should ever apologise for is stating that this is a government without an agenda. Look at it at the moment. We have all these ministers who are meant to be in charge of things, who are actually meant to be governing, hanging around for the debate, hanging around because they think it is fun. Why do they think their entire backbench has stayed here for my speech? They are not ringing their local radio stations to talk about the budget. They are not actually getting out in their electorates to talk about anything that the government is doing. It is much safer for them to be in here because then they do not have to talk about the cuts to schools, they do not have to talk about cuts to education, they do not have to talk about anything on the government's agenda. I just saw it from you then: as I speak you give that slight shake of your head, and when government ministers speak you give them the constant nod. The subtle rallying is something that has characterised your speakership. If the words of this resolution before the parliament are serious, given what I have said in this speech, the Leader of the House will withdraw the resolution, because what he is requesting here has already been done. It has been done in the course of this speech. It has been done repeatedly in the course of this speech. If he is just playing politics, this resolution will go to the vote. Let me make this clear: having said a number of times during this speech that if a fact was incorrect then I am sorry that occurred, do not think I am going to say it again because the Leader of the House uses his numbers in this House. If that means you name me straight after this vote then so be it. If that is what this House has come to then so be it. I am not going to be in a situation where a government uses its majority to demand members of parliament to make particular statements. I am not going to be in that situation. Sure, there are some parliaments in the world where this happens. North Korea probably does stuff like this. There are some parliaments of the world where they think, 'Oh, we've got a majority. Let's make someone say something that they don't want to say.' These are the same people who in the debate on 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act talk about freedom of speech. They talk about freedom of speech. For a whole week, whenever we raised a point, you said, 'This is the week of freedom of speech.' Well, what is today? What is today, when we have the Leader of the House moving a resolution to demand that particular words be said by a member of parliament? What has happened to Australian democracy if the parliament is such that elected members of parliament get told what to say by Christopher Pyne? What has the parliament come to? What sort of democracy or freedom of speech credentials can those opposite claim if they actually think it is smart, if they actually think they are sending a clever message to the community, by saying to the Australian people, 'We'll use our parliamentary majority to demand that members of the Labor Party will say what we tell them to say'? Well, Madam Speaker, be on notice: I won't. Be on notice, Madam Speaker. I am not going to be in a situation where a vote of this parliament demands me to make comments. I have already said everything that this resolution requires in this speech. All those words have been said. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget what this parliament has become. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget the extent of the political games that are being played. What is happening here by any definition is an embarrassing bad story for a party that wants to talk about freedom of speech. No matter how bad it is for them, it is better than talking about the budget. No matter how bad or embarrassing this is for them, they think this is better than talking about cuts to health, cuts to education and what they are doing to the pension. I know the Leader of the House has had a bad day. I know the Leader of the House has had one of his closest factional colleagues become a minister in the Labor government of South Australia. I have some sympathy for the Leader of the House in that regard. If the Leader of the House wants me to say how sorry I am for him, he will not need a resolution of the House; I will happily offer those words to him. The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will resume his seat. I think I have been enormously tolerant, listening to the member speak to the motion or pretend to speak to the motion without even touching on the question of the suspension. Because it has involved me, I have allowed you to speak anything you like against me. If you consider that is an apology, I do not. Nonetheless, I have let you go freely and speak, and you can have the rest of your time. But I would ask that you refer, at least once, to the motion before the chair. Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your comment and I appreciate that intervention that would normally be made by a member from the floor. I also appreciate that every reason I have given in the speech I have made, and I do not think I have been too subtle, was to explain why standing orders ought not be suspended. If you think this is a really dumb idea, you would vote against the motion. We think this is a really silly thing and a silly, childish game from the Leader of the House. I reckon there are university councils and student representative councils around the country where they say, 'Let's suspend standing orders on something like this,' and people look and say, 'Oh, what a clever idea, Christopher.' I am sure that there are places where that would be the view. But let us take this all the way back to what is actually happening in the parliament right now. People are elected to represent their individual seats. Those who form the majority are being told by the Leader of the House to vote to demand that a member of parliament make a particular statement. While I am willing and have been during this speech to say, 'If that detail was wrong, then I am sorry that that statement was made,' under no circumstances will I allow, and be part of a travesty of an Australian parliamentary system, a majority to be used to silence a member of parliament or, worse still, a majority to be used to tell a member of the Labor Party to jump to the call of a member of the Liberal Party. I will not do it. It should not happen in Australia and this motion should be voted down.