Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:47): I rise to speak against this suspension of standing orders, as occurred last Thursday. The member for Kennedy and the member for Denison are two members of this chamber I have a great deal of respect for. I respectfully submit to the member for Kennedy that the clear procedures set out by this parliament to facilitate private members' business being dealt with are greater than any that have ever been made in the history of this parliament. The fact of the matter is that we will enable and facilitate private members' discussions this evening. They are all on motions or bills that have been put forward in accordance with the procedures that have been worked out. Everyone has the same level playing field and the same ways of operating in this matter. The truth is that, in doing this, the government want to be consistent. We are ensuring that everyone knows what the procedures are. You put a motion on notice or you give notice of an intention to present a bill. It is then considered by the Selection Committee and it is dealt with on the next occasion. In the normal proceedings that would be on the following Monday evening. We then have a debate. If there is a need for further discussion then that occurs. It is then listed for a vote in accordance with the procedures of the Selection Committee in a way in which everyone knows the outcome. We have, since 2007, operated in a way that has facilitated business before this parliament being dealt with. When the government introduces legislation, it comes into this parliament and gives notice. We then have a second reading speech. Debate is then suspended after the second reading speech and the legislation is then able to be considered by the parliament in the next week. If it is the case that people can come into this parliament and move a suspension of standing orders or something that they have not given notice of, then we will simply not be able to facilitate the proper consideration of either legislation or motions which are moved by members of this parliament. The fact is that we have had a range of suspensions moved. We barely get through a day of this parliament without a suspension of standing orders being moved by those opposite. Dr Southcott: You've got your priorities wrong. Mr ALBANESE: Some of the members opposite speak about our priorities. We heard that from the shadow finance minister, who could not actually call a division on the budget bills he was opposing. We heard from the shadow finance minister that he wants to change the determinations on the processes for the consideration of budget bills. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members on my left will display a modicum of discipline. Mr ALBANESE: Those processes were determined unanimously by this House. It is quite extraordinary. The suspensions of standing orders have already cost this parliament the consideration of 124 questions. The fact is that the suspensions moved by those opposite, when the Leader of the Opposition has suspended 46 per cent of question times, and at the end of last week the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kennedy moved suspensions of standing orders— Mr Pyne: That's five minutes. Mr ALBANESE: If you were here for more than five minutes, you might know that I am speaking to the suspension of standing orders. I am actually speaking to the motion, which is about the procedures of this House. The motion is not about the substance of the motion that the member for Kennedy is seeking to move; the motion is about the suspension of standing orders. I read in today's paper that we were going to have a bill considered in this House at 10 am this morning. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition came into the chamber at 10 am, but if he did he would have been the only one who was here. He shows no attention to the detail. That is the problem of those opposite: no attention to detail. All they want to do is come before this parliament and complain, say what they oppose but not say what they are for, like the walking vuvuzelas that they are. Once again we see their opportunism on show for all to see. They have had a different position on live cattle exports every single day throughout the past two weeks. With regard to the issue of plebiscites, I just wonder how a plebiscite would go before the Australian public of all those who support exporting live cattle to Indonesia. I just wonder how that would go, if we are going to go down that sort of road. Of course, those opposite have never got over their loss in August last year. What we are seeing played out before the Australian public is the longest dummy spit in the history of Australian politics. The fact of the matter is they want to disrupt the parliament at each and every opportunity. It does not matter whether it is Greens motions about asylum seekers or motions from the member for Kennedy or anything else; their one priority is disruption. Do you know who said, 'Disrupting the House is not a sign of a disciplined opposition; disrupting the House is a sign of a desperate opposition'? It was the Leader of the Opposition on 21 June 2006. Mr Christensen: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: for the last two minutes, the Leader of the House has been talking about the opposition, our policies and everything but the substance of the motion. I ask you to draw him to speak to the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The member will resume his seat. We are debating whether standing orders will be suspended and I encourage the Leader of the House to observe closely the terms of the motion before the chair. Mr ALBANESE: I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, because what I am speaking in favour of is orderly proceedings in this House of Representatives, not this disruptive behaviour which the Leader of the Opposition himself said on 21 June 2006 is a sign of a desperate opposition. He went on to say this: What we have seen from members opposite consistently in the course of this year but particularly over the last few weeks is consistent, deliberate, planned and premeditated conduct to disrupt this House. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 21 June 2006 and there were never wiser words said by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why the government will be opposing this and why the member for Corio will be adding to comments opposing this legislation. The fact of the matter is— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE: We have had two speakers in favour. Now they want to stop two speakers in favour and two speakers against, so determined are the great democrats opposite, so desperate are they. The fact of the matter is that this should not be supported. This should be debated next week. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I now call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Albanese: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we had a mover of this proposition. We then had a seconder of the proposition. It is normally the case in procedures before this House that we have two speakers in favour and it is important that we have two speakers against. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent while I am listening to the point of order put forward by the Leader of the House. Mr Albanese: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. House of Representatives practice clearly allows for speakers from either side to be equal. That is the way that we deal with things in this chamber. We had the member for Kennedy put his position. We then had the seconder, the member for Denison, contribute to the debate. We then had me, as the Leader of the House, outline why there should be opposition and now it is important that— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat, as will the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding is that debate alternates from one side to the other. I have already given the call to the Leader of the Opposition, who now has the call.