Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (10:00): Mr Speaker, I rise in this debate very conscious of your desire to keep the debate tight on the matter before the House. I certainly intend to do so. This is a debate really about whether we be on private members' business as determined by the Selection Committee or whether we have another stunt in this place that is all about political opportunism and, worse than that, about running interference on proper legal processes. I rise in this debate wearing three hats: as a member of the Selection Committee, as the Chief Government Whip and as a private member in this place. On all three counts, I rise as a fierce defender of private members' rights in this place. We do have a process. I am now making a contribution on behalf of government members of the Selection Committee. Both the member for Lyne and the member for Melbourne sit on the Selection Committee. They have now made very substantial contributions. I want to thank them for that. The only person who has not now made a contribution to this debate is a member of the opposition who sits on the Selection Committee. I am not surprised. The member for Berowra is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. The member for Barker is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. Both are members of the Selection Committee. I invite them to make a contribution to this debate. I think their contribution is critical in determining what the House should be doing here: whether we should be giving priority to private members' business and rights or whether we should be backing a stunt. I suspect they are very reluctant to make a contribution because they find themselves sitting there in agreement with me, in agreement with the member for Melbourne and in agreement with the member for Lyne. They know as members of the Selection Committee, as do you, Mr Speaker, as the esteemed chair of that committee, how hard we have worked to make this agreement work and how hard we have slogged to ensure that not only do private members get maximum opportunity in this place but also it works in a bipartisan way. As you know better than anyone, Mr Speaker, it has been a messy process from time to time. Indeed, occasionally it has been a bit of an ugly process. Each and every one of us—those on that side of the House, those on this side of the House and, indeed, those on the crossbenches—have worked very hard to put politics aside, to work with what we have been given and to make this process work. I have to say that, while it is not always easy for a government to have such a fierce defender of private members' rights, giving so much opportunity to private members, including the opposition in this place, has been a healthy process and a breath of fresh air. It has worked because we have worked together. That is really what this debate is about: whether we want to trash all of that hard work now, a year on, or whether we want to stay with it in recognition of the hard work that has been done. I invite the member for Leichardt, who is now in the chamber and is the most senior member of the opposition on the Selection Committee, the member for Barker or the member for Berowra—they can draw straws or work it out amongst themselves—to stand and explain to the House why we should now be affording priority to a stunt, a bit of political opportunism, over the processes of the Selection Committee. I want to express my support for everything that has been stated by the Leader of the House and those who have spoken from the crossbench. I want to thank them for their contributions. They were reasoned and sensible contributions. They were contributions that anyone in this House thinking objectively rather than in a partisan way would surely accept, but those on the other side will have an opportunity to respond to that. The matter for Mr Thomson is complex. I take on board what Mr Wilkie has said. He made the point that maybe he should just come in here and make a short statement. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements. Indeed, he has made a number of statements— The SPEAKER: The Chief Government Whip must go to the reasons for the suspension or otherwise. Mr FITZGIBBON: I thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, this is a debate about whether we should be dealing with private members' business or allowing a stunt. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements not under the cover of parliamentary privilege but outside of this place— Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the debate as it has gone on has become slightly more frayed in terms of relevance to the suspension of standing orders, which sometimes happens in these debates, but when I was the first speaker I was pulled up on four or five occasions by the Leader of the House and by the Speaker. The Chief Government Whip is really making no attempt at all to be relevant to the motion before the chair. I ask you to draw him back to it. The SPEAKER: Not only has the debate become frayed but perhaps the chair has become a little frayed too. I remind members if they are contributing to this debate that over an hour ago it started as a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and it is still a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and we should be debating the reasons for the House to suspend the standing orders or otherwise. Mr FITZGIBBON: I think it is reasonable to say that on any objective analysis I have been far more relevant in this debate than the member for North Sydney ever was, and I think that same test would fairly apply to the member for Sturt. But let us go back to what has been happening here. The Leader of the House attempted to do what he does every Thursday and that is to move a suspension of standing orders so that private members' business can be brought on for a vote. That is the process that emanates from the Selection Committee. Then of course—very tricky as he can be—the member for Sturt did an extraordinary thing: he moved an amendment to that suspension so that, rather than deal with important private members' business, we deal instead with a stunt. That is what we are debating this morning and that is what I am talking about. I would have thought that the member for Gippsland might have made a contribution to this debate too, because this is his motion. The member for Gippsland obviously went to a lot of work: he consulted his constituency, he identified a very real problem, he took time in consultation with the clerks— Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. At the end of the day the original motion was from the member for Gippsland. Even in a frayed debate, sometimes we intersect with what we are here for. Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Gippsland, having done some research, consulted with the clerks, had a motion drafted, put it on the Notice Paper and no doubt lobbied the member for Leichhardt hard to have his matter put before the House. We know many members put motions on the Notice Paper and, despite the additional private members' time we have available to us, still there is some competition. We cannot possibly deal with all of the motions in the House. The member for Gippsland obviously lobbied members of the opposition—those who sit on the Selection Committee—hard to have his motion debated in the House. We have done that. Rather extraordinarily, opposition members on the Selection Committee decided that this was a matter that should be voted upon. That surprised me, because I thought it was a bit like putting Christmas to a vote. I do not think anyone in this House would find the motion objectionable— Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is to bring him back to the suspension motion before the House. We know he is doing it because the Prime Minister has a press conference, and before he tells us what he had for breakfast this morning— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Tolerance is being stretched, and I remind him about the value of his vote. It might be instructive to remind members of the question. The original question was the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing orders. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion and the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Chief Government Whip has the call and he will be relevant to the motion before the House. Mr FITZGIBBON: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I certainly will be. The member for North Sydney could take another lesson in work ethics, because if he had done his homework he would know that the Prime Minister is paired with the Leader of the Opposition. It will not be necessary for her to attend the division that will be coming before us shortly. I go back to the member for Gippsland—a very fine member. I will not go through the whole scenario again, but I think we have found ourselves at the Selection Committee determining whether this very fine motion from the member for Gippsland should be debated and voted upon in this place. The member for Gippsland felt so strongly about this motion on wild dogs that he went to the members for Leichhardt, Barker and Berowra and said, 'Please, I need this to be voted upon.' I do not really understand it—it is quite a non-objectionable motion. Wild dogs are a real problem in regional Australia; I have the same problem in my electorate— Mr Hawke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 75 refers to the Speaker's power that when a member is persisting in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his arguments or of another person's arguments, he may be directed to discontinue his or her remarks. The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr FITZGIBBON: I was making the point that wild dogs are also a problem in my own electorate. I am very conscious of the impact Opposition members interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON: Now the members of the opposition are laughing—on flora and fauna, native vegetation and native animals in my electorate. They think that is funny. The member for Gippsland goes to the Selection Committee with what he claims was a serious motion. They think it is so serious and important that they not only allocate time for debate but also determine we should vote upon it in this place. Now they do two things. They try to run interference in that process and they try to deny the member for Gippsland the opportunity to put his motion to a vote—and now they laugh at the motion. It says something about their state of mind—a state of mind which is being driven entirely at the moment by what they see is an opportunity to sit on this side of the House. They are going to find themselves very, very disappointed. The behaviour of the opposition just now proves without any question that this is a stunt and any objective member, particularly those sitting on the other side, would have to agree with those on this side and on the crossbenches that, in any contest as to whether it is more important to be dealing with private members' business in an orderly process, this motion should be afforded far more priority than a stunt from the other side which is purely about politics and political opportunities. It is about going after a member of this place who has legal processes underway and who is constrained on legal advice about what he should be saying publicly, whether in this place or elsewhere. It is all about sniffing a bit of blood. I want to close by restating my invitation (1) to the member for Gippsland to stand in this place and say he really believes that he would rather have us deal with a stunt than deal with the motion he put so much thought and effort into, and (2) to members of the opposition who sit on the Selection Committee to stand in this place, having worked so hard with me and other members from the government and the crossbenchers in getting in place these orderly processes—processes which afford private members so many rights—and explain why they are about to vote for a stunt rather than to vote for the rights of private members and the processes of the Selection Committee.