Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:09): I wish to speak briefly to the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to the motion moved by me in relation to the standing orders. He has created a great canard which needs to be dealt with, that the idea that the change to standing order 132 was conceived because of the events of September the first, as we call them on this side of the House. The events of 1 September had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the changes to standing order 132. I proposed on 30 and 31 August to change standing order 132. I sent the proposed changes to the standing orders to the office of the Manager of Opposition Business. My office was in communication with his office about these machinery provision changes, the vast majority of which were proposed by the Petitions Committee and by the Procedure Committee. The Manager of Opposition Business responded on several of the changes—things that he regarded as noncontroversial—which we implemented. He has not responded to the rest of the changes since that time, giving the lie to the idea that the opposition wishes to cooperate in this parliament. For the first time ever, the opposition is not even giving leave for the third reading of bills that they support. Clearly, the opposition's claim that they want to cooperate is simply mealy mouthed words, because if they did want to cooperate they would continue to do what they have always done and what we did when we were in opposition, blessedly for only six years, and give leave for third reading debates. They are not doing so, because they are not trying to cooperate. That is relevant because they are not cooperating. I see that the member for McEwen, who is in the chamber, is looking for the connection. It is relevant to this debate because, similarly, the Manager of Opposition Business has not cooperated in relation to talking to me about the machinery provisions—changes to petitions and to procedures—proposed by the Procedure Committee, which are quite clearly noncontroversial. In fact, as a mark of my good faith, I said to the Manager of Opposition Business and to the crossbenchers in the first sitting week that, even if the government did not want to propose any more changes to standing orders, we would still allow a debate on standing order reforms so that the opposition and the crossbenchers could move amendments to the standing orders, and we would facilitate that debate. So all the way along I have tried to show my cooperation with the five crossbenchers and with the opposition Mr Albanese: You're a saint! Mr PYNE: The member for Grayndler says I am a saint. It is not often that I am called a saint, particularly by the member for Grayndler, but the truth is that we are trying to cooperate with the opposition because we want the 45th Parliament to be a constructive parliament that is good for Australia and makes the changes that Australians need, to ensure they have jobs, to ensure growth in our economy and to do the social reforms that are necessary in our society, including marriage equality through a plebiscite, which is our policy. I have dealt with the canard of the Manager for Opposition Business that this has been as a result of 1 September. Some of the crossbenchers believe that the definition that I am seeking to reform in the standing orders would allow the government to recommit motions in the event that people miss divisions—for example, because they have left the building. The truth is that misadventure is well understood as a convention in this building. If somebody misses a division here or in the Senate because of misadventure, like, for example, being stuck in the facilities in the building, which has occurred in the past—on that occasion, unfortunately, because the member thought a door was a push-pull door when it was a sliding door—that is clearly a misadventure. The person will remain nameless. They are no longer with us, happily. They are still alive, I should say, but they are not with us in the chamber any more. The SPEAKER interjecting— Mr PYNE: I digress, Mr Speaker—I find the member for Grayndler distracts me from the task. But misadventure is clearly when a member of parliament, through some error or misjudgement, misses the division. It is not because they did not have a pair and left the building. That has been very clear as a convention of this place and of the Senate for a very long time, and the government is not proposing to change that convention. I would also remind the member for Grayndler, who seems to have forgotten this particular important vignette, that the change I am trying to bring to section 132 of the standing orders is exactly the same way that the standing orders were before the 43rd Parliament. And for three years, as Leader of the House, he thought that was perfectly appropriate. He never made any attempt to change the standing orders in the 42nd Parliament to reflect his new-found love of democracy in the House of Representatives. He was forced, kicking and screaming, by the crossbenchers at the time to change standing order 132 in the 43rd Parliament. Now, of course, we face different circumstances, and it is very important for the management of the democracy in which we live, and the House of Representatives, that the will of the people be reflected in votes. That is the purpose of standing order 132—that the will of the people at the election be reflected in the votes in the parliament. Therefore, if a member, through misadventure, fails to attend the chamber but would otherwise have been here to vote either aye or nay, that vote should be recommitted, and the government should have that capacity in the standing orders, under section 132, to do so on a simple majority. That is the purpose of it. Mr Albanese: Under standing order 66— Mr PYNE: You haven't got the call; I have the call. Let's turn to the library committee— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler has the call. Mr Albanese: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 66, I would ask for an intervention to ask a question of the Leader of the House. The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. This is not an order of the day; it is a notice. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Albanese: He was on board! Mr PYNE: I was on board! The SPEAKER: I am not letting him accept it. Mr PYNE: Of course, I introduced interventions in the House of Representatives, so I believe in them firmly. The library committee has been a very important part of the furniture of the parliament for a very long time, but the view has been formed by the officers of the building that the usefulness of the library committee is no longer such that it should be accorded priority as a committee of the parliament. The committees of the parliament, as outlined by the motion that I have moved, deal with the key issues that Australia expects us to be getting on with—agriculture, communications, economics et cetera. And there is, of course, the selection committee, the petitions committee and so on. So there is absolutely no purpose for the library committee to continue and, as a consequence, we are pruning the library committee from the list. I have now spoken to the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment, and I obviously do not support it. I would encourage my members to continue to support the government's agenda in terms of the standing orders, and I hope that the crossbenchers now have an explanation for what the government is proposing. The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.