Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (10:41): First of all, I acknowledge the tone from those in the opposition as to how this has been presented. There is a set of speaking notes that I've sighted that I won't use. The tone from both the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, and the shadow minister is one that has kept completely to the issue that is contained in this bill that we've just seen, so I intend to confine my remarks in a similar way. Can I say, first of all: no government ever, whether it was us or the opposition, has had a private member's bill brought forward in a suspension of standing orders and immediately said 'yep', without going through cabinet, without going through any processes or without going through its party room, and said, 'We're going to vote on it and deal with it all in the next hour.' I respect that there'll be objections to that, but no government anywhere in the history of Federation would have taken the suspension of standing orders that's in front of us and voted for it. That doesn't go against the principles that are contained within the private member's bill in any way. I'm advised by the Attorney-General—we had a conversation before I knew this was coming on, given issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition in an indulgence he took yesterday, where he raised this principle—and I have clarified with the Attorney-General that there is work being done within his department that has been going on for some time that goes to these exact issues. What the government won't do is take a bill that has been handed to us now, without us being able to go through any of our own procedures, and deal immediately with it for a period, as it says here, of no longer than one hour and then have any remaining questions put without delay. Just to confine it to the issue the way those opposite have, I put it in these terms: every time we introduce legislation, I have kept to a very strict rule of there being delays and allowing those opposite to go through their party room procedures. It wasn't always done for us. An opposition member interjecting— Mr BURKE: No, no, hear me out. On those rare occasions, as the former speaker has just interjected, where something is more urgent—and we had some of that, for example, that happened at the start of this year, with respect to some regulations as well—we have always made sure that there are briefings that happen beforehand, and we do everything we can—because occasionally something is genuinely that urgent—to make sure party procedures are able to be followed. Any legislation that we deal with on this issue would be government legislation. For example, questions as to whether the number of penalty units that is proposed here is the right number of penalty units in the context of the rest of the act—should it be higher or lower?—is something that you'd get formal departmental advice on. Whether the exemptions here are right, whether there is anything that has been missed, whether it should be tighter or narrower, is something that you would formally work through. But, as I say, I've been advised that work on this exact area is being done and has been underway for some time in the office of the Attorney-General. Because of the tone of the debate, I am not criticising the opposition in any way, shape or form for raising it in this way. Nobody should take the government's decision to not immediately, without any process, go ahead with the private member's bill as being some sort of lack of commitment to this cause. On issues relating to this, we have had previous debates, over about a decade, with respect to 18C and other areas where people have toyed with various pathways. But ultimately the previous government never went ahead with those changes, and I respect that they ended up not going ahead with them. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BURKE: I hear you. They didn't go ahead with them. We've had previous debates. We are in a situation where there are objections to Nazi symbols being used. They are symbols that are horrific. People go to a freedom-of-speech argument, but, when it comes to just straight hatred, symbols can be bullets, words can be bullets, and the horror of that salute is, in real terms, an act of violence in itself. Those are views that are shared around this room. There are particular reasons why no government has ever agreed to a private member's bill in the form that is put here, but, as I said, every state parliament now, pretty much, has been working through these issues. There has often been a debate before they've got there, and often some people have tested the water with freedom-of-speech arguments before things have landed. I say this as someone who will go through their entire life without being a victim of racial bigotry, but I am surrounded by neighbours whose experience can be utterly different. Of all the symbols of bigotry, this is one we have a particular need to unanimously oppose. The fact that we will end up dividing on a procedural motion, as we're about to, should not be seen to change the unanimity on the need to oppose those symbols. The shadow minister quite rightly—the Leader of the Opposition may have as well, but for part of his speech I was walking to the chamber, so I can't pretend to have heard the whole of the speech—referred very specifically to the horror of the Holocaust. We have members within this chamber for whom the Holocaust is not simply something they learnt about; it's something that has touched their families very personally. It was a level of hatred that has been crystallised in particular symbols. Some Australians—for reasons that I will never be able to fathom, and I suspect no-one in this room will be able to fathom—somehow see a level of security or something in reverting back to those symbols. Well, the parliament won't have it. This private member's bill potentially goes some way to being able to deal with it, but, as I say, there are processes that are already underway in the Attorney-General's Department, and there are further processes that we have to go to. But I would not want anyone—anyone at all—to see the parliament dividing on a vote in a few moments time and see that as evidence of division on the need to oppose the use of these symbols. These symbols have become the symbols of the worst of humanity, and I was stunned and horrified to see them appearing in Melbourne. Mr Tehan: We all were. Mr BURKE: No, we all were, and I think I've been including everybody in the way that I've dealt with this in this speech. I think I've been dealing with everybody in the way that I've turned this speech, and I've done it very deliberately. So I make no criticism of the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this resolution forward—no criticism whatsoever. But I do want to make the point very clearly—I guess two points. One is that no government ever, in a circumstance where something like this is moved, would be in a position to vote for it. That's never happened. It won't happen. Secondly, while we'll vote in different ways on the voices, I don't know whether a division will be called, but, if a division is called, no-one who uses these symbols should see a division about procedure on the floor of this parliament as giving them the solace of thinking that they have supporters. Nobody should think, because we divide on the procedure, that somehow that creates a divide on the repugnancy of Nazism and the symbols that go with it. So for those reasons the government will not be supporting the suspension motion that's before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): I appreciate that the member for Wentworth is seeking the call, but the time allotted for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER: The question is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.