Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (14:38): It's a pleasure to follow both the Leader of the Opposition and the former future leader of the Liberal Party on what is one of the silliest moments I can imagine of a dissent motion. If this was the test of whether or not you move dissent, we would have had a dissent motion every question time every day for the previous nine years. That's what we would have had. What they're objecting to is the fact that the standing order simply says you have to be relevant. That's what they're actually objecting to. That's their problem that they have. If you have a look at the question, it asked, in the end part of it, about Qatar's application before the decision was made. What made them outraged, what suddenly enlivened them, was when the minister started to refer to what the situation was before the application was made. It's exactly what she was referring to. She was referring to the situation the previous government had left in place. The question specifically invited an answer about what the circumstances were before the application had been made. If you don't want an answer about what the circumstances were before the application was made, then don't be so idiotic as to ask a question as to what the circumstances were before the application was made. The reason they've done this is really simple: they have given up on a debate about cost of living, completely given up. They are embarrassed, completely embarrassed, about the economic accounts that have come out today. They are embarrassed that inflation has been going down, they are embarrassed that wages have been going up and they are embarrassed about having to sit on the opposition benches seeing a government deliver a surplus that they were never capable of. Amidst that embarrassment, you fall back to all you've got left: 'Maybe we can manufacture a procedural argument.' And how desperate were they to get to a procedural argument? There was the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition saying: 'Can you give me a ruling? Can this please be a ruling? Please give me a ruling so we can talk about something other than policy. Please give us a reason to interrupt the minister when she is about to refer to what the situation was before that application.' While it is certainly disorderly in this place for me to call anyone a hypocrite, there is extraordinary hypocrisy in the debate when you look at previous behaviour and what the circumstances were before that application was made. We have a minister for transport here who has acted in the national interest for this country. We have a minister here, in Minister King, who has made decisions, and then the outrage— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Sukkar interjecting— Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will pause. There is far too much noise. The member for Deakin and the member for Hume are now warned. There has been continual, non-stop yelling on both sides of the chamber. The Leader of the House will return to the motion, just as I asked the Leader of the Opposition to. Mr BURKE: The outrage that they have about the minister being in a situation, in the questions that have been raised in the debate—we've had all the different questions raised in the debate. It was bizarre while we had the earlier ones in a question about relevance on this one. But, as we heard the different questions, a whole series of them simply went to: did a minister conduct due diligence and talk to stakeholders? I'm not surprised they are shocked that ministers do that these days. It used to be the case that a minister wouldn't even have to talk to colleagues, because the Prime Minister could just talk to a mirror and have the whole cabinet present! They were all there! Who needed stakeholders? Who needed anyone to consult with? The Prime Minister of the day could just have a quiet chat with himself, and everything was okay. Amidst all that humiliation, they want to have a procedural debate. We have a fine Speaker here. I'll tell you what: I remember some of the speakers that were put up by those opposite. We all talk in very reverent tones about former speaker Tony Smith. We very rarely talk about the others. One of them is here. One of them is long gone. We very rarely talk about the others. We have somebody who, in the tradition of former speaker Tony Smith, has abided by the traditions of this place, but the lack of respect for the traditions of this place, if it was ever on show, was on show by them on Monday. It was on show by them on Monday, showing no respect for the parliament, showing no respect as they tried to egg on the public galleries, showing no respect for any of that— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will pause. The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for North Sydney on a point of order. Ms Tink: Mr Speaker, it's on standing order 91(e), disorderly conduct. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to listen to both major parties talk about what is appropriate under standing orders or not, but there are members of the Australian public sitting in this chamber at the moment watching this behaviour, and I do not believe this behaviour is befitting of this chamber. If we could please have this debate and have it reasonably, without yelling at each other, that would be in the best interests of everyone. The SPEAKER: I ask all members to not interject for the remainder of this speech. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr BURKE: In terms of the issues of respect for this place, in this debate—I'm simply referring to what has been said in this debate—we had the Leader of the Opposition go back on an indulgence that he gave in this place only a couple of days ago, talking about what should be above politics in terms of when we engage with the rest of the world. Members don't have to stand up and take an indulgence. Members don't have to stand up and try to say something is above politics, but when you do, it should last longer than 48 hours. That shows the character of this Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat for a moment, so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House is now straying well outside the proper purpose of this debate, which is whether your ruling should be upheld or not. That's what he should be addressing. The SPEAKER: I'm listening carefully to the Leader of the House—I'm listening to what everyone is saying during this debate; trust me! The Leader of the House is using his remarks to refer to what has been said during the debate, which, under the standing orders, he's entitled to do. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr BURKE: Once again, even that point of order shows the contempt they have for this parliament. Even that point of order shows exactly how they used to run things and how they wish things still were, where they get to make a point and no-one gets to answer it in return. That is precisely what they are wanting to have happen here. That's the only reason that point of order could have possibly been raised, but there's some sort of outrage that a different point of view is given in this parliament. Ms Ley: We just want answers to our question. Mr BURKE: We are only a short way through question time and if anything they say is true in this debate, it's that they want to hear more in response to their questions. I do this rarely, but in order to get on with question time, I move: That the question be put. The SPEAKER: The question is that the question on the motion of dissent be put.