BUSINESS

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (09:30): on indulgence—When the government seeks to have a debate management motion, there's always discussion in the House as to whether or not that is reasonable. In order for us to make sure that we can respect all 150 members of the parliament, there are a number of things that members ordinarily do.

One is to follow the advice of the clerks in terms of when amendments can be grouped together. I would note that the opposition, even though it could be disruptive for them to do otherwise, have in every situation where amendments can be grouped together sought leave to do so and leave is granted and we get constructive debate. Similarly, people make strategic decisions, when they know the outcome of a division, as to which divisions are called for and which are not.

I think it's fair to say that that sort of respect is ordinarily there regardless—it's nothing to do with the gravity of the issue. It's just an acknowledgement that each of us is one out of 150, to make sure that we are conscious that, if everybody acted the way we might want to act in a particular moment, the House could itself become unmanageable. I have been asked by some people for further consultation on this.

I would make clear to the House that the motion that I put on the Notice Paper, government business notice No. 4, remains the government's position. But I've been asked to have further conversations about it, which I am happy to do. But I want to be absolutely clear.

No-one should pretend that this is a gag or a denial of democratic process or anything like that. The reason for this is we cannot have a situation where any one member of parliament acts like they're the only person in the room. That's what we can't have.

It takes a lot for me to point to the opposition as an example of being constructive— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE: Yes, don't talk me out of it! But the concept of amendments being grouped together and being sensible about deciding whether or not divisions need to occur means that there is a standing order that was put in place at a time when there were fewer than five crossbenchers that does not quite work now that the crossbench is so much larger, and we will have a point where we have to reckon with that.

But, as a matter of good faith for the requests that have been made to me, I will instead, under standing order 45(c), move that we move to the next item of government business.