The federal government is imposing changes to parliamentary rules which Labor says will curb dissent and turn the Speaker into a "censorship board".
The new battle erupted on Wednesday after government house leader Christopher Pyne introduced a raft of changes to standing orders.
While most were uncontroversial, Labor and the cross-bench bitterly opposed several.
These included cutting the time allocated to private members' business, reducing the time devoted to matter of public importance (MPI) debates, removing the right to ask supplementary questions and authorising the Speaker to act against remarks thought critical of other members.
Mr Pyne made a brief speech justifying the changes.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
He said the supplementary questions were being removed because the old Labor government abused them and the Speaker should be able to decide if "outrageous" remarks are disorderly.
He also supported the introduction of "interventions", which would enable members to briefly interrupt a debate to ask a question or make a comment and would lead to a more free-flowing debate.
Opposition house leader Tony Burke said the coalition was happy to use supplementary questions when it was in opposition.
"They asked them and used them and now want to use their numbers to get rid of them," he said.
Mr Burke said the provision allowing the Speaker to find criticisms disorderly would involve the chair in making political judgments.
It would turn the Speaker into a "censorship board" and put the parliamentary umpire in an impossible position.
Mr Burke said reducing the time for MPIs would deny talented government backbenchers the chance to show they were streets ahead of some of their ministers.
He said the government was silencing debate and taking away the right to dissent.
The cross-bench joined the opposition, with Australian Greens MP Adam Bandt saying the government is turning parliament back to a "two-party closed shop".
Mr Bandt gave a spirited defence of the old hung parliament which had brought "a new era of transparency" and allowed private members to sponsor measures that would not have been considered under previous rules.
The key reason for this was the time given to private members.
He said that not only was private members' time being cut, there would also no longer be a cross-bench place on the selection committee, which decides how the lower house's business is arranged.
The government used its numbers to gag the debate and force the measure through the lower house.
