Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

This is a sad day for this parliament. For 106 years the standing orders have allowed members of parliament to represent their constituents on a range of issues and to debate an issue that may be important in the public arena. I think it is a very sad day. For the Leader of the House to go through his reasons there a moment ago I think is quite disgraceful. This is targeted very much at the Independents. When one looks at the times people have spoken, I am proud to say that in 2006 I spoke on 12 MPIs, Mr Beazley spoke on 10, Mr Rudd on nine, Mr Katter on six, Mr Abbott on six and Mr McGauran and Mr Andrews on eight. If Mr Abbott feels as though he has been left out, there has been an extra hour on most occasions that he—or other members of the government or the opposition—could have made a contribution to the debate. The Leader of the House has also misled the parliament in some of his press utterances. This morning he made the comment that on occasion the three Independents take up half an hour. The Leader of the House may like to prove that, because in the last 12 months the three Independents have never all spoken on the one MPI.

The MPI is the one occasion in this parliament—and I know we have grievance and adjournment debates—where there is a debate about a substantive issue that the general public may see as being important. The rest of the debate in this place is on legislative arrangements and changes or in question time itself. But the MPI is absolutely critical because it does allow debate on substantive matters such as drought, climate change, water, renewable energy, aged care and education. Those issues cross all electoral boundaries and do need to be embraced and discussed in this parliament.

The reason the Leader of the House has taken it upon himself to try and downgrade the contribution that Independents can make goes back a long way. In fact, it goes back to the first few weeks that I was in this parliament, when I was approached by the Leader of the House and was asked: ‘Can you keep your contribution down to five minutes?’ Why should an Independent member of the parliament be given five minutes when government and opposition members are allowed 10? Why should representatives of particular electorates be downgraded in terms of the length of the contribution that they can make? What sort of democracy does the Leader of the House believe in if there is this degree of inequity being built into the procedures of the parliament? Why is the Leader of the House leading this debate? What is the Prime Minister doing about this?

The Prime Minister spent some time only 10 days ago saying he was listening to the people of Australia and hearing them. The matter of public importance, for 106 years, has been the process in this place that allows members of parliament from all sides to address an issue that is of public importance so that the Prime Minister and the parliament can hear about that issue. Halving the time that an MPI discussion can be held for is in fact halving the contribution that members of parliament are able to make.

It is quite right, as the Leader of the House has said, that the average length of MPI discussions is 58 minutes. But on those occasions when there have been critical debates on issues such as drought, climate change, renewable energy or aged care, when there needs to be a greater contribution from the members of the House—those crucial debates, on non-political issues, where people can have their say—we do need that extra time. So I say to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister: if you really believe in democratic processes, do not start trying to devalue the contributions that certain members make, and revisit this process at a future time.

See this speech in context