Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Only a few hours ago after the appointment of the Speaker, the Prime Minister was talking about the importance of having a parliament that functions smoothly, provides opportunity for policy debates and gives an opportunity for members of parliament to keep the government accountable. He has said that on a number of occasions previously, and members have quoted from his earlier statements. Let me add another one. On the Nine network this week—not an ancient comment, just this week—the Prime Minister said:

… my job—

as the Prime Minister—

is to try and restore some respect to the place …

The Prime Minister earlier said:

In the past I think a bad tradition has crept in whereby rarely was the parliament used as the forum of the people … I will be encouraging ministers to use the parliament much more in that respect …

So a couple of days ago the Prime Minister was going to ask his ministers to use the parliament more. A few hours later, 14 sitting days will be held every year without a minister present, without anybody bothering to show up. What sort of accountability is that? Indeed, we will have a part-time parliament. There will be several days a week when ministers will attend, but on Fridays no ministers will be present in the parliament.

The reforms being presented today are not minor adjustments to the standing orders. This is radical reform that reduces the accountability of the parliament. And I am glad to be speaking after the Chief Government Whip, because it is well known around the place that he is the architect of these new proposals, and he has embarrassed the Leader of the House by trying to force them through the parliament. I think the Leader of the House knows that this is an assault on the democratic process and that this is denying the proper processes of accountability in the parliament, yet he is being set up here by the Chief Government Whip to try and put these sorts of proposals through the parliament.

It has always been the tradition that the government consults the opposition about significant changes to the standing orders. That has not happened in this case. The government announced before Christmas that they were going to make these significant changes—with a lot of fanfare, with the usual compliant media trotting along in agreement. This was sold to us by the Leader of the House as being extra sitting days, extra accountability. In reality, it is not. It is less accountability.

There will be fewer question times under these new arrangements than there were previously. There will be more sitting days with no ministers present than we have ever countenanced in the past. There will be less accountability, fewer opportunities for questions to be asked, fewer answers provided. There will be fewer sitting weeks than there have traditionally been in the past. There will be more days when there will be no ministers present but fewer when the parliament will have the opportunity to question ministers and to get answers. There will be fewer weeks, fewer question times, fewer matters of public importance. Ministers will attend parliament less often. That is the fundamental nature of these reforms and we should not forget it.

The government is bringing this in without going through a proper process of consultation. In an announcement in the media five hours before this debate begins, details of the proposals are made public. It has not gone off to the Procedure Committee, as you would normally expect. We have had Procedure Committee meetings regularly, year in, year out. There have been plenty of opportunities to talk about these sorts of things; it has not happened. We could in fact have a Procedure Committee meeting over the next week or two and introduce these things a little bit later on, but, no, the government is going to insist that these items, these changes, be imposed upon the parliament immediately. That is not an appropriate way for us to negotiate the workings of this parliament.

A lot of the procedures in this parliament are essentially by convention. They are not written in detail in the standing orders. They are not in the Constitution. They are by convention. If the government is going to break down the convention by just arrogantly imposing its will on the everyday sittings of the parliament, the trust and the confidence that makes this parliament work will be destroyed.

The Keating government went into its second term before the most arrogant Prime Minister in our history declared that he was too important to have to attend parliament, rostering himself off every second day. The Keating government went into its second term before ministers decided that only half of them needed to be bothered to turn up every day. This government is doing it on its very first day. Ministers are going to excuse themselves from 14 sitting days in a year.

I know we have all heard about the new frontbench made up of 70 per cent union officials. They are experts at negotiating, I am told, the best possible pay and conditions. Well, they have really hit the jackpot here. On their very first day, the frontbench, the union officials, have negotiated themselves a rostered day off every Friday. Every Friday they take the day off—14 days off before they have even started, no cuts in pay, no improvements in productivity, just 14 days off a year before we even start.

I would like to emphasise that this is a thinly disguised attempt by the government to make sure that ministers can trip around the country, do whatever they like, and not turn up for parliament on this day. They have no intention of being here on a Friday. I challenge the two ministers at the table to give us a guarantee that they will be here on Fridays. I challenge the Leader of the House: will you be here on Fridays? One of the ministers previously at the table has already acknowledged that he has got no intention of being here on a Friday.

If you ever had any doubt that some of them might turn up, ask yourself: why we are getting up on Thursdays at 5 pm? Why are we not sitting for an extra five hours on Thursday? If we were then you would not need the extra day on Friday. Most members are going to have to stay here in Canberra on Thursday night, but the House is getting up at five o’clock. Well, the cat is out of the bag: the reason it is getting up at five o’clock is that the ministers will all be flying out. They will all be leaving on Thursday afternoon, and you will not see them again.

Can I address a few comments to the government backbenchers, who are the victims of a lot of these proposed changes. You are the cannon fodder. You are the people that are expected to turn up for the divisions. You are the ones that are going to have to be here when the quorums are called. Your days are going to be ruined because there will be quorum after quorum after quorum after quorum. You are the victims. You are going to be expected to sit here in the parliament and work all day Friday while your leaders, the frontbench, are all at home. They are all at the cricket, having lunch or having the day off, but you are going to have to stay here working.

On Thursday nights, when you are sitting alone in your hotel room in Canberra, you will know that the ministers are already back with their families in their capital cities, enjoying a night with their kids or going to the school play. You will be here lonely and deserted in Canberra while your ministers are enjoying themselves back at home. And all day Friday, when you are here working, the ministers will be off to have lunch with their mates. They will be tripping around the countryside, having another rostered day off.

Most of you are union officials as well. How did you let them get away with this? You have a reputation for your tough negotiating skills but you have let your bosses take the day off while you stay working in the factory. What sort of a deal is that? You have certainly allowed the frontbench, the union bosses, to ride roughshod over you on your very first day. You will have to work here in parliament on Friday but no-one will be listening. You will be making a grievance debate speech but the minister who can fix it will not be here; he will be at the cricket or having lunch with his mates. You will be wanting to raise a matter of significance in a 90-second statement and there will be nobody here to listen. Nobody who has the capacity to make a decision will even be listening. They will all be travelling around the countryside having a great time while you are here doing the hackwork.

We are prepared to be here. We are prepared to do what needs to be done. We are prepared to have more parliamentary sittings. It is pretty tough for people who live in Western Australia or even in a country area like mine. I will not be able to get home at all on the weekends because of the time that is involved. But I will be here and I will be enthusiastically wanting to ask questions of ministers who will not be here. They are probably going to be campaigning in your electorate or mine while we are here doing our jobs for the parliament. Let me assure you that I, for one, will be asking questions every week about where the ministers were on Friday. Were they in the parliament answering to the parliamentarians and to the people or were they off enjoying themselves on their rostered day off?

I will be asking where the government members are. We have already had one member, the member for Leichhardt, let the cat out of the bag. He is going to shoot through. I will be making sure that the people of Leichhardt know that their member shot through—that because he thought the parliamentary sittings so unimportant and because he had no matters of importance to raise from the people of his electorate he shot through. You cannot blame him for planning to shoot through, because there will be no minister here to hear what he has to say. Whatever he says will be lost. His pearls of wisdom will disappear into thin air because there will be no minister here to hear them. There will be no accountability; there will be no opportunity to get the facts through and to make sure that the concerns of your constituents can be genuinely heard.

Where will our ministers be? The Leader of the House is obviously embarrassed to have to try to pilot through the parliament this lemon of a change to the sitting arrangements of the parliament, which will reduce accountability and make the life of his backbench members pretty uncomfortable. The Chief Government Whip is the one who is going to have to lock you all in this place for the Friday. He will have to lock you in here because you will have to be here to make up the numbers. Your ministers will not. They will all be having their rostered days off. I think it is about time you asked when you will have your rostered days off. The ministers will not be in here for the quorums; it will be the backbenchers who will be in here for the quorums. You are the ones who are going to have to try to make this new system work, because the ministers are simply walking away from it.

If I am to support proposals like this, I want an assurance that ministers will be present on Friday. If they are prepared to give us an assurance that they will be here when the parliament is sitting then that will make the sittings worth while. Members will feel that what they have to say, their contributions on important issues, will be listened to by the people who can make decisions. But, if the ministers are not going to be here, they should not be such hypocrites as to demand that other people are here when they are not. Do not be such a hypocrite as to suggest that other people should come here and make the parliament work when those who are supposed to be accountable—the ministers, the heads of department, the people who are supposed to be running the policy of our nation—are not here. If they are not here then why would you reasonably expect that other people should come? If we are going to sit on Friday, we have to have ministers in the House, we have to have a question time and we have to have a matter of public importance. It has to be a proper parliamentary sitting day.

While I am at it, why can’t we have a matter of public importance debate on a Monday? Why does that have to be left off the program as well? Particularly as you are proposing to have these extra private members business hours on a Friday, why aren’t we also having an MPI on a Monday? The reality is that this government does not want any accountability. It does not want to have to answer the questions. It has been elected with no ideas, it does not know what it is going to do, it does not have a clue how to manage the economy—it is going to fly in 1,000 people to give it a few ideas so that it knows what to do—and so it is trying to avoid scrutiny.

I welcome the architect of the ideas back into the chamber, because he is going to have the tough job of trying to explain to people why this will be of any benefit at all to them. Has he endeavoured to explain to his backbenchers why it is reasonable for them to sit here in Canberra while the ministers are all at home enjoying life with their families, while they are rostered off for every Friday? Why is that fair? Why is that reasonable? Why couldn’t you consult the parliament about introducing a fair and reasonable system? This is an assault on accountability. This is a dreadful start for a government that came in suggesting that it was going to be more accountable and more open. This will be a closed government not prepared to answer questions and not prepared to expose itself to scrutiny.

See this speech in context