Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Be bored in silence. It is just astonishing that the government is trying to knock off MPIs, question times, quorums and divisions. You call that a parliamentary day! There is a real issue, as has been raised, about the constitutionality of not being able to have quorums. There is a real question about whether in fact the House will be in session. We are assured that it will be. We ask for the legal opinions; they are not forthcoming. Firstly, I would like to see the legal opinions because I think all of us are at risk if it is found that the House is not sitting with its full functions.

Secondly, I believe there are genuine issues about the ability of members to service their electorates if they are forced to be in Canberra on Fridays. It is not that significant for some members who live nearby—Sydney, Melbourne. It is very significant for people from Western Australia. It is significant for people from the Northern Territory, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration.

I think that there is a real issue regarding the impact of this on private members’ business. The great argument has been put by the Leader of the House—and I congratulate him on his elevation—that somehow this is no different from what happened in the past during private members’ business: that there were no suspensions, no divisions, no quorums. Let me seek to make the Leader of the House remember the suspension of standing orders moved on 16 February 2005. Mr Albanese moved:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 6, private members’ business, relating to the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2005, being called on forthwith ...

There was a suspension in private members’ business, a suspension of standing and sessional orders moved. Mr Windsor—this particularly impacts on the Independents—moved:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for New England from moving the following motion immediately:That this House:

(1)

bring forward the debate on the Private Members’ bill—Fuel Quality Standards (Ethanol content) Amendment Bill 2005;

There was a division. Let me just go to another one: Mr SF Smith moved:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members’ business Notice No. 3 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Perth being called on and debated ...

We have always had suspensions of standing orders in the context of private members’ bills. I think that this is of fundamental importance not just because the Leader of the House misinformed the House about the practice but because I believe it goes to the heart of the rights and abilities of backbench members, private members, to pursue their interests. Let us face it: the characteristic move of the eighties, nineties and into the 2000s was the progressive encroachment of party discipline on the ability of private members to pursue issues. What this does is further undermine the ability of private members to pursue matters—

See this speech in context