Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The activity of 18 November, 29 November and 19 December represents promises to the Australian people, not one of which was carried through, and all of which were based on the notion of creating an impression of activity when in fact there was no substantive action. The promise of parliament before Christmas, the promise of no holidays and the promise of the ship at sea within days all were broken. They have led to precisely this point and precisely this moment. What we see with these changes to the standing orders and to the way in which the parliament works is the same pattern of attempting to establish the impression of activity whilst at the same time undermining accountability—and that is a serious action. This may be the first government in Australian history that, upon entering the treasury bench, has actually sought to decrease rather than to strengthen accountability. That is the sum total and the net effect of that which is being proposed by the Leader of the House on the floor of this chamber.

What are the elements of parliamentary accountability about which we have serious concern? The starting point is that we do not care if we work on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or public holidays. What we care about is a part-time parliament in which accountability is decreased. I want to deal with that in three ways. Firstly, let me deal with the question of the number of question times. Last year, 70 question times were set down on the record. Of course, an election intervened, but we were willing to face 70 question times. This year, under this new, bold system, we find a reduction in the number of question times. More significantly than that, though, is that this House will operate under a set of rules which provide a considerable danger to the protections of members and of the public, upon which this House has been based for over 100 years. I want to put a different argument to that which I think anyone else has run this evening, and that is the question of protection of the public. One of the reasons the standing orders allow for divisions and for the Speaker of the day to make rulings to cut off a speaker is that, otherwise, if a member of this parliament—and let us not make assumptions that it will be somebody from one side or the other—as has happened in the past, were to unfairly traduce a member of the public and to make a serious accusation in violation of the conventions and the rules which have been set down to protect the public, there would be no protection and no recourse. Members on the government bench know this.

Forget the members of this House. This opens up a new and dangerous situation where the very protections laid out in this House to accompany the freedoms that members have will be lost to the members of the public. There is a balance here. The members of this House have the freedom of parliamentary privilege but, on the other hand, they are subject to the disciplines of the Speaker, and the Speaker’s ability to enforce those disciplines is utterly dependent upon the capacity to evict people from the House, to do so according to the laws of this House and to do so in such a way that there will be divisions to enforce those laws. So we have a very dangerous precedent here where, for the first time ever, members of this parliament will not be subject to a corresponding protection for members of the public, and that, I think, is a profound new direction. Is that what we stand for—the untrammelled right of a member to in some way traduce a member of the public? We stand here as their representatives but we do not stand here with an untrammelled power. It is not an intended consequence of that which has been proposed by our friends on the government benches, but it is an absolute and clear consequence that there are no protections for the public, and that is something fresh, new, unprecedented, not within the spirit of this parliament and not within our obligations to the people of Australia. If there is one member on the other side who believes that we should have an untrammelled right—because that is what we are creating today—to traduce members of the public, then speak up, because a new and dangerous precedent is being established.

Let me move on to another myth—that is, this notion that private members’ business is a time during which there may not be the need for some other form of division which would allow the opposition to move a suspension of standing orders. As the previous speaker, the member for Kooyong, noted, there have been many examples where the previous opposition interrupted private members’ business to seek a suspension of standing orders to bring to the parliament and the people of Australia items that they thought were of extreme gravitas, of moment, of imminence and of importance. I am not sure whether they were or were not, but I believe in their right to have done so. But that right will not exist on Fridays. That right will not exist during private members’ business.

We all know that the goal here is actually very simple. The goal is, firstly, to give the impression of activity and back it up by taking away accountability at precisely the same time. The truth is—and here is the second great political objective—that it is about keeping opposition backbenchers out of their electorates whilst letting government members travel and work in opposition members’ seats at precisely the same time. If this were a serious proposal for something other than a part-time parliament with no protections for ordinary members of the public then we would have a commitment from our friends on the government benches that their ministers and frontbenchers would attend the parliament every day it is set down, other than under extraordinary circumstances. If they give a guarantee to that effect then I am happy to withdraw that complaint. But I do not think there will be any guarantee. In fact, what was previously a parliamentary day has only today been termed ‘backbenchers’ day’. We have lost the notion that this is a parliamentary day. It has become something less because people will flee and the ministers will not be here.

I started this discussion by talking about the concerted impression of activity and by placing these changes to the standing order in that context. We have seen, firstly, at the political level, the deception of 18 November, when it was promised that the parliament would be back before Christmas.

See this speech in context