Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

Most bad mistakes take a while to develop but, by golly, this government has peaked early with this set of motions today. It took 10 long years for the last federal Labor government to become so arrogant that the PM could routinely excuse himself from scheduled parliamentary sittings. Remember the infamous Keating rostered day off? The Keating rostered day off was 10 years in the making from the last federal Labor government. But here, less than 10 hours into the new parliament, the new Labor Prime Minister is so arrogant that he wants to have that same privilege for himself: a Friday RDO—a Friday Rudd day off. There is something fundamentally wrong about this.

The government speakers, one after another, have tried to defend this folly but they have spectacularly failed to justify it in each of those contributions, let alone to defend those empty arguments that have meekly been brought forward by Labor in an attempt to mask what is a horrendously bad idea. Thankfully, the opposition speakers have helped all in this parliament come to terms with just what a rotten idea it is. It has been clearly, concisely, comprehensively evidenced by coalition members; we have illustrated the nonsense of this idea.

I am happy to work on a Friday; I am happy for the parliament to sit on a Friday. But a Labor ‘lite’ parliament on a Friday is not something that anyone in this parliament should subscribe to. Look at the Prime Minister’s words. To the new members I say: cop a load of some of the soaring rhetoric we had from Mr Rudd when he was in opposition. He said on 8 February 2006:

The function of the parliament is to hold the executive accountable. How do we do that? We ask the executive questions.

That sounds like a good idea, but apparently not on a Friday. He then goes further. On 20 September 2007 Mr Rudd again says:

The purpose of the parliament is for the opposition to pose questions to the executive and the purpose of the parliament is to get answers from the executive.

Well, apparently not on a Friday. And it keeps happening: for example, matters of public importance. Those new members should look at the member for Griffith’s contribution on 15 February 2005. It is just magnificent! After being unhappy with the answers he felt he was not getting and then unhappy with the answers he was getting—he said he was not getting any answers that he could feel happy or unhappy about—he launched into a story about how the Howard government had in fact caused the death of Westminster. He said it had caused the death of Westminster, because he was unhappy with the answers he was getting. If there are no questions asked at all, what is that—the cremation of Westminster, achieved by this new government within the first 10 hours that it has been in the parliament? Let me quote what the member for Griffith had to say:

The core element of the Westminster system of government is ministerial accountability to parliament and this House.

Apparently so—just not on a Friday. He said:

The last time I looked, honourable members, the person who answers to this parliament on behalf of the government was called the Prime Minister—not the defence minister, not the foreign minister, but the Prime Minister—and last time I looked he got a pretty big pay cheque. He runs the show; he likes it.  He gets the flash house on Sydney Harbour. He is the core of the accountability system that is supposed to operate in this House.

Alas, not on a Friday. Because he was unhappy with the answers that he was getting, he went on to accuse the former Prime Minister of being ‘someone who increasingly resembles Louis XIV’—remarkable stuff. Even today, for those who were uplifted by your election, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and that of Mr Jenkins and others—a very special moment—we heard the Prime Minister say that scrutiny is a good thing for all of us, for the speakership and for each of us as members of this parliament and that it adds to our modern democracy—except on a Friday.

So this motion contains quite a remarkable proposition. The Prime Minister went on to talk about robust debates being the heart and soul and the nature of a vibrant Australian democracy—but apparently not on a Friday. I say to those members opposite: what does this mean for you? A grievance debate is an opportunity for you to raise in this parliament something that is burning away in your constituency. The idea is to raise those points in the hope that those with the responsibility and the opportunity to remedy those grievances will do so. What do you do if those responsible are a no-show? What if they are part of the long Labor lunch on a Friday and they are just not here? It is a Labor ‘lite’ parliament on a Friday and no-one is here to hear your eloquent speeches in the grievance debate.

There is some prospect that your private member’s motion might actually be voted upon, but there will be nobody here to take notice of it. To all of you who championed the cause of collective bargaining, where were you when you got ripped off with this proposition? Some of you will have to be here but others will be able to have the long Labor lunch on the Labor ‘lite’ Friday when the parliament is operating with an arm and a leg tied behind its back. Where were you collective bargaining advocates? Our Prime Minister went on to say that ministerial accountability means precisely that: they should be responsible to the parliament for their actions. How you can be responsible and be a no-show on a Friday is beyond me.

I turn to one last point. I know that some members in this House—much to our chagrin—have come a cropper on the ways in which we hold people’s behaviour to account. You can get up to some mischief in here and they will warn you. You can go a little bit further and they may warn you again. But then you might get sin-binned for one hour. The idea behind it is that to be out of this parliament and not representing your constituency for one hour is a great embarrassment to you, as the member. You have diminished the parliament and your constituency by being barred for an hour or, if worse comes to worst and you are named, 24 hours. Where are standards of behaviour going when, before the day even starts on a Friday, you do not have to be here? What does that say about the parliament?

The propositions brought forward by the new Labor government diminish this parliament. Do yourselves a favour: support the opposition’s amendments and restore the interests of the nation, restore the interests of the parliament, look after your own interests and, above all, give collective bargaining a go-on when you are working here.

See this speech in context