Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to move dissent in this situation, but I make the point that you have broken new ground as Speaker in relation to questions that are available to the opposition. When we cannot ask the Prime Minister a direct question about public comments he made as Prime Minister about the behaviour of one of his own members, then this parliament is reduced to a shambles by that sort of ruling. There is a rich history in this place over the last 12 years of questions that have been asked in relation to individual members of parliament and in relation to the Prime Minister’s discussions with those members of parliament. If you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, I refer you to questions that were asked in September 2007 in this parliament by the member for Brisbane. There was a question about the behaviour of the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton and the police investigation in relation to that. Why at that time did the Speaker allow questions to be asked about a police investigation when you, Sir, ruled them out of order yesterday? I will go one step further. In September 2007 the now Leader of the House asked a question of the then Speaker about the printing entitlements and the police investigation relating to the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton.

It goes further. In 2001 the Labor opposition asked almost 20 questions without notice in this House regarding Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, and the application of a GST by his own federal political party. That is assumed to be a breach of page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice but—do you know what?—the Speaker allowed those questions to be asked. Furthermore, in March 2005 the Labor opposition asked five questions without notice in this House about the behaviour of Senator Ross Lightfoot, a member of the Senate. They asked a question to the Prime Minister about what Senator Lightfoot had done and the Speaker at that time allowed those questions to be asked. I might also note that the member for Griffith—the now Prime Minister, who is walking out of the chamber; he is running away—asked a question. The member for Griffith asked a question about Senator Lightfoot. He was allowed to ask that question in the chamber. The Speaker allowed that to proceed. Then, if you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, Mr Speaker, in February 2005 the Labor opposition asked four questions without notice about the behaviour of Graeme Hallett, an employee at that time of the then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. But, Mr Speaker, yesterday and today you are ruling out questions where we not inquire about the behaviour of the member for Robertson but ask the Prime Minister specifically about what he said to the member for Robertson and what he said publicly about those discussions.

Mr Speaker, if we cannot ask those basic questions that go to the heart of democracy about whether a Prime Minister has formed a view about one of his own colleagues, but more significantly if we are not allowed to ask a question about the Prime Minister’s own public statements, then we do move dissent from your ruling. We are very concerned about a trend that this is establishing. It is not page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice that you are relying on, Mr Speaker, and it is certainly not the standing orders you are relying on. We cannot find an example where a question to a Prime Minister has been ruled out of order when it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s own public statements. We cannot find an example of that. This is new ground that you, as Speaker, are treading upon and it cuts to the heart of the value of question time.

Mr Speaker, if we still go to page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, as you, Mr Speaker, appear to be relying on and as the Prime Minister relied on yesterday in relation to police investigations, I note that from November 2005 until May 2007 the member for Griffith, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, joined in in asking 190 questions without notice about issues before a royal commission. Forget the police investigation run by the New South Wales police; the opposition previously asked 190 questions whilst a royal commission was being held on the subject matter. The Speaker at the time allowed those questions to be asked.

If we go back to 2002, we see that the Labor opposition asked over 60 questions without notice in the House with regard to the so-called ‘children overboard’ issue. At that time, the now Minister for Trade specifically referred to staff of the Prime Minister: Tony Nutt and Tony O’Leary. Over the years, the Labor opposition specifically referred to numerous staff—even going back to 1996, when they were asking about travel rorts. But, no, under you as Speaker, we are not allowed to ask questions that involve the staff of a member of parliament or of the Prime Minister.

This is a significant issue for this parliament. If you, Mr Speaker, are creating new ground in restricting the questions that can be asked of a Prime Minister about his public statements, it cuts to the heart of the value of this chamber as a chamber of the people. We believe that we have the right—and it goes to the foundations of what this parliament stands for—to ask the Prime Minister questions. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about public statements. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about his duties and responsibilities as Prime Minister. In this case, he made his comments in Japan, as Prime Minister, at a prime ministerial press conference. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has made further statements, even earlier in question time, and the same principle applied to the last question as applies now. But you, Mr Speaker, have two different rulings on the question of admissibility.

If we cannot ask questions about an issue that goes to the integrity of a member of parliament—or, indeed, to the integrity of the Prime Minister—then question time is enormously devalued. It also, I might add, affects the impartiality of the chamber. It is a very serious issue. The Prime Minister, in this situation, was asked a specific question about his specific words, his public comments. The specific point, which I made, was: to what was the Prime Minister referring when he said—and it is public—that there was ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’? That goes back to a press conference the Prime Minister had on 11 June, where he said:

… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.

The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has formed a view. If we are not entitled to ask the Prime Minister why he has formed a view about a member of parliament—and it goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Prime Minister—then what are we doing here? This goes beyond page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, it goes beyond the standing orders and it cuts to the very heart of democracy. If an opposition cannot ask questions of a Prime Minister, then it devalues not just the Prime Minister and not just the parliament but also the democracy that we all believe in.

See this speech in context