Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think there are many of us in this chamber from regional areas who are salivating at the chance to talk about better regional access to education and I know there are many members of parliament who are also salivating at the chance to have some parliamentary push-back on the executive. This is therefore a welcome debate before the House this afternoon. I need to also reflect and hopefully remind the House why we are able to have this debate: it is because we have a working parliament with tight numbers.

We have had a successful vote on the opposition motion on youth allowance because we were able to negotiate in this parliament the ability of private members to bring forward motions and private members’ bills for debate in this House. We are having a vote because this parliament allows for debate and consideration on private members’ bills. I think generally we are talking about regional education because of some sensitivities of many members of parliament pushing the importance of regional education and access and participation in education.

We are also talking about some of the deeper questions faced by a chamber such as this with regard to the roles that are played by a parliament and members of parliament versus those played by the executive. Again, it is not a debate that is normally had when there is a majority government, so I welcome this opportunity. Hopefully, all members will reflect on why we are having this debate and the advantages that come with a tight parliament, and hopefully those traditions can now continue whenever a majority government returns in the future.

I think the point was made in earlier debate about reflecting on traditions of parliamentary procedure and practice; however, it is also fair and quite right to say that this is a unique set of circumstances, and so those traditions need to be lined up against the realities of the moment. We should not be afraid of, if need be, shaping precedent for the future and being aspirational about shaping a direction for this parliament and the people of this country that is in the national interest.

With regard to regional education, access to education and youth allowance, I would not be on my feet right now if it were not an important issue. To be fair to all sides of politics, I know many members of parliament, both privately and publicly, have also expressed similar views. We can bang on about the politics, but the reality is there is an issue, there is a problem and it does need to be resolved. Before we get there, however, we are also in denial if we do not recognise there is a constitutional question before the chair. I will not say whether I agree or disagree, but there is a question before the chair. The clerks of the House of Representatives deserve to be listened to. Their advice and the advice from the Speaker deserve to be heard. We can deny it, but I think the legal advice to government and the detail that has been provided deserves to be listened to and considered.

From my perspective, I accept the fact that an appropriation without savings is questionable with regard to constitutionality. We can argue yes or no, but what is without doubt is that, if a precedent is established from this legislation, it is definitely unwieldy with regard to the way government would operate into the future. So we have constitutional lawyers at 10 paces, but in the end the question is: can government function with members of parliament in US congress style putting up private members’ bills with money attached to them and without savings measures? That deserves consideration, and I accept that that is a step too far for functioning government.

However, there is an amendment from the Greens and it captures the compromise position. If there were to be savings measures attached to bills in the future, that is a sensible move for parliamentarians to demonstrate in whatever they want to bring forward as a preferred issue that it is important to them. If they can attach to that legislation savings measures of an appropriate amount, I think it is a sensible amendment to the principles of how an Australian House of Representatives could or should work into the future.

That amendment is one that I will certainly be supporting, and I will be interested to see how all parties deal with it. I can only guess that the government will violently oppose it, again from the executive position. The question will be for the opposition to consider, because denying that as an opportunity when going for an even higher standard of having direct access to the Treasury bench from opposition is an odd position. The question of Treasury or bust versus a compromised position where all of us have to meet the discipline of presenting bills with financial savings as well as any money requests, I think, is important for a parliament in its dealings with the executive and the Treasury.

In the case of the bill that has come from the Senate, and in particular from Senator Nash—and I congratulate her, by the way, for bringing this bill forward and bringing the issue forward to this House—I hope it is an example to some of her party colleagues, not in this place but in the other place, who got us into this mess or were a party to getting us into this mess. At the end of the last parliament, the Senate cut an ugly deal that created this concept of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ regional areas and placed a geography test on top of a poorness test. That has proven to be a failure. So for Senator Nash to pick that up early and bring it on, I think, deserves congratulations, and hopefully the Senate has learnt a lesson on the back of that.

See this speech in context