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

I appreciate the House allowing an extension of this debate, and it is entirely appropriate that a motion has been put and, as is the right of all members, for some members to want to dissent from that ruling. The matters of the last fortnight do weigh heavily. I would hope other members are like me and wake up in the middle of the night worrying about the standing orders and trying to work through the issues of the last two weeks. I would hope this is not going to mean sleepless nights for the next two years. I would hope that this is a moment when we clarify and, from that, stabilise the processes of government not only for this parliament but also for future parliaments when these questions may arise. This is therefore an opportunity, not a threat, for this parliament to resolve some of these issues.

I want to clarify the issue of the last week because it is going to be important to the views on this motion. I believe in the independence of a Speaker, I believe in the authority of a Speaker, and I have confidence in a Speaker. There may be some confusion about the position taken on a naming motion. I do not believe that anyone should vote in this place based on the implications of a future vote. When a member is named, in no way is that reflecting on the chair. It is weighing up the issue before me as a member of parliament and, if I do not see or hear the incident in question, that is not dissenting from or seeking a wont for disorder in the House. It is basically making a ruling at my end on the question that is being put before me as to whether there was or was not disorder. For whatever reason, whether it is the location that we sit in this House or any other reason, I did not see or hear what happened.

For that reason, without that being confused with any sort of challenge to the confidence or independence of the chair, I will be referring the matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure to clarify because, if we are serious about an independent Speaker, the question then is why the Speaker has to put a vote to seek order in the chamber. Now we have put in place in this parliament a system of an independent Speaker, potentially we could align that with giving the Speaker the authority to not only dismiss someone for an hour but also potentially for 24 hours. That is, hopefully, a question that would resolve the issue at my end and resolve the issue for this parliament.

Consistently, that leads into the thinking behind the question before us. If we are to believe in the independence of a Speaker and to have confidence in the authority of a Speaker, then this process is entirely appropriate. The bill that was put before the House had some questions around its status of whether it is a money bill or not. There were several of us who asked the question—and expressed frustration—about whether these bills were leaving open that question. We had advice from the Clerk, for example, and advice from the Parliamentary Library that was completely contradictory. For that reason, the Speaker quite rightly took on the issue of trying to resolve it.

If the clerks are the clerks of the parliament and not the executive, then they have duly done their job of providing advice to the Speaker of the parliament, not the executive, and the Speaker has provided advice to the parliament that is now—having gone through a due and proper process—entirely worthy of support, if we are to accept that we have an independent Speaker that we have confidence in. I do. I think we do have an independent Speaker whom we have confidence in. The process that we have gone through to get the advice that we have got has been appropriate. Therefore, I will not be supporting the motion before the House.

See this speech in context