Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

While some members of the Labor Party believe that the 24-hour news cycle, or even the 12-hour news cycle, should determine how we operate in this parliament and think that it is simply a game of sport—that it is about who is winning at any particular time—the truth is that these matters are of great import to the relationship this parliament has with the executive and to the relationship between the executive and the Crown. So these matters should be taken very seriously.

The Speaker has taken these matters seriously. The Speaker has spent the last week deliberating on this matter. He did not rule last Thursday that the bill could not proceed. I think that the Leader of the House has also taken these matters seriously, because he has not pushed the Speaker on this matter. He has allowed the Speaker to come to a view. The Speaker has quite properly sought the input of the clerks, a paper has been produced and the Speaker has made a decision. We disagree with the Speaker's ruling and so this motion before the chair is that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. We put that dissent motion so that the power of the parliament, the prerogative of the parliament and the sovereignty of the people can be upheld.

We do not seek to direct the executive. We do not seek to direct the Crown. Some characterise the bill we are putting up as an appropriation bill, but I note that others do not. The President of the Senate, Senator Hogg, does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate takes the view that, because an appropriation is already in the parliament—because there have already been appropriations placed in the parliament for these matters—this is not a new appropriation and therefore the Senate can deal with such a bill. So why would the Senate have greater powers than the House of Representatives? It is simply absurd to suggest that the Senate would give itself more powers than the House of Representatives, which is of course the people's house. While the people vote for the Senate, the different voting system means that the House of Representatives can most properly be characterised as the people's house. I urge people to support the dissent motion. (Time expired)

See this speech in context