Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of the Selection Committee I would like to address some of the points that have been raised so far about the integrity of the Selection Committee process. As someone who has sat on the Selection Committee, as members in this place are probably aware but members of the public may not be, opposition, government and crossbench members have the opportunity to come to the Selection Committee and identify which motions they want to be debated. Those motions are then debated the next week and voted on soon after that. If one wants a motion debated, it can happen in less than two weeks.

In all the Selection Committee meetings that I have been to, not once has anyone from the coalition asked for this motion to be debated. If they actually want it to be debated—and it is well within their rights to do so—they could simply have asked for it to happen. We could even be having a vote on it today had they got their act into gear and identified the motion before. If they want to do it at the next Selection Committee, they can do it then. The Selection Committee met twice this week and at no stage did anyone from the coalition ask for this motion to be debated. I think on that basis alone that the amendment should be rejected. If it is not, then we do not have an orderly process for dealing with private members' motions, and that is something that will ultimately come back to affect all of us in the parliament who want to move private members' motions and have them debated and voted on in an orderly way.

One thing I can say about the operation of the Selection Committee and this parliament so far is that it has provided, I think, unique opportunities for matters to be debated that in a majority parliament would not be debated. I think that as a process it has worked well. Indeed, we have seen as a result legislation passed through this parliament that has originated from the member for Denison and from members of the crossbench. If we jeopardise this process, we might lose that opportunity.

I simply encourage the member for Sturt, if he wants to move this motion, to get his representatives on the Selection Committee—and they could have done it a day or two ago—to have time set aside for it to be debated. I can guarantee that I will be amongst the first, as I have done consistently on the Selection Committee, to make sure that opposition motions have just as much time to be debated and that the government is held to its promise that they be voted on in a timely manner. I think that is critical if we are to allow the views of private members in this place to be debated in an orderly way.

On the point about whether or not there ought to be a suspension of standing orders, as I have indicated previously I do not believe as a general rule it is for this parliament to compel members to attend and give answers to questions. Certainly, from what we know about the member for Dobell at the moment, I do not think the facts suggest that there is any reason that he is entitled to anything other than the presumption of innocence. I do think that we should respect proper processes and this parliament should not become a court. This parliament should not become a Star Chamber. However, I do think that, reflecting on the points that have been made in the debate, perhaps the member in question should consider whether voluntarily appearing and making a statement would clear the air, but that is a matter for him. On the facts at the moment, it would not be right for the parliament to seek to compel him to appear or to draw any adverse inference from his failure to make such a statement. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendment.

See this speech in context