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

Just to concur with my colleague, I thought this morning we, as per the schedule, were to be debating a motion on wild dogs moved by the member for Gippsland and not to be, as it looks to have become, debating like wild dogs over issues unrelated to the work of the day. I am concerned, as previous speakers have raised, about what seems to be some backing down on an agreement reached on how this place will and should work as the 43rd Parliament.

There is a process in place that does involve the Selection Committee. There has been no evidence yet over the first 11 months of this parliament of any member of any political persuasion, government, opposition or crossbenchers, being denied their rights to get their bills or motions before the House. In fact, the evidence trail is that we are seeing more opportunity for private members' business from all political persuasions, from all members, than we have ever seen in the history of this parliament before even contentious issues such as pricing carbon and calls for plebiscites. The Leader of the Opposition, with that private member's bill, could not have done that in any other parliament other than this one, because of agreements reached. That has gone through the proper process of the Selection Committee, with the approval of crossbenchers, government members and opposition members involved in that selection committee process, and has been brought forward to the parliament for debate. That is the proper process. If any member wants to use it for any issue that they think is important to them or their constituency, that is the process we have all agreed on.

I see in some commentary that ownership of the 43rd Parliament and parliamentary reform seems to have been given to only a handful of members of this chamber. That is completely incorrect. We were there for the group hug—with the Leader of the House and the Leader of Opposition Business. It was there for all to see. And in a somewhat frivolous moment there were 16 days of genuine committed work when ideas came from Liberal and National party members who for years had argued for parliamentary reform in certain areas. There were also ideas from the Labor Party, who for years had been arguing to have parliamentary reforms in certain areas, as they were from the Greens and from the crossbenchers. We sat around and worked it out and agreed. Now there seems to be some backpedalling on agreements reached, and that should be of concern to all members of this chamber. There is a process in place. I would urge all members to reflect on that and to use those agreed processes for all issues of relevance to public policy in Australia today.

What seems to have become an issue of urgency in the last three days is an issue that has been around, by the looks of it from what I read in the paper, for at least three years—and, by the looks of it, there are certainly issues developing.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

As the Father of the House interjects, I would hope he has seen enough business in this chamber, in government and in opposition, to stand strongly by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle under the rule of law that should stand for a Labor member, a crossbench member, a Greens member, an opposition member, members in the upper house, and 22 million Australian citizens under the rule of law in this country. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle we should all defend if we want to defend democracy and the parliamentary processes.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

So until the evidence is in—

Honourable members interjecting—

See this speech in context