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

The member for Isaacs loves to shout because he is not very good at argument. He is only really good at bellowing. He is not good at arguing; he is very good at shouting. The problem is: I have the microphone and I am not going to stop just because we have a loud member of the audience in the member for Isaacs.

In the Manager of Opposition Business's defence, he tried to comment on every other subject because he knows how wrong he is. He tried to talk about the Racial Discrimination Act and the changes to section 18C; freedom of speech; South Australian politics; even student politics. He did everything other than talk about the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is that he should apologise to the Speaker for denigrating the Speaker's role, for attacking the chair based on a falsehood. So I would like to give him the opportunity to do the right thing. This motion will be carried because the government—and, I hope, the crossbenchers, but certainly the government—will support it and, if the crossbenchers support it, the government would be pleased.

The Manager of Opposition Business should apologise in order to uphold the dignity of the chair. Whether he likes the occupant of the chair or he dislikes the occupant of the chair is not the issue that is at hand. It is upholding the dignity of the Speakership, which parliaments have done since 1901. It would also show that he is a true gentleman. Gentlemen, when they have been shown to be wrong about something, do the right thing and apologise for it. They are bigger people for doing so. They are limited, quite frankly, when they do not apologise. They show themselves to be bigger men if, when they have been proven to be wrong, they front up and they apologise.

But I am also giving the member for Watson this opportunity because I believe he should try and repair his relationship with the chair. Since the day you became Speaker, Madam Speaker, he has tried to insult and denigrate you in this role. Partisan politics have replaced the dignity of the Speakership from the opposition's point of view. In my view, Madam Speaker, if he does not apologise to you as Speaker today, then his position as Manager of Opposition Business is untenable and he cannot go on in the role. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a very precarious hold on the leadership of the Labor Party and it is very hard for him to discipline his frontbenchers, to stand up to the factions; and I know the member for Watson is a factional warlord from New South Wales and has strong right-wing support, and the New South Wales right wing has strong support in the Labor caucus. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show that he has the bottle, that he has the character and the bottle, to be the leader of the Labor Party—a real leader of the Labor Party, a leader like Bob Hawke, a leader like Paul Keating: they would act against one of their frontbenchers who had shown such a deleterious hold on the position that they held. In fact, very early on in the Hawke government, Mick Young, a leader of the House, was asked to stand down from the front bench over a matter. He was very close to the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. He was asked to stand down because he had proven himself to be wrong about something. That is the kind of Labor Party that the Labor Party used to be, not the Labor Party of today.

But I will give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity to apologise, to take back many of the remarks that he made in the House. He said things yesterday to you, Madam Speaker, in quite an unbridled attack on the Speakership. He said:

… your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this.

He said:

I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair—

'cashed in on you being in that chair'. Madam Speaker, that one reflects personally on you. That one reflects personally on the judgement call that you made that previous Speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or were Speakers who had enough integrity to say no.

I could go on, but the government has important business of the day that we want to get on with. I have made an arrangement with the opposition that the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, will apparently respond on behalf of the Manager of Opposition Business. Doesn't that speak volumes? Members of the government, the gallery and the press should take careful note. The former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, is going to deliver to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And do you know why, Madam Speaker?

An opposition member interjecting—

Of course he can speak twice—the other motion was for the suspension of standing orders, Michael, keep up. The point is that the member for Grayndler has to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business because he is just better at the job. The former Leader of the House is better at the job and the member for Watson, by allowing the former Leader of the House to respond on his behalf, is admitting what we all know already—that he is just not up to it. If he was really up to it, he would be standing up on his two hind legs and defending himself in the chamber. He is not doing that and I will tell you why: because his position is indefensible. The evidence for that is that the member for Grayndler is, admittedly, probably the opposition's best parliamentary performer—the one who should be the Manager of Opposition Business in the House but who gave it up to the member for Watson, probably as part of a cunning plan hatched when he first lost the leadership to the factional choice over the people's choice. But we will listen with interest to the defence of the should-be Manager of Opposition Business. We will listen with interest to his defence of the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who, quite frankly, if he had the bottle would be prepared to defend himself. More importantly, if he had the bottle, he would be prepared to apologise and move on.

See this speech in context