Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Was that your idea, member for Isaacs? It would have been the member for Isaacs' idea—Rumpole's idea—to put 7 August in.

But I digress, Mr Speaker. What we have here is a clear political stunt on behalf of the Labor Party, and what a sad day when the Labor Party are reduced to political stunts in support of One Nation, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team in the Senate. That is what they have been reduced to—lining up with the Greens, One Nation and the NXT. They will not preference One Nation, apparently, but they are quite happy to adopt their bills and support them in this place.

So what we have is a shambles on the opposition side, where they have their motion wrong. They are trying to get around the question of acquiring 76 votes to suspend the standing orders in order to take a measure in this House. I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, and I seek your clarification at the end of my remarks: how is it, under the Selection Committee requirements, under standing order 41, that a motion that effectively suspends standing order 41 and tries to take out of the hands of the Selection Committee the power on private members' business, which is specifically provided for in the standing orders, does not require an absolute majority to be carried, as opposed to a simple majority? An absolute majority is required to suspend the standing orders, and what the Manager of Opposition Business has tried to do is get around the requirement of the standing orders that when there is a motion to suspend the standing orders—to set aside a particular standing order, in this case standing order 41—76 votes are required. As the Leader of the House, I would put it to you that it is a very dangerous precedent to allow an amendment to a motion which, in its effect, seeks to change the application of the standing orders. It is a very serious precedent to allow that to be a simple majority. I would put it to you that it should be a 76-vote majority required, therefore an absolute majority.

Even if that were not the case, members of the government side should not vote for this motion, because it is a political stunt. I can understand groups like the NXT, the Greens, the Katter party and One Nation engaging in these kinds of political stunts, but there is a process. The member for Kennedy has his own private member's bill to deal with the banks, which is going through the normal processes, and the government has allowed that to happen. Therefore, the normal processes of the parliament should be respected. When the parliament starts to undermine the standing orders and the processes of this place, it is a very long road to chaos in this place indeed. How long would a piece of string look on that basis? If we allowed the normal processes of this place, which have been in place for 117 years—for 117 years clerks and speakers have been interpreting the law of the parliament—

See this speech in context