Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I want to commence by acknowledging that the Leader of the House has consulted with the opposition and, I'm informed, with the crossbench on the changes that are proposed in the motion that is before the House this afternoon. He has accurately foreshadowed that I will issue my normal consumer warning, which is that, when the Leader of the House comes in here and uses his most reasonable voice, be on alert! Again, I cite the words of that great statesman Ronald Reagan—a hero of centre-right parties around the world for a very good reason—who said, 'Trust, but verify.' That is a very good principle, and I urge it upon all in this House today.

Let us go to the substance of what is before the House—first of all in the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House and that is on the Notice Paper and then secondly the amendment that I understand he envisages may well be moved later in this debate. The concern that the opposition has with what has been moved, with what is on the Notice Paperand I will deal with that first—is that the proposed standing order 133(d) would greatly constrain an important right, which is presently available to every member of this House, and that's the right to move that a member be no longer heard or that the question be put.

As a general proposition, what we're seeing from this government is that it is eager to reduce the capacity of the parliament, the representative branch of government, to hold the executive government to account, to put it under scrutiny. One of the ways that this government has done this is through steadily increasing the number of hours in the sitting week in which divisions may not be called, in which the House may not vote on a question before the House. Of course, this is an absolutely fundamental exercise of the rights that members have and it has been a trend that we have seen.

It's now the case that there are some seven hours across the week in which members are not able to bring on a division. The divisions are deferred. There are some seven hours across the week in which rights already are constrained, and what is now put before the House is that those rights should be further constrained. Of course, I do note that the calculation of seven hours assumes that the adjournment comes at 7.30 pm and then the House rises at 8 pm. But, of course, very commonly that time after 8 pm is used for continued debate. I make no criticism of that, but I simply make the point that that increases the proportion of the time in which the capacity of members to exercise a right which is ordinarily available to them is constrained. And in particular the right that is of concern to the opposition that would be constrained—under both the version of proposed standing order 133(d) that is contained in the motion as moved by the Leader of the House which is on the Notice Paper, and the amended version, which I understand will shortly be moved—is that the existing right of members of this House to move that another member be no further heard or to move that the motion be put, and that is an issue which of is fundamental concern to the opposition. It essentially goes to the relationship between, on the one hand, representative government, the parliament, and on the other hand, the executive government.

The amended change, which the Leader of the House has foreshadowed that he intends to bring forward, is that standing order 133(d) would now say that nobody, no person in this House, minister or not, would be able to move that a member be no longer heard or that the question be now put. As I'm advised, the amendment that the Leader of the House will shortly facilitate or procure be made is that standing orders 80 and 81 shall not apply during a period of deferred divisions.

I say to the House that that is of no assistance when it comes to the fundamental problem and that fundamental problem is the rights of members in this place. All of us want to facilitate debate. All of us want free flowing debate. All of us want vigorous debate. But what we must also recognise is that there will be circumstances from time to time where a member in this place says something which is so egregious, so offensive that it prompts at least one other member in this place to jump and to move that the member be no longer heard.

Of course, standing orders provide that, once such a motion is put, it must be voted on immediately. So it's not the case that any one member can impose his or her will on the House. What is the case is that the matter needs to be considered by the House. What is being proposed in either form of the amendment is that that right, which ordinarily is available to all 151 members of this House, is no longer available by reason of this change to the standing orders, because of the fact that the standing orders would now say, under the original version, that, in effect, anybody who is not a minister would be deprived of that right, but under the version that we understand will shortly be moved, indeed, no member of this House may exercise that right. That is, in the view of the opposition, quite problematic.

I acknowledge that the Leader of the House has engaged and has consulted in good faith on this issue with the opposition and, I'm advised, with the crossbench. I make it clear that the balance of what is proposed is not problematic or objectionable from the perspective of the opposition. But we do have concern about proposed standing order 133(d) in either the original version or what I'm advised will shortly be the amended version. I'd put to the House that the best way to deal with this is therefore not to include standing order 133(d)—either version of it—in what the House agrees to pass as an amendment to the standing orders. If there's more work to do, let's do that further work in good faith. Let's see if there is a better solution to be found which does not constrain what ultimately is a fundamentally important right of all members in this place but does address the concerns and anxieties which the Leader of the House has shared with all of us today.

We stand ready to approach this constructively. It's not as if this is the last and only time to deal with this matter, but both forms of the proposed new standing order 133(d)—either in the form as it stands in the motion contained in the Notice Paper or in the form that I'm advised will shortly be moved as an amendment to the form of the motion that's in the Notice Paperare, in the view of the opposition, problematic and we are not in a position to support them. Indeed, what I now wish to do is move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Watson:

That:

(1) standing order 133(d) be omitted.

What the opposition very clearly is putting forward is an amendment that would remove either version of the words, frankly, of 133(d), although, as a formal matter, we're doing that in relation to the version that is on the Notice Paper. I now table that amendment and conclude my contribution at that point.

See this speech in context