Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I do not think your position on this is unreasonable. Therefore, other action needs to be taken. Accordingly, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would allow the Leader of the Opposition to move the following motion:This Parliament recognises the responsibility we have to the people we are elected to represent, to improve parliamentary standards through the consistent application and enforcement of standing orders and use of language which is appropriate for the National Parliament.This House reaffirms our support for standing order 89, concerning that “a Member must not use offensive words against . . . a Member of Parliament”, standing order 90, that “all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly”, standing order 91b, concerning the withdrawal of “objectionable words”, and that House of Representatives Practice on page 294 makes it clear that “a motion may not be brought forward which . . . contains offensive or disorderly words”.This House therefore notes that the resolution moved by the Leader of the House on Thursday 25 May 2006, shown at page 33 of Hansard, that “that snivelling grub over there be not further heard” was not altered by the statement that “if I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally”, was therefore subsequently put to the House and carried at page 34 of Hansard, and is an out of order resolution and therefore must be rescinded.

A very substantial injustice has been done here. I do not put you at the centre of that injustice, Mr Speaker, but it is an injustice that has occurred nevertheless. What those injustices oblige you to do, or the course you have chosen to take, is effectively to have the chair treat one member of this chamber on the government side of the House in one form and the Manager of Opposition Business in another form. The Manager of Opposition Business was suspended from the service of this parliament today for doing exactly what was done and what was permitted to stand for a substantial period of time in this parliament by the Leader of the House, including a motion moved in identical terms and followed up by a refusal to withdraw an imputation against a member of the House in exactly identical terms. There is no difference between what the member for Lalor had to say today and what the Leader of the House had to say the other day on the dates that I mentioned here.

The motion that was then moved by the Leader of the House was of course massively disorderly. When we go to House of Representatives Practice we see, as this motion indicates, a very clear statement that ‘a motion may not be brought forward which contains offensive or disorderly words’. ‘That that snivelling grub over there be not further heard’ is quite clearly in absolute breach of that section of standing orders and ought to have been ruled out instantly by the Deputy Speaker at the time. As I said, I am discussing here the chair, not your personal behaviour, Mr Speaker. You were not there at the time these events took place. Nevertheless, you live with the consequences of the events which occurred. Quite clearly, the Deputy Speaker should have done two things on that occasion. The Deputy Speaker should have firstly ruled the motion which had been moved out of order and in clear breach of House of Representatives Practice. The second thing which should have occurred is that the Deputy Speaker on that occasion should have asked for, as was requested by those on this side of the House, an absolute withdrawal, an unconditional withdrawal, of the expression ‘grub’ as it applied to a member of this side of this House. Neither of those things happened at the time.

Subsequently, when you came back to the chair—some considerable number of pages of Hansard later—an unconditional withdrawal was sought and obtained. However, the record stands: that motion was carried by this chamber and it is a very difficult situation to correct. When that motion and the behaviour associated with it were tested by this side of the House, the experience of the Manager of Opposition Business was very different from the experience of the Leader of the House. In fact, she has been obliged to leave the chamber. I think that is an unfortunate thing. She was making a point. Quite clearly in the words that you have utilised in your explanation in this chamber, you have found the circumstances unacceptable, the position adopted by the Leader of the House unacceptable, the motion that he moved unacceptable and the chairing of the Deputy Speaker at that time unacceptable. That is the clear implication in all of the things that you have had to say in the remarks you have made.

Unfortunately, what we have been left with from all of that are too substantial injustices, one to the Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Lalor. She is a respectable member of this place. She is a person of great substance in this chamber and a person who is listened to when she rises to her feet to make a point here. She now has to live with the opprobrium, which is welcomed more avidly by some than by others, of having been suspended from the service of this chamber. There are members who avidly seek that notoriety. She is not one of them. So she has now found herself in a situation where simply pursuing to a point of clarity what ought to have been normal behaviour in this place has caused her to be suspended from the service of this House. That is not good, Mr Speaker. That should simply not have happened and the matter should simply not conclude at the point at which we find ourselves right now, admirable though your subsequent rulings may have been and in accordance with standing orders as your subsequent insistence on particular behaviours might have been, requesting that these sorts of words ought to be withdrawn and these motions ought to be moved as the normal thing for a chair to have done. So, as I have said, I am not reflecting on you, your rulings or the chair, at least not on your handling of the chair. I am reflecting big time on the handling of the chair on that particular day, but that is a matter that was dealt with in argument in this place at that point of time.

So how do we correct this? That is the position that we are now in. We have had the situation where the member for Lalor has been suspended from the service of the House. That motion has been passed and that is a very difficult thing in itself to rescind. We have a situation where the different treatment accorded, for whatever set of reasons, to the manager of government business has been permitted to stand. Somehow we have to right that and I cannot think of any way of righting that other than by this motion which I am proposing to the chamber and for which I have sought a suspension of standing orders in order to do that. The relevant part of this motion is the last part of it. It says this:

This House therefore notes that the resolution moved by the—

manager of government business—

... on Thursday 25 May 2006, shown at page 33 of Hansard, that “that snivelling grub over there be not further heard” was not altered by the statement that “if I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally”, was therefore subsequently put to the House and carried at page 34 of Hansard, and is an out of order resolution and therefore must be rescinded.

Should a suspension motion be carried, then all that would happen would be that this motion that I propose would then be debated. Should that motion then be passed, I think it would be incumbent upon the manager of government business to give notice that a motion rescinding that particular motion should be moved. It is appropriate that the manager of government business, not those on this side of the House, move that motion. But if the House were to accept the motion that I have put forward, that would be a very clear indication to the manager of government business that we expect such a motion to be moved. So, Mr Speaker, in order to clear this up, in order to take it out as effectively as we can—and you cannot alter Hansardin order to secure a situation where a rescission motion produces the sort of outcome that you have effectively said ought to be there in the way in which you have ruled on this, I would hope that, firstly, the parliament would agree to this suspension and then agree to the motion and that subsequently the manager of government business would move the appropriate rescission.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly do not intend to detain the House for long on this particular business. But I do say in response to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that there were two false premises on which his remarks were based. The first false premise is that there has been a lack of even-handedness in the way this House has been conducted. The second false premise is that an improper motion was carried by this House last Thursday.

Let me deal first with the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a lack of even-handedness. Mr Speaker, as you have made it clear repeatedly today, and most recently in your formal statement from the chair, the member for Lalor was named by you not for any particular phraseology that she used and not for any particular motion that she put to the House but because she defied the chair. As you quite rightly said, defiance of the chair must be dealt with. It always has been and it always will be. Mr Speaker, you have dealt with defiance of the chair even-handedly whenever it has occurred, whether it be by members of the opposition or whether it be by members of the government. So let me make it absolutely crystal clear: the member for Lalor was named because she defied the chair. No such defiance of the chair took place last Thursday.

The second point I wish to make is that there was no improper motion carried by the House the other day. On no fewer than three separate occasions the Deputy Speaker stated the question before the House in these terms: ‘That the member be no longer heard.’ That was the question that was put to the House and that was the question that was voted upon.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s making it up.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Oxley is on very thin ice.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not making it up. On page 33 of the Hansard the Deputy Speaker said:

For the benefit of members, the question before the House is ‘That the member be no longer heard’.

On page 34 the Deputy Speaker said:

The motion is ‘That the member be no longer heard.’

And again on page 34:

I am putting the motion. The motion is ‘That the member be no longer heard’.

On three separate occasions—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not what you said.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sydney is on very thin ice too.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On three separate—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because he got it wrong three times!

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Fraser.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on three separate occasions the Deputy Speaker stated the question before the House—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The Leader of the House will be heard.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the question before the House, as stated by the Deputy Speaker, was that ‘the member be no longer heard’. That was the question that the House voted upon. The comments by the Leader of the Opposition were quite frankly mendacious. He did not accurately represent to this House what the Hansard recorded and what the House—

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. ‘Mendacious’ is simply another way of saying ‘lies’, and it should be withdrawn. It is entirely offensive.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison will resume his seat. I think the word ‘mendacious’ is not unparliamentary. It may be undesirable but I do not believe it is unparliamentary. It has been used before.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House has withdrawn.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me go back to the events of last Thursday because they have plainly excited members opposite. It would have been better if the Deputy Speaker had sought a rephrasing of the motion; there is no doubt about that.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hatton interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Blaxland!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would have been better if I had not moved the motion in the terms that I originally did. But, Mr Speaker, it would also have been better if the member for Wills had not, in my opinion, abused the forms of the House by making a speech in the guise of a motion. It would have been better if the Leader of the Opposition had not sicked the member for Wills on this baseless vendetta against an honourable man, the member for Gwydir. It would have been better if the member for Wills had accepted the repeated public statements of the member for Gwydir on this issue. So there are many things that could have been done differently. Of course things would have been better if things had happened differently, but the fact of the matter is that both of the premises on which the Leader of the Opposition based his remarks are false. Mr Speaker, you have conducted the House with an exemplary level of even-handedness and no improper motion was put and carried by this House. All of us are in favour of higher parliamentary standards.

The kind of barracking that we are currently hearing from members opposite indicates, shall I say, some want of good faith in the question that has been moved. But the truth is that, in our better moments as our best selves, all of us would like this place to be better conducted. Sometimes in the heat of the moment and sometimes in pursuit of political argument all of us go too far. I am certainly prepared to accept that, from time to time, I do, but there would not be a member of either frontbench who has not sometimes done more and said more than should have been said. Mr Speaker, I certainly think that, as far as I am concerned, amends were made as best I could, unprompted and unadmonished by you, by my complete withdrawal subsequent to the votes on Thursday.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard the confession but without the contrition. The Leader of the House is not just a member of the frontbench; he has a particular role in this House in terms of promoting parliamentary standards. Indeed, the Leader of the House said on 19 March 2002:

I am very proud to serve in this government—a government which has upheld the highest parliamentary standards, a government which supports the great institutions of this country.

And on a number of other occasions the manager of government business, the Leader of the House, has stood in this place and in the media and spoken about the need for us to be kinder and gentler to each other and has spoken to us about the need to lift up the parliamentary standards in this place. But this motion goes beyond the interests of the Leader of the House or the interests of any of us. It goes to the dignity of this parliament itself as an institution. The fact is that page 33 of the Hansard of Thursday, 25 May 2006 records in perpetuity that this House carried a motion, ‘That the snivelling grub over there be not further heard.’

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Grayndler is making an assertion which is simply untrue. Three times, the question was stated from the chair and it was not as he said.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate on this particular issue and both sides have the opportunity to state their case.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what Hansard records in black and white. It also records the fact that, on a number of occasions, the Leader of the House was asked to withdraw and, to be perfectly accurate, the Leader of the House did withdraw. He withdrew on page 39—six pages of Hansard later, an hour later, after totally unnecessary divisions and conflict in this House. Why should this suspension be carried? It should be carried because the dignity of this House will be damaged if it is not. If that motion remains in the book then standing orders 89, 90 and 91(b), which were breached, will be in question. This motion deliberately does not condemn the Leader of the House and it takes no offence against any individual; it is aimed at the collective dignity of this House. What should have occurred last Thursday is that the Leader of the House should have stood up immediately and said, ‘You’re right.’ He should have used the words, ‘I was wrong.’ That did not occur last Thursday, it did not occur yesterday and it did not occur this morning. It should happen right now. But we have not heard that today. AAP story No. 3015, reporting on a press conference, says:

Mr Abbott today conceded Mr Lindsay could have handled last Thursday’s debate better.

The poor bloke was doing his best—

“Strictly speaking, the chair probably should have required me to rephrase the motion,” Mr Abbot told AAP.

Why doesn’t the Leader of the House know that it was within his power to do that? The Leader of the House should accept this suspension—should vote for this motion—and then give seven days notice, in accordance with standing order 220, that the motion be rescinded. Unless that occurs, the motion stays. My colleague the member for Lalor took the action she took this morning to draw attention to that. What we have seen is the difference in standards between the member for Lalor, who has standards, and the Leader of the House, who simply does not. He will not accept responsibility for his actions and he always goes a yard too far. He should vote for this suspension and get rid of this stain on the parliament.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Beazley’s) be agreed to.