Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a day on which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the government and in a very patronising and neocolonial way, lectured some of the countries in the Pacific Islands about their problems with governance, I found it ironic that the government should continue to display their arrogance to the procedures of this place and continue to trash parliamentary standards. I have spoken on this quite often, but this year we have seen devices being used by this government that show further their contempt for proper discussion and debate within this chamber. I instance the quasi guillotine that is now used by the government. In the past when a guillotine was used, bills were adjudicated as being urgent and time limits were placed. One of the downsides for the government, of course, was that the minister could not finalise the second reading debate because the cut-off meant that they could not stand and justify the government’s case. In each case of a truncated debate that we have seen this year, the government have ensured that the second reading summing up speech can be made by a member of the executive, yet again further entrenching the advantage that the government have under the standing orders.

But today we saw one of the most incredible actions of an executive government that we have ever seen. I am in some difficulty because of standing order 74, which does not allow me to reflect on a vote of the chamber, but I think that I can make a comment on the suspension of standing orders moved by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I read to the House the motion that was supported by 78 members of this chamber, opposed by 56, and therefore passed. It read:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning forthwith the Member for Perth.

I am at a little bit of a disadvantage because, regrettably, turn 18 is not in the House Hansard online, but my recollection is that the government thought that the moving of this motion was the final step in what they had set out to do, as the wording says, in ‘condemning the member for Perth’. Condemning him for what is not in the motion, so we have to rely on what was mentioned in the debate.

Through you, Mr Speaker, I remind members that it was a 25-minute debate because debates about the suspension of standing orders are limited. It has been the tradition in this place that when a censure or a condemnation motion has taken place it has had a lengthier debate. Why is that so, Mr Speaker? Whilst House of Representatives Practice indicates ‘It is acknowledged, however, that ultimately the House may hold any Member accountable for his or her actions’, it goes on to say ‘in terms of the principle that charges of a personal character should be raised by way of substantive and direct motions’. In this case, there was no direct motion, there was no substantive motion; there was only the suspension of standing orders. Actually, over the last hour or so, I have calmed down a little bit about this motion because I have read it carefully. It is a nothing motion because it required further action. It says:

... so much of the standing ... orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning ...

‘Would prevent’—it does not say anything about action. So what is this motion really about? This motion is really just the culmination of the way in which the executive of the Howard government treat this chamber—as if it is their plaything. If they had set out to achieve what they thought they were achieving, there are proper processes of this place, but those processes were ignored. They believe that they achieved the outcome that they wanted, but they did not, because it required that a substantive motion be moved, and it was not moved. (Time expired)