Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling because question time is a time when the government is held accountable. Question time is a time when the opposition, on behalf of the Australian people, has the opportunity to hold the government to account. Today in question time we are seeking to hold to account the government and, in particular, the Prime Minister on industrial relations and the stripping of award conditions. The Prime Minister has refused to answer every question the Leader of the Opposition and I have asked. I made the point that on two occasions, once outside the House and once inside the House, the Prime Minister had said that several award conditions have been excluded. I made the point, from the AWA, that 46 conditions were excluded, and I put it to the Prime Minister. It was important, Mr Speaker, to go through that list—which you prevented me from doing—because that is the only way we can hold the Prime Minister to account. He will say anything, do anything or mislead us on anything when it comes to industrial relations. Every question put to him today he refused and failed to answer. You, Mr Speaker, failed to hold him to account, and that is why your ruling needs to be dissented from.

It is not as if the question itself was in breach of either the standing orders or rulings made in this House. Page 540 of House of Representatives Practice states:

Questions must not be debated, nor can they contain arguments, comments or opinions. They may not become lengthy speeches or statements and they may not in themselves suggest an answer … questions should not be used as vehicles for the discussion of issues.

It was not a lengthy speech. The basis of that quote from House of Representatives Practice is a ruling by Speaker John McLeay on 31 August 1966. He made the point that it is not about the length of the question; it is about whether the question contains a lengthy speech. Mr Speaker, throughout question time you failed to uphold the standing orders, because you failed to bring the Prime Minister to account.

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

Order! The member for Perth is moving a dissent motion, not a no-confidence motion.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And what I am saying is entirely consistent with a dissent motion. I was perfectly entitled to put the entire list of 46 conditions. In this House at question time the Prime Minister said that several award conditions were excluded. He avoided every question the Leader of the Opposition and I had put to him. I am perfectly entitled to make the point that, when the Prime Minister said ‘several’, he was being disingenuous. Here are the 46 conditions—some of them are replicated, so I will not read them out: performance payment, higher duty allowance, skill utilisation loading, relieving allowance, field staff duty allowance, on call allowance, first aid allowance, interpreter allowance, district allowance, meal allowance, car allowance, intersuburban travel allowance, telephone allowance (on call), telephone allowance (use of home telephone), travelling expenses, removal expenses, temporary accommodation expenses, transfer expenses, assistance for employees transferred long distances, travel allowance, domestic travel, travel between work and home, premises renovation allowance, basis of payment, payment for working overtime, breaks, shift allowances, meal breaks, meal allowances, overtime, weekends and public holidays, transport arrangements, annual leave loading, public holidays, allowances, dry cleaning, tea breaks and minimum breaks. And there are a few more conditions that make up the 46 conditions at page 1 of the schedule ‘Protected award conditions excluded’—I made the point that I was not proposing to read them all out—which can be found in the Commonwealth Bank AWA that was offered to employees of the Commonwealth Bank on 9 October 2006. The Prime Minister would have you believe that that is ‘several’.

The Prime Minister is also disingenuous and misleading in pretending that somehow this is just like the Commonwealth Bank 1997 AWA. What he will not tell the House is that the Commonwealth Bank 1997 AWA was, of course, protected by the so-called no disadvantage test—which goes right to the heart of the question that the Leader of the Opposition first asked him. The Leader of the Opposition asked, ‘Isn’t it the case that, under the government’s industrial relations legislation, award conditions like penalty rates, shift and overtime loadings, allowances, annual leave loading, public holidays, rest breaks and incentive based payments and bonuses can’t be guaranteed and can be removed without any compensation?’ The Prime Minister refused to answer the question. The Leader of the Opposition sought a ruling on a point of relevance. You ignored him, Mr Speaker, and you did not hold the Prime Minister to account; you allowed him to avoid answering the question. That is made worse by the fact that, when the government spent $55 million advertising its legislation, these conditions were all referred to as protected award conditions. We saw the big stamp ‘Protected by law’ on the adverts. Nothing could have been more disingenuous.

Then, Mr Speaker, I made the point to the Prime Minister that in May at Senate estimates the Office of the Employment Advocate indicated that 16 per cent of AWAs removed all protected award conditions in full, 27 per cent removed public holiday loadings, 29 per cent removed rest breaks, 52 per cent removed shiftwork loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 64 per cent removed leave loadings and 100 per cent removed at least one of the above. Again he failed or refused to answer the question and you did not hold him to account, and—

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

Order! The member for Perth will not reflect on the chair.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that is why your ruling needs to be dissented from. Mr Speaker, I am not reflecting on the chair; I am moving dissent from your ruling.

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

The member for Perth can move his dissent motion.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister, at a doorstop today, said that the Commonwealth Bank AWA bought out several award conditions. Well, 46 is not ‘several’. That is why I was entitled to ask my question in full and entitled to ask that question without interruption. You required me, on two separate occasions, to not complete that list. Completing that list, Mr Speaker, was entirely consistent with standing orders.

Question time is the only occasion in the House when the opposition has the opportunity to hold the government to account. When the government is not held to account, the Australian community suffer. What do we know about the Prime Minister and his industrial relations legislation? He will do anything, say anything, mislead on anything, hide anything or not disclose anything to avoid the adverse implications of his legislation. He tries to pretend that there is no adverse circumstance for take-home pay and conditions and that there is no adverse circumstance for penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances, public holiday penalty rates and the like. We had the opportunity in question time today to hold him to account and, because of your ruling, we were not able to avail ourselves of that opportunity. Your ruling needs to be dissented from accordingly. It is absolutely essential, when the Prime Minister fails or refuses to give answers at question time, that the opposition be entitled to hold him to account.

Mr Speaker, my dissent from your ruling needs to be put in the context of question time. Since the House came back for this session on 8 August, we have found it increasingly difficult to hold the government to account because of the rulings that you have made, of which this is one. I did a calculation, with the help of the parliamentary research service, to find out in the course of question time how many warnings you had been issued and how many removals from the chamber there had been in accordance with standing order 94(a), because this is the context into which your ruling today falls. If I have got my calculation right as to today’s warnings and suspensions under standing order 94(a)—

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fran Bailey interjecting

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

Order! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism!

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

since the House came back on 8 August, during question time there have been 247 warnings applied to this side of the House and the number of Labor removals from the chamber including the three today is 39.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fran Bailey interjecting

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

The Minister for Small Business and Tourism is warned!

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

You will have to adjust it.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just add one, Mr Speaker. So it is 247 warnings and 39 removals from the chamber for an hour under standing order 94(a). On the other side, on the government side, it is 29 warnings, including the one you have just given, Mr Speaker—28 plus one; the one you have just given—and coalition, or government, removals from the chamber under standing order 94(a): zero.

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

Again I remind the member for Perth he should not reflect on the chair.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not. So 247 warnings and 39 removals versus 29 and zero! Mr Speaker, that is the context into which your ruling my question out of order fell. Your ruling my question out of order enabled the government to avoid scrutiny and enabled the Prime Minister to again do anything, say anything, mislead on anything or blackguard anyone when they put the facts of his adverse industrial relations legislation to him. If you are so confident of it, Prime Minister, tip out the stats, tip out the details and let OEA put out now what they put out in May. You will not do it, because you know what you are engaged in is a wages race to the bottom. But don’t worry: whether it is in here or outside we will pursue you from now until election time. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

Yes, it certainly is. Mr Speaker, this is the one part of the parliament in which we can actually hold the government, day-to-day, accountable. We are obliged to operate in accordance with standing orders, and we are obliged to operate in an environment in which you, as the Speaker, have to preside impartially over our activities here. You know very well that we have some considerable complaints that are reflected in the statistics that have been put forward by the member for Perth, when he moved this dissent motion, about the balance with which both sides of this House are treated. But one thing is absolutely clear in our standing orders, and it is this. When we put forward questions, we are allowed to incorporate within those questions factual material necessary to make the question intelligible. We are not allowed to include arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter.

It happens that with this particular question the most devastating part of it is this. With regard to this AWA offer which has been offered to Commonwealth Bank employees, either to take it or to take an agreement settled in 2002 with a wage level now five years effectively out of date—so either to take that five years out of date collective agreement or this AWA—they are obliged to give various things up. We can stand up in this chamber and say that 38 or 46—or whatever the number is—entitlements can be removed and leave the question at that or we can read out those entitlements so the public can see quite clearly what ordinary, reasonable conditions that in their own places of employment they would understand they have access to are being removed from Commonwealth Bank employees who can either accept that or go back to a wage level established in 2002—no further agreements to that of a collective variety.

It would come as a surprise to many Australians to have read out to them that what would happen as a result of an AWA being signed up to is that it would remove performance payments, higher duty payments, skill utilisation loadings, relieving allowances, field staff duty allowances, on call allowances, first aid allowances, interpreter allowances, district allowances, meal allowances, car allowances, intersuburban travel allowances, telephone allowances (on call), telephone allowances (use of home telephone), travelling expenses, removal expenses, temporary accommodation expenses, transfer expenses, assistance for employees transferring long distances, travel allowance, domestic travel, travel between work and home, premises renovation allowances, basis of payment, payment for working overtime, breaks, shift allowances, meal breaks, meal allowances, overtime, weekend and public holidays, transport arrangements, annual leave loadings, public holidays, dry cleaning, tea breaks and minimum breaks.

Many people out there listening to that would immediately make the assumption that heavy damage was being done to the rights and entitlements of Commonwealth Bank workers, and a mere upward adjustment of the 2002 pay rates of some 10 per cent might well not cover that, particularly when collective agreements now being signed up would contain that level of wage rise anyway, without dispensing with those allowances. For the public to understand the full effect of that, they actually have to have that list read out to them—there is no alternative, if there is to be that comprehension and if we are to get around the trickiness of this Prime Minister when he explains himself in this place. He is a very effective user of the last word in this place to slip, slide and exaggerate as he puts in place a piece of legislation that terminates the ordinary living conditions of the average Australian householder. The average Australian householder would be shocked if they realised that they were going to be obliged to give up overtime rates, meal allowances, weekend and public holiday arrangements, annual leave loadings, public holiday allowances and the like. That is why you have to be dissented from, Mr Speaker—so they can understand that.

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

I know that the member for Perth is a great friend and supporter of the Leader of the Opposition, but I fear that what he has done today is to preside over the last rites of the opposition leader’s leadership. What we have heard today is the dying rattle of this leader’s leadership of the Australian Labor Party, and the fact that members opposite were almost completely indifferent to the speech—

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What has this to do with the motion before the chair? This is a serious motion. Obviously the Leader of the House is trying to avoid it.

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

The member for Cowan raises a valid point of order. I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that this is a dissent motion. I call the Leader of the House.

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

I am talking about the context in which this dissent motion has been moved and about the motive behind this dissent motion. What I am saying is every bit as much in order as the speeches of the member for Perth and the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat: what we are seeing is a Leader of the Opposition who is visibly dying on his feet, and he is being killed by well-meaning—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. His job is to defend your ruling. He is clearly out of order.

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

I am listening carefully to the Leader of the House. He is in order. I call the Leader of the House, and I remind all members that warnings still stand.

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

The few remaining ferocious supporters of the Leader of the Opposition are reinforcing the point I make by taking these points of order. They are reinforcing the point that he is dying.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to the member for Cowan you upheld his point of order. The minister is now defying your ruling. I would ask you to pull him back into line.

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

I ruled on the point that the member for Cowan made. I have since ruled again to say that the Leader of the House is in order. I call the Leader of the House.

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

It is the clear practice of this House—

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

Mr Speaker—

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

The member for Grayndler has just taken a point of order. He will not debate his point of order. I will deal with him. The member for Grayndler will come straight to his point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, how is it possible for you to make two different rulings on the same point of order?

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

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. If he wishes to raise questions with me, he can do so afterwards. After I had ruled on the first point of order, the Leader of the House then returned to the motion before the chair. So the Leader of the House is in order and I call him.

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

What prompted this motion of dissent was a question from the member for Perth that was plainly out of order. It is the longstanding practice of this House that you cannot give screeds of information or pseudo information in the guise of a question. In accordance with the longstanding practice of this House, only information which is strictly necessary to make sense of the question is permissible. The member for Perth was chronically in breach of that practice. He was chronically in breach of that practice in his first question and, having been quite rightly and properly pulled up by you, Mr Speaker, he was chronically in breach of the longstanding practice of this House in his second question.

Page 542 of House of Representatives Practice makes it perfectly clear that the member for Perth’s question was out of order and you, Mr Speaker, were perfectly entitled to sit him down, as you did. But what we are seeing today from members opposite is their general fury and frustration at the way things are not going their way. The member for Perth submitted an MPI today and, in your judgement, Mr Speaker, you chose an MPI that was submitted by the member for New England. Plainly, the fact that the member for Perth tried to deliver a 15-minute speech on the substantive motion of industrial relations, instead of speaking to the substance of this dissent motion, and the fact that he was gabbling away, to try to get a 15-minute speech out in 10 minutes, demonstrates what the real import of this proceeding is.

It was absolutely obvious, from the devastated looks on the faces of members opposite when the member for Perth moved this ridiculous dissent motion, that they know things are going very wrong. And the fact that the member for Lalor did not second this dissent motion, which is what would normally happen, shows that the rats are running in the ranks opposite. Madam 27 Per Cent certainly was not going to support Mr 24 Per Cent on this matter. I can feel the dream team coming on. I can sense the pair supported by more than 50 per cent about to do in the pair supported by less than 30 per cent.

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I would remind the minister that he will refer to members by their seat or their title.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if you could also remind the Leader of the House that this is a dissent motion. It is remarkable that they did not send someone who knows something about the standing orders to argue it, but the point here is whether or not your ruling should be upheld, and the Leader of the House should address every remark to that topic.

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

I am listening carefully to the Leader of the House, and he has been addressing the motion and also addressing the remarks that were made in support of the motion. He is in order.

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

Members opposite dealt with substantive questions of workplace relations during the debate of this dissent motion. I am perfectly entitled to talk about the context in which this dissent motion has been put forward—and the context, quite clearly, is the now fatally weakened leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. This was going to be his week of triumph. This was going to be the week that all his huffing and—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to my last point of order, Mr Speaker, I heard you rule that the Leader of the House would be in order if he were addressing the motion or addressing remarks made by the speakers in support of the motion. He is now doing neither of those two things, and I ask you to direct him to come back to making relevant remarks, not grossly irrelevant remarks.

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

I am listening carefully to the Leader of the House. I call the Leader of the House.

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

They are a very frustrated and disappointed lot opposite. They know they are clearly in breach of the practices of this House. They are clearly in defiance of the longstanding custom of this House that information—screeds of information—cannot be given in the guise of a question and, instead of actually having decent tactics and instead of actually going sensibly about their question time planning, they are so utterly consumed with who is going to possibly challenge the Leader of the Opposition next week that they did not do their homework, and that was why their question was so plainly and obviously out of order.

This was going to be the Leader of the Opposition’s week of triumph. This was going to be when all his huffing and puffing about corruption and cover-up would be vindicated—but, instead, the Cole royal commission concluded that there had been no wrongdoing whatsoever by officials and ministers in this government. So what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He went back to his comfort zone of workplace relations—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order—

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

The Leader of the House just mentioned something that was brought up in the earlier debate. I believe he is in order. If it is a question of relevance, he is in order.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must admit I did not hear him utter a relevant word: he was off on the Cole royal commission, I think. If he wants to move a motion about that, we will certainly debate it.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume her seat. The Leader of the House is in order.

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

We have just heard 15 out-of-order minutes from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth. He goes back to his comfort zone of workplace relations. Do you know why? They cannot trust him once he gets off the script. We all heard last week why they cannot trust him: when he talks about anything new, he will get it mixed up. He goes roving. That is his problem. You know, they are going to have a— (Time expired)

Question put:

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