Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to enable me to move a motion forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House and the member for North Sydney will cease having a quarrel across the table.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that leave be given for 10 minutes for the member for Sturt to address the House on the issue of standing orders and 10 minutes for the member for Grayndler to respond. Do you want that, if you want a debate?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The chair is in the difficulty that all that was was a negotiation across the dispatch box. I think that we can agree that leave has not been granted.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In which case, Mr Speaker, I move :

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Honourable Member for Sturt from moving the following motion forthwith:That this House:

(1)

condemns the Government for its contemptible treatment of the Parliament in refusing to release legal advice it has that pertains to the operations of this House;

(2)

condemns the Government for its hypocrisy, in that it claimed a new era of “disclosure and transparency” in the Governor-General’s speech to the Parliament at its opening, while covering up legal advice that has a direct bearing on the protections for members of this place afforded by parliamentary privilege;

(3)

condemns the Leader of the House for his reckless indifference to the impact the Government’s changes to the standing orders may have in relation to parliamentary privilege by suspending quorum requirements, and urges the Government to proceed with an abundance of caution;

(4)

insists that the suspension of quorum requirements for Monday, Tuesday and Friday sittings be abandoned until the Government and the Parliament can be convinced that there is no ambiguity surrounding the Government’s proposal; and

(5)

in the alternative to (4), proposes a moratorium on Friday sittings, until the legal status is unambiguous.

The Leader of the House is unfortunately drunk with power, acting like an Ottoman potentate when it comes to the standing order changes being proposed for Fridays, Mondays and Tuesdays. Unfortunately, the government’s changes show that it is acting with reckless indifference to the doubts that still exist over the suspension of quorum on a Friday. It is indicative of a government already out of touch after less than three months in office.

This is a very important debate. Members of the House should be aware that for them it has a direct bearing on how they operate as members of parliament in this place. They are putting all their trust in the member for Grayndler to have gotten this right. They have not seen the legal advice. We have not seen the legal advice either. The Speaker, who is responsible for the parliament, has not seen the legal advice. It is a disgraceful display on behalf of the government. If members of parliament on both sides of the House—and Labor should be particularly interested in this—were aware of the danger to them on a Friday sitting, or even on a Monday or a Tuesday between 6.30 and 8 pm, in speaking in this parliament without parliamentary privilege, they might well have a different view about the standing orders being implemented by the government.

My view, after the last two weeks of studying this change to the standing orders, is that there is a serious ambiguity about whether the Constitution of Australia at section 39 allows for quorum to be suspended. I will get to that in a moment but, first, the culture of disclosure and transparency. The Governor-General was given a speech, as he is by the government at the opening of a new parliament, in which he said:

Laws relating to government information will be enhanced by promoting a culture of disclosure and transparency.

On two occasions in the last two weeks, the opposition has—I think quite sensibly—asked for legal advice to be given to it, and to the Speaker in one case, about two issues. One of course was the issue of compensation for stolen generations. That is not the subject of debate today. The subject of debate today is parliamentary privilege attaching to the House when a quorum is not present and when there is a suspension of quorum requirements.

We sought that legal advice in this new culture of disclosure and transparency, and it was denied to us by the government. I asked on behalf of members whether the legal advice would be provided to the Speaker, who has a responsibility to the parliament and also, being a sensible Speaker, wants to know exactly how the parliament is operating. He was denied that legal advice. In his statement to the House yesterday morning, he made it clear that he had sought advice from the clerks, who are excellent, but had not been able to obtain legal advice from outside the parliament, nor would the government give him the legal advice.

So how does that fit with the new culture of disclosure and transparency? Tragically, for the House it is yet another one of Kevin Rudd’s smoke and mirrors. He puts out a statement but he never intends to back it up, and the danger for Labor members in their great new confidence in government, having just won seats with 42 new members on that side of the House, is that they are putting all their trust in people who operate only on the basis of smoke and mirrors.

But to go the substance of this debate, section 39 of the Constitution says:

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers.

Section 39 conceives of a quorum having to be present or there being quorum requirements. Certainly it says there should be one-third, but the parliament can change that number, and the parliament has acted to do so. But the Constitution does not conceive at all of a suspension of quorum requirements in their entirety. The danger is that, if the parliament sits in breach of section 39 of the Constitution, if one of the members of the House comes into this place and talks about a constituent, a business or an opponent of some kind or whatever and says something that would be actionable outside the parliament, it might not be protected by parliamentary privilege. This goes very much to the core of how members of parliament operate.

The father of the House, the member for Berowra, spoke on this issue yesterday and members should listen to what he says. There is in this area a need to proceed with an abundance of caution, but the Leader of the House is instead proceeding with reckless indifference to the way the House is managed and to our protection. So I guess I am acting like the shop steward of the parliament in trying to protect—the first time, I admit—the members of parliament from themselves in so many ways. I am sure the new member in Newcastle would appreciate that at least somebody in this House is looking after the interests of the parliament.

I go to the Speaker’s statement yesterday to the parliament, which of course was an excellent statement—and I congratulate the Speaker on the effort that he put into making sure that he is at least across the dangers. Unfortunately, in that statement there are a number of ambiguities left open for us. For example, the Speaker said:

The Clerk is not aware of any case concerning parliamentary privilege in respect of either house, which has been decided on the basis of whether a quorum had been present when words were spoken or actions taken.

Later on he said:

Certainly no relevant cases in which privilege has been an issue have arisen since those provisions have been operative.

That is, the provisions to do with quorum. So we are in uncharted waters. The Speaker himself has admitted it. There is no precedent for what the government has proposed and passed in this House. The danger is somebody will take a case to discover a precedent, and the government will be found wanting. Why would we proceed on the basis of an ambiguity? Why wouldn’t we want to have clear advice about the actions being taken? Why won’t the government release the legal advice? Surely, if it is watertight they would have absolutely no doubt in doing so. Every member of this House should want to see that legal advice so they can convince themselves that they will not be the subject of a defamation case for what they say in this place. The fact that you are proceeding as blind sheep—or lemmings, as some would say—is a danger to the parliament and to your electorates.

The Speaker also said:

... it may be held that words spoken and actions taken from the commencement of a sitting until the adjournment of the House form part of ‘proceedings in parliament’.

The statement says ‘it may be held’. I am sure the new member for Isaacs would know that the word ‘may’ means that there is a doubt. It may not be held. Why isn’t it ‘will be held’? It is not ‘will be held’ because the Speaker does not have the legal advice. He could not seek any legal advice. The government would not give him any legal advice, so he had to say ‘it may be held’, in which case there is a doubt. There are a number of lawyers in this place—it is true—and I am sure every one of those lawyers will be thinking to themselves right now: why doesn’t it say ‘will’? It does not say ‘will’, because there is an ambiguity, and the act to suspend standing orders today would put on the record that that side of the House was aware of the dangers in uncharted waters and that that side of the House acted with reckless indifference.

The Speaker went on to say:

... it is not easy to see that words spoken by members or actions taken by them during such proceedings would be found not to be covered ...

It is not easy to see—I am sure the Speaker meant the best when he put those words in his statement, but it creates an immediate ambiguity. What does it mean: ‘it is not easy to see’? I know it is an Australian colloquialism, but it does not give me any hope that the government knows what it is doing, and hope is no antidote to legal ambiguity. Section 39 of the Constitution makes this very clear.

I know that the Leader of the House wants to be the ‘Big Joe’ of parliament. The ‘Big Joe’ is actually over this side of the House. He follows in a long line of leaders of opposition business since 1996: the member for Hotham, the member for Fraser, the member for Lilley, the member for Werriwa, the member for Lalor and then the member for Grayndler—each one burnt on the pyre of this parliament. Unfortunately, the member for Grayndler was burnt on the pyre of this parliament over— (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is. This cuts to the very heart of the Westminster system. The reason why this cuts to the very heart of the Westminster system is that there is a fundamental question that is before the House: do the standing orders of this House breach the Constitution? That is the fundamental question. Section 39 of the Constitution is explicit in relation to quorum, and we know on this side of the House, much to the embarrassment of the government, that the government are urgently drafting a bill to go before this parliament to change the quorum arrangements of this parliament because they screwed up on the standing orders.

We know it on this side of the House. They have made a mess, a hash, and they can point directly at the member for Chifley, the Chief Government Whip, who came up with this grand plan. Holier than thou, imbued with hubris, the Chief Government Whip came forward and said, ‘Let’s sit the extra days.’ ‘Great idea,’ says a naive Leader of the House. The Prime Minister says: ‘What a wonderful idea. I can pretend that we’re going to work five days a week. I am going to pretend. I’ll be a part-time Prime Minister. We’ll run a part-time parliament but we’ll pretend, in a sham to the Australian people, that somehow there is increased accountability and transparency. And we’ll do it by changing the standing orders. Forget that it’s a breach of the Constitution; that’s irrelevant! The Constitution is irrelevant! I’m Kevin Rudd. I run the place.’

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He does.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know what this means? It means—best illustrated by the words of the member for Maribyrnong—that the Labor Party, imbued with hubris, carried away with its own self-importance, is so arrogant today that it will not have question time on Fridays. Even the parliament of India specifies that you have to have question time on every day that the parliament sits. Even the Indian parliament, which came some years after the birth of the Australian parliament, specifies that. The Australian parliament is one of the oldest continuing Westminster parliaments in the history of the Commonwealth. Even the comparatively latter-day Indian parliament, set up in 1947, now says that you have to have question time every day.

I tell you what: we will not let this matter rest. We on this side of the House believe in accountability. We on this side of the House believe in transparency. We do not accept cover-ups. You know what? When it comes to the Leader of the House and his spurious arguments about accountability and transparency, I want to give him this pledge: we will pursue that legal advice and we will pursue the case of whether the standing orders of this parliament are a breach of the Constitution and the Australian people, because we believe, at the end of the day, that this parliament can only operate with a properly constituted quorum and that this parliament can only operate with full-time ministers and a full-time Prime Minister. We will not accept a part-time Prime Minister at the beginning of his term.

The Labor Party has a grand history of part-time prime ministers. We know it; the Australian people know it. Paul Keating set up a roster system for question time. He did not want any proper accountability. He was the Prime Minister: he did not want to have to answer questions in question time. And now we have a new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Rudd, playing cricket in the prime ministerial courtyard whilst Australians are struggling to pay grocery prices, interest rates, higher petrol prices. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is fiddling in the courtyard. His bowling action is a disgrace, let alone the fact that he is not subjecting himself to the questions of this parliament. How ironic it is: not two weeks of this parliament have passed and the Prime Minister has got time to go and play cricket in his courtyard, but he has not got time to come into this place and answer questions from members of parliament about how the country is being run. We stand for accountability. We stand for transparency. The Labor Party stand condemned for their cover-ups, their inaction and the fact that their standing orders are clearly a breach of the Constitution.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a sad day it is when the opposition is reduced to this. The opposition, after just two weeks of parliament, has completely run out of puff. I offered the opposition two speakers each on this debate; we would have granted leave. The condition was, of course, that the opposition speak on this just once today, because we have a big agenda for the nation. We have legislation to put through this House so it is in the Senate when we return. A decent Manager of Opposition Business would know that. A decent Manager of Opposition Business would recognise that, whatever the differences between us in this House, issues such as the response to the equine crisis, the emergency response consolidation bill for the Northern Territory and the formation of Infrastructure Australia are worthy of debate, yet we have this bizarre concentration.

Let us have a look at what is actually happening here. We used to sit four days a week; now we will sit for five days a week. We used to have question time four times a week; now we will have question time four times a week. We used to have three matters of public importance debates; now we will have three matters of public importance debates. Question time over the life of the Howard government averaged around 18 or 19 questions every question time. Under the new government, we are averaging more than 20 questions. In the past 10 years, under the government of this now discredited opposition, we only had more than 20 questions once in 10 years. Under the Rudd government, that has happened twice in two weeks. Why is that the case?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because you cannot count! That’s why!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we are not frightened of getting questions. Indeed, one of the clowns opposite says that we cannot count. Well, we had to have two questions in a row because they did not have a question ready. Malcolm sat there on the chair and refused to stand up.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are frequently reminding people they must refer to people by their proper titles, not as clowns. I ask he withdraw.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The fact is that the opposition are divided. The Leader of the Opposition is not here. I wonder what he thinks of this. The person who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition has come in to this debate. The fact is they are spending all their time plotting against each other. It is extraordinary that the Manager of Opposition Business talks about responsibility in this House but could not get up to move the motion. He had to get the member for Sturt to do it. Do your job, Manager of Opposition Business. The fact is that this is an opposition with nothing to say about the future of the nation. I say to the chamber that yesterday we had an insight about why the opposition have a problem with parliament sitting five days a week, why they do not want to be here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday: yesterday the member for Mayo could not make it to Wednesday. He was out having lunch rather than being in here in question time.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have specifically made reference to the use of props. I ask that you ask the Leader of the House not to use props.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The use of props is not encouraged but it is tolerated.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Johnson interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan will leave the chamber for one hour.

The member for Ryan then left the chamber.

That is the reason that it is not encouraged. I call the Leader of the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that some of them are struggling to get here four days a week, let alone five. That is the fact, and it was exposed yesterday.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage the opposition to go to the next election with the slogan ‘Kevin Rudd doesn’t work hard’ or ‘Kevin Rudd is a part-time Prime Minister’! That shows that they are in touch with where the Australian public are! Have a look at what our agenda was for the first 100 days. We are about achieving that agenda. This mob have absolutely nothing to say. It is extraordinary. Can you imagine them sitting around in their tactics groups? ‘Will we raise climate change?’ ‘No. We can’t talk about that because, remember, we denied it existed.’ ‘Will we talk about Work Choices?’ ‘No. That’s the policy that dare not speak its name.’ ‘Will we talk about housing?’ ‘No. We didn’t have a housing minister.’ ‘Will we talk about infrastructure?’ ‘No. We can’t talk about that because we didn’t have an infrastructure minister or an infrastructure plan.’ ‘What actually can we talk about?’ ‘Maybe education?’ ‘No, because we trashed education because we reduced funding for higher education because we had an ideological obsession and became more and more extreme.’

I wonder why they object to this. You do not have to take my word for it; take their word for it. They were all out there on Four Corners on Monday night—the member for North Sydney, the member for Mayo, the member for Higgins—talking about how they got it so wrong. We know that in the lead-up to the election on 24 November last year they actually were not talking about how they could defeat Kevin Rudd because they had conceded that they could not; they were talking about how they could get rid of John Howard. And they did not have the ticker to actually do that.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where’s the legal advice?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read the Speaker’s advice.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the legal advice.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read the Speaker’s advice from the clerks. Might I say, Mr Speaker, that you have begun in your job extremely well. There is recognition from the Australian public of the role that you are playing in restoring the dignity of the parliament to where they expect it to be. That is out there from the public. You tabled your advice. We know that the basis of the quorum changes and the division changes is exactly the same as what occurred under the previous government on Mondays and Tuesdays between 6.30 and eight.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That doesn’t mean it was constitutional.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘That doesn’t mean it was constitutional,’ says the member for North Sydney!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will ignore the interjections.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The same standing orders operate in the Senate and have operated in the Senate on Thursday nights over many years. It is the same way that the Main Committee operates day after day—no quorums, no divisions. It is a common-sense approach. We know how bad the opposition’s frontbench are; no wonder they do not want their backbench to have an option of coming into the parliament and putting forward views.

I say to the opposition: if you think tomorrow is not real parliament, do not come. Stay home. We will fill the void. We have a backbench full of ideas about the future of the nation, and they will take up every speaking spot tomorrow from nine to two. Just do not come if you do not think it is such a good idea. The fact is that this is an opposition that has completely lost its way. This is an opposition that does not have confidence in its own backbench. This is an opposition that thinks it is going to get back on these benches by railing about standing orders and being disruptive of the parliament because it has got absolutely nothing else to say to the Australian public.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Question put:

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