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

I thank the House for its indulgence in waiting a few moments for me to arrive in the chamber. I move:

That the House:

(1)

acknowledges its support for the advancement of democracy around the world, including Pakistan; and

(2)

recognises the importance of ministerial accountability in our Westminster system of government.

I want to take this opportunity in this first fortnight of the sittings of the 42nd Parliament of Australia to extend very warm congratulations to the members of both sides who have given their maiden presentations to this parliament and to wish them well in their parliamentary careers. It is interesting that in this 42nd Parliament we are sitting at an historic time in the world, and part of my motion goes to some of the historic moments that have happened in the last few days of this week and, as well, in the preceding week.

This motion is very relevant and very timely because around the world we have seen the creation of a ‘new’ nation state. We have seen elections in Pakistan, a country of immense importance in the world, a nation of the Commonwealth, a good friend of this country, and a country with which we have very warm, generous and strong ties. As well, we see a very robust contest happening in the United States, a contest where candidates for the highest office in that country are pitching their ideas and policies against each other and seeking to earn the confidence and trust of the American public.

I think this motion is very relevant in this parliament at this time because we sit here on a Friday for the first time in a very, very long time; we sit here on a Friday, when the executive is not able to be questioned by members of the opposition. I will come to more of that later. I find that very, very disappointing.

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

You cannot get here on time.

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

I notice one of the newer members to the parliament, the new member for Maribyrnong, I believe, who certainly has a national profile and no doubt seeks to lead this country one day. In a previous presentation in this parliament some years ago, I commented that I expected a fellow Queenslander and a Victorian—the now Prime Minister and the now Deputy Prime Minister—would be very much watching the back of the then Leader of the Opposition, the former member for Brand, and I suspect that the member at the table, the member for Maribyrnong, will be doing a similar thing. I am pleased to extend my personal good wishes to him in his career—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Ryan is wandering all over the paddock like Brown’s cows and he should stick to the motion. There is no relevance where he is going now.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan will address the motion.

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

If the member for Maribyrnong and the government have any difficulty with my presentation, I am more than happy for them to call a division and seek my expulsion from the chamber. This interjection by the member opposite—

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

by the parliamentary secretary—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

who has hardly been here for any time at all—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

but is already acting like the Prime Minister, in fact—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am not shouting loud enough! I call the Government Whip on a point of order.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only did the member for Ryan fail to get himself to the chamber on time to speak to his motion, not only did we on this side of the House give him leave to speak, but he is now flouting your ruling, and what he is saying has absolutely no relevance to the motion before the House—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and he is being totally disorderly standing up while I am talking at this time. The point of order is relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the member for Ryan to be relevant.

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

I find it absolutely hypocritical that the government of the day expects members of the parliament to be sitting here and expressing their views, their thoughts and their comments and putting together words of wisdom on behalf of their constituencies, and yet, because the members opposite do not like what we are saying, they stand up on a point of order. Talk about hypocrisy! The Prime Minister of the day is not even in the parliament. This motion goes to democracy and to the capacity of members of the parliament to question the executive, to question the Prime Minister—and he cannot even find it within himself to be here. I am more than happy to be here. I am more than happy to sit here on a Saturday, on a Sunday or on any day of the week, but I find it very, very odd that the Prime Minister is not here. I might have a question to ask him. I might have a question to ask him on behalf of the Ryan electorate. I was, after all, duly elected by the people of Ryan.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only just!

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

I was more than comfortably re-elected by the people of Ryan. I hear one of the newer members of the parliament already acting with absolute arrogance.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! A little less exchange across the chamber would be appreciated.

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

He is a man who has, in fact, been here only a short time and yet he is acting with incredible arrogance. Talk about the Sun King! I understand that the man I am looking at is the member for Longman. I certainly congratulate him on his election to the parliament, but I find it remarkable, in the spirit of generosity and in the spirit of democratic robust conversation and debate—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Longman is a new member. This does not relate to the terms of this motion, which is about ministerial accountability. The member for Ryan is flouting your ruling. He is showing his total disrespect for this House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Ryan.

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

Clearly, I think I have the goodwill and the support of the members of the Australian public who are sitting in the gallery. Wherever they come from around our great country, I welcome them to the national parliament. They are seeing robust debate in action here, and to those of them who might be from Queensland I give a particularly warm welcome. I represent the federal seat of Ryan, and my comments in fact go to the heart of my motion, because we are talking about democracy. My motion is about democracy; it is about accountability. It is about the executive being accountable to the parliament—and the executive is not here to be questioned. I cannot get up here now and ask a question to the Prime Minister of the country. How absolutely absurd. Talk about the Sun Kings of the Sunshine State!

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. There is a motion before the chair. This is backbenchers’ time, private members’ time. The member on the other side of the chamber is trying to introduce a whole range of other matters into the debate, which were debated here yesterday, and somewhat this morning. We should be debating and giving to people who want to speak on this motion the opportunity to do so. I ask that you bring the member back to the motion.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the member for Ryan.

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

The motion on the Notice Paper is about the accountability of the ministers of this government. Where are they? I look around the chamber of the House of Representatives of the 42nd parliament and I do not see one single member of the executive here.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bill’s here.

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

He is not quite the Prime Minister yet. I know that he is from Victoria and I know that a Victorian member of parliament from the Labor Party should be the Prime Minister, but right now the Sun King from the Sunshine State is the Prime Minister, and I want him here so I can ask him a question. Why can’t I, on behalf of the Ryan electorate, ask the Prime Minister of Australia a question about issues relevant to the people of my electorate? I need to have all kinds of answers from the executive. I know you seek to be on the front bench but, member for Maribyrnong, bide your time. There are a lot of people around you and you might enhance your career if you say to the Prime Minister, ‘Yes, Prime Minister, we should be here answering questions from the opposition.’

It is costing taxpayers $1 million per day for this parliament to sit, and we cannot even ask questions of the executive. How absolutely absurd, and what an affront to the people of Ryan! It is costing the taxpayers of Australia $1 million. It is costing every taxpayer of Australia—(Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard from the member for Ryan an absurd rhetorical question today: ‘Why can’t I ask a question of the PM?’ The member for Ryan has not even attempted this year to ask a single question of the PM. We have had two weeks of sittings. What we have had today from the member for Ryan is a continuation of the hysteria and a continuation of the attempt to create a cloud of uncertainty and doubt about a simple change to standing orders, when there is no uncertainty. There is no doubt nor is there the slightest change to the accountability of the executive in this place. I just need to state a few very simple facts about the changes to these standing orders. First, we used to have under the former standing orders, question time—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The new member in this parliament alleged that I had not asked a question of the Prime Minister. I wonder if he has asked a question of the Prime Minister in this chamber.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not the person complaining, as does the member for Ryan, that he cannot ask a question of the Prime Minister.

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

Mr Johnson interjecting

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the honourable member would just listen I could tell him that under the former standing orders we sat four days a week. There was question time four days a week. Under the new standing orders we will sit on the first four days of the week and there will be question time on the first four days of the week. Under the standing orders there used to be three matters of public importance debates. Under the new standing orders there will still be three matters of public importance debates.

Can I further point this out: just let’s look at the way in which the parliament has been operating in its first two weeks of operations. Under the life of the Howard government there was an average of about 18 or 19 questions every question time. Under the first two weeks of the Rudd Labor government we have been averaging more than 20 questions, and that is over the question times that we have had so far. There have been more questions—and that is with the extraordinary interruptions and objections that have been attempted by the opposition in these first two sitting weeks.

Can I make another point about the way in which this parliament has been operating? Throughout the whole of 2007 the Howard government gave precisely two ministerial statements in this House. In the first two weeks of the parliamentary sittings under the Rudd Labor government there have been four ministerial statements, and there will continue to be ministerial statements made.

There have been complaints made, both last week and this—with all kinds of hysterical statements—about the changes to standing orders. There was a suggestion, first of all, that there was some problem about the quorum requirement imposed under section 39 of Commonwealth Constitution. The other point that has been made was about some bizarre allegation by a number of the members opposite that there might be some loss of the absolute parliamentary privilege that attaches to statements made by members in this House. I need to state it clearly: there is no problem in relation to the quorum. All that we have now, with the new standing orders that have been introduced to regulate these Friday sittings, is a continuation of a practice that has been in place in this House—and, might I add, in the Senate—for some years.

It is an absurd suggestion that proceedings in this place could in any sense lose the parliamentary privilege that attaches to them, because of some imagined point that has been put forward about the quorum requirement. Earlier this week, on the morning of 20 February, the Speaker made an exceptionally clear statement on both points, and that should have put the matter to rest. It did not put the matter to rest because we have seen, both yesterday and again today, continued complaints about the new standing orders that have been introduced.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been no discussion about policy.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. I am reminded that, far from there being an attempt to actually engage in this place, to put forward some ideas and to deal with the new policies and the agenda for work that the Rudd government has, all we have had from members opposite is self-indulgence and concentration on what can only be described as arcane aspects of parliamentary procedure that, I would suspect, are of no interest to the Australian people. The Australian people want to see this parliament working on the future of this country, putting forward ideas for the future of this country and carrying forward the agenda for work that the Rudd government was elected to fulfil.

Bizarrely, yesterday the member for North Sydney said, in extraordinary terms, that the changes to standing orders ‘cut to the heart of the Westminster system’. The changes to the standing orders say nothing about the Westminster system. They do not change the accountability of ministers in this place and they do not change the way in which this parliament can work. The suggestion that has been faintly and incoherently raised today by the member for Ryan—that the standing orders in some way have lessened ministerial accountability in this place—is simply wrong.

I had expected, on reading the motion, that we might hear something about Pakistan because Pakistan is mentioned in this motion. The motion reads as follows:

That the House:

(1)

acknowledges its support for the advancement of democracy around the world, including Pakistan ...

We have not heard a word about ‘the advancement of democracy around the world, including Pakistan’.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would have been able to talk about Pakistan if the members opposite had allowed me to and had stopped interjecting all the time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government, as the foreign minister has made absolutely clear, strongly supports a return to democratic processes and the holding of elections in Pakistan. It is hoped that the elections that we have just had in Pakistan will produce a workable government and an early return to full democracy. I am going to assume, charitably, that the member for Ryan would support that sentiment even though we heard nothing from him about that.

It is ironic to hear, from members on the other side, a motion that asks this House to recognise the importance of ministerial accountability in our Westminster system of government. Be in no doubt that the Labor Party—we on this side of the House—fully recognise the importance of ministerial accountability. The shame is that the former government did not. Regrettably, I do not have time to give you what would be a very long list of the failures by the former government to pay even the slightest attention to, to use the words of the motion, ‘the importance of ministerial accountability’.

I need only go back to about 2004, which is probably far enough. I remind the House that, when the former member for Dawson was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, she was found to have breached the former government’s ministerial code of conduct when she employed a former lobbyist, Ken Crooke, before announcing a grant of $1.27 million to the company where that lobbyist had previously worked. There was no accountability, because the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the former member for Dawson, remained in her post.

I could mention the Australian Wheat Board disaster. No minister answered for that shame in Australia’s history. I could mention what occurred in relation to the history of maladministration of the immigration department under not one but two ministers for immigration. It was year after year of ministerial mismanagement where we saw Australian citizens deported—(Time expired)

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk to the motion of the member for Ryan, which reads:

That the House:

(1)

acknowledges its support for the advancement of democracy around the world, including Pakistan; and

(2)

recognises the importance of ministerial accountability in our Westminster system of government.

Churchill’s famous dictum that ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’ is indeed correct. It was delivered in the House of Commons on Remembrance Day in 1947 and was fitting at the postwar time that it was delivered. I contend it remains fitting to this day. Churchill had won the war but, in the election of July 1945, he was defeated, seen not as the man to organise the peace. When the news came out, Churchill was taking a bath. He remarked, ‘They have a perfect right to kick me out. That is democracy.’ He returned to power in 1951, but note that the remark about democracy was made after he had lost power. That is the wonderful nature of democracy. When only the gentle hum of shredders fills the thick disappointed ministerial air once the people have voted for a change, that is democracy. When the sounds of gunfire are absent and when High Court judges can sleep well at night, not fearing their door being kicked in and their being dragged off to prison in front of their children, that is democracy. When people live in freedom, with freedom of speech, of assembly and of thought, that is democracy. It may well be the worst form of government, Mr Churchill, but it is the best of the worst, and I welcome the return to democracy in Pakistan.

The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy was inherited by Australia. In this country it is fashioned around citizens electing a parliament and all being governed by one rule of law. The system of checks and balances was introduced as the historical absolutist monarchies crumbled in order to ensure that the system prevailed. It separated powers into three branches of government: parliament, elected by citizens; the executive branch, known as the Crown, of ministers, cabinet and public servants administering the laws passed by parliament; and the third branch, the judiciary, which cannot make laws and whose role is purely judicial.

It is interesting to note that neither the Prime Minister nor the cabinet are mentioned in the Australian Constitution. The framers of the Constitution took their existence for granted, as they did the various conventions of the Westminster system of government inherited from the United Kingdom. Within our great democracy, guided by our Westminster tradition, ministerial accountability is a paramount. The government’s Standard of Ministerial Ethicsexhibit A—states in the first bullet point of the foreword:

• Lobbyists will be required to register their details publicly on a Register of Lobbyists ... before seeking access to Ministers or their offices.

It is the very first bullet point. Section 8.2 says that this register will be available online. I have tried to find it online and you can imagine my surprise when I could not. So I had my staff call the office of the Prime Minister at 11:05 this morning and they said they would call us back. At this time they still have not called back. Perhaps they are on a Rudd day off, like the Prime Minister. This is despite Senate estimates on 18 February—four days ago—revealing that there are no rules in relation to meeting with lobbyists in advance of the register being established. Indeed Labor actually refused to answer the Senate estimate question about how they will define ‘lobbyists’ or what constitutes a ‘meeting’ with a lobbyist. This government cannot even get the first bullet point of their Standards of Ministerial Ethics right. I warn the Australian people here today that we are in for three very dark years of misery as this Labor administration follows the state Labor governments on the slippery path into moribund practice. Section 3.1 of exhibit A also says:

Ministers must be able demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps—

There is a typo. Their preposition ‘to’ is missing. It should say ‘able to demonstrate’. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to table this shoddily-written document to allow the Prime Minister, whose signature, I am sure, is on it, to fix it up before they embark on their education revolution. Like the missing preposition, the Prime Minister and most of his ministers are, indeed, missing with the preposition. (Time expired)

Leave granted.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me congratulate you on your elevation to the job. I put myself down on the speaking list because I thought this was a serious motion. I support the advancement of democracy around the world including Pakistan. It goes on to talk about ministerial accountability and the Westminster system. That is something I feel quite passionate about.

I thought it was wonderful to see the Pakistan elections taking place without the spectre of the carnage that we have seen recently in that country. We do hope that what is going to emerge is a solid democracy over there. It does appear that it will be a coalition—I hope that it is not a coalition, a rabble, like the one over here. I hope that it is a more sound in that respect. But it will be a coalition of power that will be running the government in Pakistan and that is something to look forward to.

I also thought that the mover of this motion might want to talk about our youngest democracy in East Timor and the threat that that democracy has had in recent times, about attempts that were made on the lives of both the President and the Prime Minister of the country or about the fact that, presently, we have about 100 police and 1,000 troops in East Timor. I feel quite passionate about that, having regard to the fact that I was part of the original negotiations, negotiating Australia’s police contingent when it went to East Timor some time back. The efforts that are being performed by Australian servicemen and police officers in furthering the interest in democracy and fighting the challenges and the threats to democracy in what is one of our nearest neighbours and one of the world’s youngest democracies are highly commendable.

No, that is not what the member wanted to talk about. He wanted to get in and raise issues that we spent many hours debating during the first sitting of this parliament. I do not know whether or not people can remember—maybe they were comatose at that stage—but on the first day of parliament we sat through until 2.00 am. Most people on the other side of the House decided to participate in that debate. They put their position forward and they lost the numbers—they just did not win the motion. Now we have had question time after question time and all they want to do is to not talk about issues of state or issues affecting the interests of people in their electorates. All they want to talk about in a roundabout way is how they can possibly get out of being here on Fridays.

I do not mind being here on Friday. I do not mind being here with an opportunity to talk about the interests of the people of Werriwa or the people of Macarthur or, quite frankly, the interests of any other people in south-west Sydney that need some assistance or need to have their views ventilated in this place. I know there might be some difficulty for the member for Macarthur in expressing their views, as I understand he is now referred to as the ‘Mayor of Mosman’, but that might be something for the member for Warringah to deal with. This is what Friday sittings are about. They are primarily to allow backbenchers to discuss and bring forward matters concerning their local electorate.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.