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

I move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

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

No, it is not overreached. Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling about ruling that question out of order. Page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice nowhere precludes asking a question about the Prime Minister’s own words.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: as I understand it, your last ruling was to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to rephrase her question. Is the dissent being moved in that position?

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney has the call.

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

Mr Speaker, I am moving dissent from your ruling because you have broken all practice in relation to this. There is a litany of examples where there has been a range of specific questions—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the dissent motion that the member for North Sydney has to speak on is your ruling relating to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He failed to move dissent when you ruled the question out of order. He failed to move dissent at that point in time. It was available to him. He chose not to do so. You then made a ruling, and he then moved dissent from that ruling.

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat, and the member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The ruling I gave was that the question was out of order. It is not a ruling when I then offer the opportunity to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to rephrase her question.

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

Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to move dissent in this situation, but I make the point that you have broken new ground as Speaker in relation to questions that are available to the opposition. When we cannot ask the Prime Minister a direct question about public comments he made as Prime Minister about the behaviour of one of his own members, then this parliament is reduced to a shambles by that sort of ruling. There is a rich history in this place over the last 12 years of questions that have been asked in relation to individual members of parliament and in relation to the Prime Minister’s discussions with those members of parliament. If you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, I refer you to questions that were asked in September 2007 in this parliament by the member for Brisbane. There was a question about the behaviour of the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton and the police investigation in relation to that. Why at that time did the Speaker allow questions to be asked about a police investigation when you, Sir, ruled them out of order yesterday? I will go one step further. In September 2007 the now Leader of the House asked a question of the then Speaker about the printing entitlements and the police investigation relating to the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton.

It goes further. In 2001 the Labor opposition asked almost 20 questions without notice in this House regarding Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, and the application of a GST by his own federal political party. That is assumed to be a breach of page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice but—do you know what?—the Speaker allowed those questions to be asked. Furthermore, in March 2005 the Labor opposition asked five questions without notice in this House about the behaviour of Senator Ross Lightfoot, a member of the Senate. They asked a question to the Prime Minister about what Senator Lightfoot had done and the Speaker at that time allowed those questions to be asked. I might also note that the member for Griffith—the now Prime Minister, who is walking out of the chamber; he is running away—asked a question. The member for Griffith asked a question about Senator Lightfoot. He was allowed to ask that question in the chamber. The Speaker allowed that to proceed. Then, if you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, Mr Speaker, in February 2005 the Labor opposition asked four questions without notice about the behaviour of Graeme Hallett, an employee at that time of the then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. But, Mr Speaker, yesterday and today you are ruling out questions where we not inquire about the behaviour of the member for Robertson but ask the Prime Minister specifically about what he said to the member for Robertson and what he said publicly about those discussions.

Mr Speaker, if we cannot ask those basic questions that go to the heart of democracy about whether a Prime Minister has formed a view about one of his own colleagues, but more significantly if we are not allowed to ask a question about the Prime Minister’s own public statements, then we do move dissent from your ruling. We are very concerned about a trend that this is establishing. It is not page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice that you are relying on, Mr Speaker, and it is certainly not the standing orders you are relying on. We cannot find an example where a question to a Prime Minister has been ruled out of order when it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s own public statements. We cannot find an example of that. This is new ground that you, as Speaker, are treading upon and it cuts to the heart of the value of question time.

Mr Speaker, if we still go to page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, as you, Mr Speaker, appear to be relying on and as the Prime Minister relied on yesterday in relation to police investigations, I note that from November 2005 until May 2007 the member for Griffith, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, joined in in asking 190 questions without notice about issues before a royal commission. Forget the police investigation run by the New South Wales police; the opposition previously asked 190 questions whilst a royal commission was being held on the subject matter. The Speaker at the time allowed those questions to be asked.

If we go back to 2002, we see that the Labor opposition asked over 60 questions without notice in the House with regard to the so-called ‘children overboard’ issue. At that time, the now Minister for Trade specifically referred to staff of the Prime Minister: Tony Nutt and Tony O’Leary. Over the years, the Labor opposition specifically referred to numerous staff—even going back to 1996, when they were asking about travel rorts. But, no, under you as Speaker, we are not allowed to ask questions that involve the staff of a member of parliament or of the Prime Minister.

This is a significant issue for this parliament. If you, Mr Speaker, are creating new ground in restricting the questions that can be asked of a Prime Minister about his public statements, it cuts to the heart of the value of this chamber as a chamber of the people. We believe that we have the right—and it goes to the foundations of what this parliament stands for—to ask the Prime Minister questions. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about public statements. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about his duties and responsibilities as Prime Minister. In this case, he made his comments in Japan, as Prime Minister, at a prime ministerial press conference. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has made further statements, even earlier in question time, and the same principle applied to the last question as applies now. But you, Mr Speaker, have two different rulings on the question of admissibility.

If we cannot ask questions about an issue that goes to the integrity of a member of parliament—or, indeed, to the integrity of the Prime Minister—then question time is enormously devalued. It also, I might add, affects the impartiality of the chamber. It is a very serious issue. The Prime Minister, in this situation, was asked a specific question about his specific words, his public comments. The specific point, which I made, was: to what was the Prime Minister referring when he said—and it is public—that there was ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’? That goes back to a press conference the Prime Minister had on 11 June, where he said:

… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.

The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has formed a view. If we are not entitled to ask the Prime Minister why he has formed a view about a member of parliament—and it goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Prime Minister—then what are we doing here? This goes beyond page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, it goes beyond the standing orders and it cuts to the very heart of democracy. If an opposition cannot ask questions of a Prime Minister, then it devalues not just the Prime Minister and not just the parliament but also the democracy that we all believe in.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I second the motion. This government and this Prime Minister promised the Australian people that the government would be open, accountable and transparent, essentially inviting the opposition to ask this government and this Prime Minister in question time questions that the Prime Minister would answer in an open, accountable and transparent way. Mr Speaker, today I asked a question, which you allowed, regarding a press conference that the Prime Minister gave in Japan on 9 June—this was my first question. At the press conference, the Prime Minister answered questions about the member for Robertson—and I put that information in my question, which you allowed, and then I quoted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:

… I understand my office has been in contact, and … I understand that she has issued a statement …

Then I asked whether the Prime Minister’s office had any involvement in the preparation of that statement. You, Mr Speaker, allowed that question, and the Prime Minister stood up; he got the date wrong and thought it was another press conference, but nevertheless he attempted to give some sort of answer to the question. He said he would go away, work out the timetable and come back. I then asked a second question based on another press conference two days later in Japan, where the Prime Minister, in answer to questions about the member for Robertson, said—and I again quoted him:

… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.

I then asked the Prime Minister if he would explain what he meant by ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’. The Prime Minister himself said at that press conference, when he was answering questions about the member for Robertson in public, rebuking her publicly, that his talk with Ms Neal was:

… a clear-cut conversation between me as the leader of the parliamentary Labor party, and as the prime minister, and with her as a member of the parliament.

So the Prime Minister was telling the world at large that his statements about the member for Robertson were made in his capacity as the Prime Minister of this country. If we are denied the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister of this country what he meant by a phrase he used in a press conference in Japan, then we will have our hands tied for the next 2½ years in the lead-up to the next election.

This government promised to be open, transparent and accountable. Mr Speaker, you must not use standing order 100(c) to suggest that the question I asked was anything other than to the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of this country must answer questions that go to the very essence of his role as Prime Minister. He chose to use that opportunity to make a statement in public, at a press conference, about the member for Robertson. The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant by a ‘pattern’. We are not talking about one incident. The Australian people do not have the opportunity to go down to the Lodge or turn up at Kirribilli and ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean by that?’ We as the elected representatives of the people of Australia are entitled to ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean when you, as the Prime Minister of this country, said at a press conference in Japan that “there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour”?’ The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant. The forum for the Australian people to ask that question is through the elected representatives, in question time, in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, this question should not have been ruled out of order, with the greatest respect. We spent time overnight reading your statements yesterday in Hansard and, with the greatest respect, I am cognisant of the statements you made. I sought advice and I spent a lot of time drafting these questions to ensure they did not offend whatever interpretation you, Mr Speaker, put on the standing orders. So we directed the question to the Prime Minister’s statement, and you allowed that in question 9. You allowed a question about the Prime Minister’s statement and what that statement meant. The statement said that his office had been in contact with the member for Robertson and that he understood the member for Robertson had issued a statement. The fact is she had not issued a statement; therefore, we ask, ‘What did he mean by that? What did he mean by the issuing of that statement?’ The second question, question 10, is again in the same form, exactly the same form, as the question that you allowed. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister must be required to answer this question. (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker, I rise for the fourth time to speak in support of your ruling, consistent with the way in which I think any independent observer of this chamber who has looked at the way that you have held yourself in your high office since December would acknowledge: you have carried out your duties in an impartial way which has brought honour to this chamber.

The fact is that this motion is the fourth motion of dissent from your ruling. When there is a bad Newspoll, you can almost, like clockwork, find those opposite performing a stunt in an attempt to distract from their own issues.

Mr Speaker, your ruling is absolutely correct. It is consistent with the rulings that you made yesterday. It is consistent with page 538 of House of Representatives Practice. It is consistent with standing order 90, which says:

All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

There are avenues open to people in the chamber if they are serious about these issues. Standing order 100(c)(i) states:

(c)

For questions regarding persons:

(i)

questions must not reflect or be critical of the character or conduct of a Member ... their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion;

Standing order 100(d) states:

(d)

Questions must not contain:

(iii)

inferences;

(iv)

imputations;

It is quite clear that not only was your ruling correct but, at the time it was made, that ruling was not challenged; it went unchallenged. When parliament last sat, the member opposite, the shadow minister for the environment, was excluded from the chamber for one hour for repeatedly defying your ruling. You then allowed him back into the chamber, a precedent which I do not believe had been made before. That was a generous precedent from you that was not challenged by those opposite.

Mr Speaker, you have gone out of your way to be fair in the way that you have presided over this chamber, in spite of the behaviour we have seen from those opposite in moving some 290 points of order, in interrupting almost every second question and in moving dissent motions just because the Manager of Opposition Business did not have a chance to speak. Rather than being the most serious thing that can be done about the conduct of this magnificent chamber, motions of dissent have now become a vehicle for an opportunity for the competitors for Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak.

Mr Speaker, it is very clear that your ruling is correct, and that is why it should be upheld. It is clear that the Prime Minister has conducted himself appropriately and dealt with this matter appropriately. The Prime Minister has said that the comments were very inappropriate, that they were out of step with all parliamentary standards past and present. The Prime Minister has said that he strongly believes it was appropriate that the comments be withdrawn. With regard to the police investigation, the Prime Minister has said that it is appropriate that that police investigation take place without political interference and the use of parliamentary privilege to interfere with that, just as the previous Prime Minister did in this chamber.

It is extraordinary that this is all the opposition wants to talk about when there are serious long-term challenges facing this nation. We have inflation at 16-year highs, we have Australian families who have had 12 consecutive interest rate increases, yet we have from those opposite an obsession—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The member is supposed to be explaining to this House the worth of your decision, and he is making a very poor case.

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

The minister knows that he has to be relevant.

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

I am certainly doing so. This dissent motion, like the others, is not actually about the rules and procedures of this House. It is about an opposition struggling for relevance, a divided opposition obsessed with itself, determined to look outward in order to distract from its own inefficiencies and its own inadequacies. We saw it on display again today with the questions that were asked by those opposite. As usual, they left the low-grade stuff to the end, as they always do.

We have heard from those opposite that there was going to be an attempt to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Have we heard anything from those opposite advancing those arguments? Nothing whatsoever. It is actually the occurrences in this parliament that are the responsibility of this parliament; occurrences outside are being investigated by the police. And it is appropriate that that be the case.

We opposite have said that we are quite prepared for there to be scrutiny of occurrences in this chamber, but there will be scrutiny of all the occurrences in this chamber, including, might I add, what appears to be the draft Hansard that was changed on 28 May. Mrs Mirabella is in Hansard interjecting, ‘You pathetic man hater,’ across the chamber. You will not actually find that in the real Hansard. You will not find that because it has been expunged and changed. Perhaps that is why we have not heard any matter with regard to privileges.

The fact is that this dissent motion reflects an opposition leader in an increased state of desperation—an opposition leader who has been rejected because of the negative, carping role that they are playing, being prepared to blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus. We know that the shadow Treasurer, the person who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition, is clearly already out there holding focus groups about himself in Melbourne.

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

Order! The Leader of the House knows that he has to refer to the matter before the chair.

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

Mr Speaker, quite clearly your ruling is correct on this matter. An opposition in search of a quick, cheap headline does not change that one iota. There is something ironic about those opposite talking about the dignity of the chamber. These are the people who brought in a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister. In opposition I disagreed strongly with the then Prime Minister. We did not treat the chamber like that. We did not treat dissent resolutions as a matter of convenience. We did not move points of order in one out of every two questions. We did not refuse, when provided with the opportunity by the Speaker, to rephrase questions to get them in order—even though the Speaker has been generous in allowing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do just that.

Yesterday, we had you, Mr Speaker, refer specifically to page 538 of the standing orders and the opposition deliberately defied that and asked a question that they knew was out of order. They know this question was out of order. They only moved it so as to move a dissent motion, and they are exposed on it by the fact that they moved a dissent motion after you gave them the opportunity to rephrase the question. This is an opposition that is out of touch, as best shown by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who ridiculed those people who would search for specials in supermarkets. That is absolutely outrageous. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have to check the record but I do not think I have ever supported a dissent from a Speaker’s ruling. I am about to do that today because I believe that if this ruling is allowed to stand it would create a precedent that this parliament may well live to regret. The substance of the question is almost irrelevant in terms of this particular issue. I understand that the government is trying to protect a member, but the question is to the Prime Minister of this country. The question is about a statement that the Prime Minister made and, if the standing orders as you interpret them, Mr Speaker, allow for this to happen into the future, I think the general public would be very disappointed that an opposition or other member of this House—an Independent or whoever—is not allowed to ask the Prime Minister about a statement that he made whilst he was overseas.

I do have the utmost respect for you, Mr Speaker. I would have to check the record but I am pretty sure I have never supported a dissent ruling, though that might be found to be incorrect. I urge you, Mr Speaker, perhaps on another day, if this ruling is to stand, to explain very clearly—not to the people in this building but to the general public—why a member of the opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is not entitled to ask the Prime Minister a question about a statement he has made as part of his Prime Ministerial responsibilities.

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

The Attorney-General.

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

I was standing at the dispatch box.

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

The member for Sturt will resume his place.

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

The member for Sturt will withdraw. That was a reflection on the chair. The member will withdraw the remark.

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

I withdraw.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in examining your conduct, as the motion seeks to do, it is appropriate also to examine the context of the debate that has occurred over the past two days on this issue. It is also appropriate to examine the conduct of all parties in this chamber. Indeed, one would ask: what more did you need to do to keep the show on the road, as it were, and to keep the situation flowing, where the opposition was entitled to ask the executive to be accountable for its decisions in accordance with the provisions of the standing order? You went out of your way to facilitate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rephrasing her question—a course of action which I might infer from her body language she was well intending to do until she was pulled to order.

Why was she pulled to order? Because the opposition’s actions in this respect have more to do with political tactics than the substance of the issues. The purpose and intent of question time is to hold members of the executive accountable for their actions and not for their opinions. It is a very, very important exercise. It is where the process of democracy literally hits the road. Members of parliament from both sides of the House have the opportunity to represent their constituents and ask members of the executive about why they are doing something with respect to public policy, and that is underlined, I might suggest, by standing order 98, which says:

A Minister can only—

and I will emphasise that word ‘only’—

be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected ...

The first paragraph—

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

Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.

Question put:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.