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

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private members’ business being reported from the Main Committee, or called on, and considered immediately in the following order:Motion relating to a Joint Select Committee on Broadband—report from the Main Committee;Motion relating to Special Disability Trusts—report from the Main Committee;Order of the day No. 8—motion relating to climate change; andMotion relating to mental health—report from the Main Committee.

For the benefit of the House, I also table a letter from the federal member for Maranoa, along the lines of the following:

Dear Minister—

addressed to me as Leader of the House—

Regarding the planned vote tomorrow on my Private Member’s Motion of 18 October 2010, I believe that the substance of the Motion has been addressed by the Health Minister’s request for the House Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to conduct an inquiry into Registration Processes and Support for Overseas Trained Doctors. As such I do not believe a vote in the House is necessary.

I table the letter from Mr Scott, the member for Maranoa, for the information of the House as to why that vote is not proceeding today.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move, as an amendment to the motion of the Leader of the House:

That the following words be added to the motion:“And (2) that the private Members’ business item No. 3, national curriculum motion standing in the name of the member for Sturt on the Notice Paper be returned from the Main Committee and considered immediately.”

The reason I move this amendment to the motion put by Leader of the House is that the issue of the national curriculum is a matter that is quite time specific. The motion, as some members may recall, seeks to delay the start date for the national curriculum from January 2011 to January 2012. I will go into the reasons for that a little bit later, although I do not intend to keep the House at great length. But I do believe that some of the reasons why the national curriculum needs to be delayed for 12 months need to be explained to the House. In moving this amendment, can I explain, particularly to the crossbenchers, the reasons why this motion is necessary. This amendment is necessary because the Selection Committee has gone through its process of asking the government to list motions and bills for voting. The Leader of the House has indicated today that there are four items that will be voted upon this morning. One is the joint select committee on broadband as proposed by the member for Wentworth, the special disability trusts as proposed by the member for Pearce, the member for Reid’s motion on climate change, and the member for Dickson’s motion on mental health.

There are a number of other motions and bills that the opposition would like to have had voted upon and the government has indicated that votes will not be scheduled in government business today. There are reasons that the government has made that decision and the opposition has some issues with that, but I will not reprise all of those as we went through them last week. But I would particularly point the crossbenches to the Hansard from last Thursday’s sitting, where the Leader of the House, in asking members not to support a motion from the opposition to list matters for voting last Thursday, said to the House:

This morning I spoke to the Manager of Opposition Business and we agreed that this amendment he is moving was not necessary and that these votes would occur next Wednesday—

which was yesterday; they were the votes on mental health and the National Broadband Network committee—

I agreed with him this morning that we would split the votes so that the two items he wanted this morning would be voted on next Wednesday and the other items would be voted on next Thursday.

The other items that were discussed and are in the Hansard record of that day were: the flying foxes bill of the member for Cowper; the PPL or pay clerk bill of the member for Dunkley; the national curriculum motion that I have moved; the asylum seekers and Inverbrackie motion, which the member for Mayo has moved; and the insulation data motion, which the member for Flinders moved. So in that debate last Thursday it was very clear that the other items that the opposition wanted to have voted upon today were a motion on insulation data, a motion on the national curriculum, a motion on Inverbrackie and the new detention facility there, the flying foxes bill of the member for Cowper and the bill to do with the pay clerk system, as proposed by the member for Dunkley. That is quite clear in black and white in Hansard and, I repeat, the Leader of the House said:

I agreed with him this morning that we would split the votes so that the two items he wanted this morning would be voted on next Wednesday and the other items would be voted on next Thursday.

So he has said that those two items, mental health and the National Broadband Network, would be voted on yesterday—it did not happen—and that the other five items that the opposition wanted to be voted upon would be voted upon today, and that has not happened. Instead, the government has pushed the votes from yesterday into today and is saying that the votes that were to be held today will be held next February.

The government has the power to list items on the agenda in government business time and, obviously, when the Leader of the House makes a statement in black and white in Hansard, the opposition is entitled to believe that that is a commitment that he will keep. It has not been kept on this occasion, because those five items we discussed last Thursday are not listed for voting this morning. I accept that the government has the numbers to decide what the agenda will be, but I do on this occasion ask the crossbenches to consider this very important point: if the national curriculum motion is not voted upon today—it is supposed to have effect in January 2011, so voting on it in February 2011 will be something of a pointless exercise—it will be something of a dead letter. And I see that the Leader of the House laughs and smiles and thinks it is terribly funny.

The point is that there are very good reasons why the government should not be let off the hook on the national curriculum. And do not take just my word for it. People should listen perhaps to this extraordinary group of people: 13 representatives of educationalists around Australia who would not normally line up together, groups like the Australian Association for Research in Education, the Australian College of Educators, the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the Australian Curriculum Studies Association and the Australian Education Union—Angelo Gavrielatos and the Australian Education Union have lined up with the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia.

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

Mr Albanese interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I am making, Leader of the House, is that this group of 13 are so concerned about the curriculum starting in January that they have banded together. The Independent Schools Association has banded together with the Australian Education Union, the Australian Primary Principals Association, the Australian Professional Teachers Association, the Australian Secondary Principals Association and the Independent Education Union of Australia. So the AEU’s competition, the Independent Education Union, has signed a letter with the AEU. You cannot get them together in a room and yet they have signed this letter about the national curriculum. The National Education Forum and the Association of Principals of Catholic Secondary Schools have lined up with the AEU and the chief executive officer of Principals Australia to sign a letter saying:

We believe the timeline for the project must be extended to ensure that the Australian curriculum is as good as it can be. The timelines for all stages of the project at present are unreasonably short and in the end this will be self defeating. The consultation timelines do not allow enough time to provide considered detailed feedback and do not allow the voices of teachers and other stakeholders to be heard. The speed of the development process is contrary to what is known about the conditions for effective professional development practices and educational change. It was noted that schools require time for both evaluation of the curriculum documents after they are provided and planning for their effective implementation. This will also require an extension of time.

So this group of 13, who would normally never join together, have asked the parliament to delay the national curriculum for 12 months. I appeal to the Greens in particular, who get a lot of support from the Australian Education Union, to recognise that, if we do not vote on this curriculum motion today, by February next year it will be a dead letter. And I remind the members for New England and Lyne that the New South Wales Board of Studies—not the government of New South Wales, which is pretty rancid—has indicated that there is no way the national curriculum can begin in January 2011. The New South Wales government is not going to sign on to it—from his own state of New South Wales. There are schools in the electorates of the members for Lyne and New England that are asking for this curriculum to be delayed so that it can be gotten right rather than be gotten in.

09:44:30

The Western Australia government has indicated it will not start the national curriculum. The Tasmanian government has indicated it will not start the national curriculum. The Victorian government has indicated the same thing. The only state that has indicated it will begin the national curriculum in January 2011 is South Australia,—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Secker interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

our shocking government in South Australia, Member for Mayo and Member for Barker. The South Australian Labor government is the only government in Australia that has indicated it will start the national curriculum. So what the opposition are saying, and asking the crossbenchers to support, is: let the government off the hook, let the minister for schools off the hook, and pass this motion.

But we cannot vote on this motion unless we first vote on my amendment to the motion by the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders. I am asking the crossbenchers to walk across the aisle with the opposition and vote in favour of this amendment so that, once the amendment is passed, we can vote on the national curriculum. I know that there are members on the cross benches who want to vote for the national curriculum motion and I know there are members who do not want to vote for the national curriculum motion, but there is nothing to stop the crossbenchers from voting to allow the vote to occur. It is part of the democratic process.

I am sorry that the government has not listed this for voting and I am sorry that in the Selection Committee process—which in some respects is still finding its trainer wheels in a hung parliament, as the Speaker himself has indicated in this place; that is the same for all of us in this new hung parliament—it was not clear that we wanted this vote to occur on this day. But I am asking the crossbenchers on this particular occasion, because this motion is time specific, to walk across the aisle—member for New England—with the opposition and allow this vote to occur. I know you want to, member for New England, and it is a very easy thing to do. It is just two metres across the aisle.

I will not hold up the business of the House for any longer. I know there is a great deal that needs to be done. I have moved the amendment that the national curriculum be added to the list of votes that will occur this morning and I would ask the parliament to seriously consider it and then allow the vote on the national curriculum.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

I rise to speak against the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. It is important to outline to the parliament what this amendment is and what it is not. What it is not is a vote on the substance of the private member’s motion moved by the member for Sturt. That is what it is not, in spite of the fact that he spoke passionately about his views on that subject. What it is about is a vote on upholding the processes that we have established in this House to ensure the orderly running of the House of Representatives, particularly given the reforms that we have put in place to allow for voting on private members’ motions and private members’ bills.

The member for Sturt outlined—selectively—what I said on Thursday, 18 November 2010. He indicated correctly that last week there was a debate when he moved an amendment to the motion for the suspension of standing orders in this chamber. He outlined correctly the fact that I certainly considered I had an agreement with him, reached at 10 minutes to nine last week, that we would have, of the five motions that were to be voted upon today, two of them on Wednesday and three of them on Thursday. That was the offer that I made to him; that was the agreement that he made. He then walked in here and broke that agreement and moved that it be brought on immediately. That is what occurred last Thursday—he broke the understanding that was there, given at 10 minutes to nine.

During that debate I made it very clear, and the House of Representatives Hansard of Thursday, 18 November 2010, on page 5, records me saying this:

… the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee, signed by the chair, Harry Jenkins, and dated 17 November 2010, say in writing:

The committee recommended that the following items of private member’s business orders of the day be voted on:

• Mental Health (resumption of debate from 25 October 2010 on motion of Mr Dutton);

• Joint Select Committee on Broadband (resumption of debate from 25 October 2010 on motion of Mr Turnbull);

• Overseas Trained Doctors (resumption of debate from 18 October 2010 on motion of Mr Scott);

• Special Disability Trusts (resumption of debate from 18 October 2010 on motion of Ms Moylan); and

• Climate change notice of motion given by Mr Murphy on 15 November 2010.

This is what I said last Thursday:

What does that tell you? It tells you that there are five items of business to be voted upon next week and that four of those five are from the opposition, none are from the crossbenchers and only one is from the government.

That is what I told the parliament last week would happen this week. So there was proper notice in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

What we have determined and agreed upon is that the Selection Committee will meet. The Selection Committee met on Tuesday, 23 November, and determined the following items would be voted on: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Public Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010, moved by the member for Cowper; a motion on the detention facility at Inverbrackie, moved by the member for Mayo; a motion on the national curriculum, moved by the member for Sturt; and a motion on the home insulation program, moved by the member for Flinders.

Two days ago, on Tuesday, we determined there will be four votes when the parliament comes back, in the first sitting week, all of them from the coalition—100 per cent. Today, we had five items listed—one of them was withdrawn by the member for Maranoa—four of them from the coalition. The majority of the private members’ bills and motions overwhelmingly have been items from the coalition. We are scheduling the votes in an orderly way. I just moved two bills on the National Broadband Network. I moved them today, they get placed here, we have a second reading, then debate commences a week later—when we come back on the Tuesday after the caucuses meet.

This resolution by the member for Sturt attempts to not give private members’ business equal status but greater status than government bills, even though, when this motion is debated, voted upon and carried, it will not have an effect on government policy. It is simply a motion indicating a view of the House of Representatives. That is all it is. If the member for Sturt’s motion is carried, and if we have these debates every Thursday and we divide on these motions, we will be saying as a House of Representatives that these private members’ motions are of more significance than the national legislation coming before this parliament, such as the NBN bills I moved this morning. We have to have proper processes and that is why we have motions and bills introduced at one time, determined they will be voted upon and then a time set out for them. Every one of those four items will be voted upon on Thursday, 10 February 2011. We know that will occur. The reason that has to happen is that, if we are going to take private members’ motions and bills seriously, we have to treat them with some respect. We have to be able to examine them, to have discussions about them, to consult with our constituents and with our political organisations about them.

Particularly for those who sit on the crossbenches, it will simply be untenable if members are able to come in here and move suspensions to bring forward debates at any time. It may well be that they have already settled on a view on the motion moved by the member for Sturt. That is not the point. The point is that you cannot have an orderly running of this House in this way. It is not the government’s fault, nor is it the fault of the crossbench members of the Selection Committee if the coalition members who sit on the Selection Committee did not attend the Selection Committee prior to Tuesday 23 November—two days ago—to ask that votes be held on these items. That is not the government’s responsibility. That is why the member for Sturt apologised and said he was sorry about his own political organisation’s handling of this item.

It is significant that the member for Sturt has moved only one of these items—his own. There is no amendment about the member for Mayo’s motion, no amendment about the member for Flinder’s motion and no amendment about the member for Cowper’s private member’s bill because the member for Sturt knows that this is a trial. He knows that, if the vote was to be held this week, the appropriate time would have been last week’s Selection Committee meeting, not that of two days ago. I think we should get on with the votes being held today that were foreshadowed very clearly last week. The five items were outline there. Unless we do that, we will not be able to have appropriate processes before this House.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always, the Leader of the House comes across quite persuasively but I point out the fallacy in his argument about the proper order of government business. When the government has the second reading debate, the vote is immediate; whereas this government has brought in this fallacious idea that when private members’ business is debated there must be at least a week between the vote. Why is private members’ business any different from government business? It is not. The opposition have agreed to the suggestion that the debate be delayed to the next Thursday sitting of the parliament, so that we can have ordered votes on the Thursday. But this government is trying to say, ‘You have to wait another week after the debate is completed.’ This is a fallacious argument. If we have had the debate and the debate is finished, we could argue whether or not to put it to a vote.

All we are saying is that we should be able to vote on these motions when the debate has been completed in this parliament. In fact, on this occasion it has been completed for over a week. We would hope that the crossbenchers would support us in a very time-sensitive motion to have this voted on. As those on the Select Committee would know, we asked for the vote this Thursday and, just as the Prime Minister said during the week, the Selection Committee does not have the power to set a vote. However, this chamber does have the power to choose when we vote on a debate which has already been completed. I would implore those on the crossbenches to make sure that the parliament can vote on something that is so time sensitive that it would be worthless to defer it until next year.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the substantive motion referred to by the member for Sturt on the national curriculum, if and when it comes before the House, it is something that I would be inclined to support, so I would have an interest in its coming forward. I find strange things happen when I say I agree that the member for Sturt puts forward some good reasons. I know that the Australian Education Union has raised concerns about the national curriculum, and they are real concerns that do need to be explored. But I cannot support the amendment he has moved today. There is a sense of deja vu here: I recall making a similar speech to the House last week. I accept that there will be on occasions some matters that are so critically time sensitive that we will need to consider amendments such as this, but this motion has been around for some time and there has been ample opportunity to request that it be voted on. I do not know that I can speak on behalf of all of the people on the crossbench, but speaking for myself we do have an interest in there being an orderly process to ensure that private members’ bills and motions come on and are voted on in an orderly fashion. To the extent that that system works, that is a system that I would seek to support. On that basis, I indicate that I will be supporting that motion, but I cannot support the amendment.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a procedure wonk and someone who has a fair bit of skin in the game with the reforms that have happened over the last couple of months, I do want to put on the record the short history of what we have been able to achieve as a House of Representatives collective. In the majority we have done some good work in getting up and running in a relatively short period of time a better parliament than we had before. I thank all members for that, as it is the last sitting day, and take the opportunity to encourage that to continue. In that context, the Standing Committee on Procedure is looking at the changes right now. I would strongly encourage those who might not be getting their way this week to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, because six weeks ago this was the exact reason why the argument that I was putting to the government—for private members to have control over the vote in regard to private members’ time—should have been a principle that was upheld.

If you go back to the record, what I was trying to achieve on behalf of all of us was to have a set period of time—I think the time allocated was a Monday afternoon—for what I called ‘cats and dogs’ votes, for votes to actually take place back to back in private members’ time and that the executive did not control the agenda; the parliament controlled the voting agenda. Unfortunately, though, there was not support from the opposition at that time. The position that the opposition did take was to support the government and say that, no, the executive should have control of when the votes happen. In my view, the continued and prevailing view that hopefully we are culturally changing, and somewhat slowly, is the belief of the opposition six weeks ago that you would not be able to run a government if the parliament had control of when the votes happen. I lost that vote six weeks ago.

We have established a process now, which is that the Selection Committee recommends to the Leader of the House, whoever that may be, that a certain bill or motion is ready to be voted upon. Then, at their discretion but as soon as possible, the Leader of the House and the executive make time for that vote to happen in government business time, as we are seeing this morning. If anyone goes back to when the standing orders were changed, they will see we made sure that the Leader of the House in his speech did verbalise that, and so we at least do have that on the record. To the credit of the Leader of the House, he has not broken that agreement to date, but we are watching closely. We now have a process established where, through the Selection Committee, we refer to the Leader of the House and as soon as possible, depending on the legislative agenda, we then have a vote. That is historic—we are getting votes on private members’ business. That is to everyone’s credit.

As it is the last week of sitting now, I think it would be in breach of the process we have established that we start a process of individual members seeking leave to achieve their own agenda. That would not make for a working parliament during 2011-12 in what are tight numbers. We have established that process; we should commit to that. If there is any reflection about the original suggestion of six weeks ago that we have a set time on a Monday or a Thursday for the ‘cats and dogs’ votes, I would be more than willing to support a submission that suggests that. I only wish that six weeks ago the coalition was supporting that, in which case we would not be having this debate today.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Mr Pyne’s) be so added.