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

Mr Speaker, I note your statement to the House and I take it from your statement that your ruling is that the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, introduced by the member for Mackellar, cannot be proceeded with. I have ascertained from the Leader of the House that he does not intend to move a motion to that effect, as occurred on two previous occasions—on the regional students bill and on the bill to do with increasing the pension. Having ascertained that, I reluctantly, but I feel necessarily on behalf of the opposition, move:

That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

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

On this occasion—and you know I do not do this often—perhaps you would permit me to liaise with the Clerk. I have characterised that this may be described as an advisory ruling, which is something I have tried to avoid. The member for Mackellar can shake her head all she likes. I am trying to get through this with no trickery or hokery pokery. I have been asked whether I consider this to be a ruling or a statement, and I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.

I thought I was making a statement, but I am happy for it to be looked upon as a ruling. I had expected it to become a ruling when there was something before us or there were other attempts to do something. If it assists the House, I am happy to put on the record that it is a ruling, and with its becoming a ruling the Manager of Opposition Business is open to do whatever he wishes to do.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. May I say at the beginning of my remarks on this dissent motion that usually dissent motions against a Speaker's ruling are moved in the heat of battle, in question time or at other times during the day, because emotions are running high and the opposition disagrees fundamentally with the Speaker's call on a particular matter. On this occasion I move dissent from your ruling not with any sense of anger or outrage but because it is the only mechanism available to the opposition to put on record its disagreement with the stance you, Mr Speaker, have taken on this occasion on an important bill before the House.

As you alluded to in your statement, Mr Speaker, this is not the first time we have debated the issue of appropriation bills—or bills that are not appropriation bills, in the opposition's mind—being before the House and whether the House of Representatives can deal with those bills or is incapable of dealing with those bills. We had this debate over the youth allowance bill that I moved in this House and we had this debate over the bill on the increase in pension, which was moved when Brendan Nelson was the Leader of the Opposition.

This is the first, most comprehensive treatment of this fundamental issue that we have had the opportunity to debate in a calm, considered way. I appreciate the note the clerks have produced. It is an excellent note. It is well researched and well written. I appreciate the spirit in which you have made your statement to the House. I also appreciate the fact that the statement was made in an entirely non-partisan way in an attempt to inform the House of what you, Mr Speaker, believe is in our power and within our capacity to deal with in the House of Representatives. However, we fundamentally disagree with the proposition that the Abolition of the Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 cannot be proceeded with in this House. We in the opposition believe that, while it is certainly the case that under the Constitution and the standing orders only the executive can present bills to the Governor-General for assent, that does not mean that the House of Representatives cannot deal with any matter it chooses to deal with that it seeks to put before itself. Our view is that the members of the House of Representatives are sovereign in their capacity to address and deal with any matter.

This is a very important debate, because it deals with the relationship between the executive and the Crown, it deals with the relationship between the parliament and the executive and it deals with the relationship between the people and the parliament. It is the opposition's view that the people elect a parliament of 150 members of the House of Representatives and from amongst those members of the parliament an executive is appointed by the Governor-General to advise them on how to govern the nation. The executive has a relationship with the Crown that is quite separate and apart from the parliament. That is in our Constitution and is how our nation has been governed since 1901 and before that in the colonies. The Crown has a particular relationship with the executive which it does not have with the parliament. The opposition has never claimed, and does not claim today, that we as a parliament have the power to direct the Governor-General on how to act or to direct a member of the executive on how to advise the Governor-General. However, we as a parliament do have a right to address and deal with any matter we seek to put before ourselves: we have the capacity to pass it, to amend it, to defeat it or to decide to lay it on the table. But we in the opposition do not believe that the Speaker has the capacity to direct the parliament on whether it can or cannot proceed with a bill.

I particularly appeal to the members of the crossbenches, who over the last nine months have made the capacity of private members in this House their cause celebre. The member for Lyne particularly has spoken on many occasions in this place about the sovereignty of private members and their capacity to represent their constituents. I am sure the member for New England would share those views, as would the member for Denison, the member for O'Connor, the member for Kennedy and the member for Melbourne. Our argument is very simple and our argument is this: that while the executive decides what to advise the Governor-General and which bills should be presented to the Governor-General for assent, it is the parliament which can decide any matter before it and dispose of it.

So we do dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. We dissent from your ruling because it is the only mechanism we have before us to get a vote in this House on whether the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 can proceed. This is a very important debate for our parliament because it goes very much to the whole basis of the Westminster system over many hundreds of years. Our forebears, who established the traditions upon which our parliament is based, would have fought very strongly, very powerfully, for the right of the parliament to consider any matter we choose to put before us.

This is not a light matter. An English civil war was fought over the relationship between the parliament and the people and the Crown and the executive. The English Civil War in the 17th century was not a light matter about a particular king who had a disagreement with a particular group of people led by Oliver Cromwell and many others. It was actually a war over whether the parliament had the capacity to act and its relationship with the Crown. The parliament won that civil war and the relationship between the Crown and the parliament and the executive was established at that time and reaffirmed—

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

They cut his head off.

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

The member for Moreton will come to order.

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

Do not be so pathetic. That relationship was reaffirmed in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution, as it was called, when James II was removed by the parliament and replaced with a different sovereign, because again the relationship—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

If you do not understand the basis of the traditions of the Westminster system, it is not my job to tell you.

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

Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting and the member for Sturt will ignore him.

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

In 1688, the parliament reaffirmed its power and the relationship between itself, the executive and the Crown. That relationship, set in Westminster in the 17th century, is the same relationship we have today in 2011. It has stood for hundreds of years and it is not a light matter for the parliament to decide that it cannot deal with a matter that we would like to put before it. For that reason, while some members of the Labor Party think these are trivial issues—

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

That is not what I am saying at all.

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

Order! The member for Moreton is warned and the warning lasts all day.

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

While some members of the Labor Party believe that the 24-hour news cycle, or even the 12-hour news cycle, should determine how we operate in this parliament and think that it is simply a game of sport—that it is about who is winning at any particular time—the truth is that these matters are of great import to the relationship this parliament has with the executive and to the relationship between the executive and the Crown. So these matters should be taken very seriously.

The Speaker has taken these matters seriously. The Speaker has spent the last week deliberating on this matter. He did not rule last Thursday that the bill could not proceed. I think that the Leader of the House has also taken these matters seriously, because he has not pushed the Speaker on this matter. He has allowed the Speaker to come to a view. The Speaker has quite properly sought the input of the clerks, a paper has been produced and the Speaker has made a decision. We disagree with the Speaker's ruling and so this motion before the chair is that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. We put that dissent motion so that the power of the parliament, the prerogative of the parliament and the sovereignty of the people can be upheld.

We do not seek to direct the executive. We do not seek to direct the Crown. Some characterise the bill we are putting up as an appropriation bill, but I note that others do not. The President of the Senate, Senator Hogg, does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate takes the view that, because an appropriation is already in the parliament—because there have already been appropriations placed in the parliament for these matters—this is not a new appropriation and therefore the Senate can deal with such a bill. So why would the Senate have greater powers than the House of Representatives? It is simply absurd to suggest that the Senate would give itself more powers than the House of Representatives, which is of course the people's house. While the people vote for the Senate, the different voting system means that the House of Representatives can most properly be characterised as the people's house. I urge people to support the dissent motion. (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker, I second the motion and in doing so I would like to echo the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business. This is in no way a reflection on you, but it is in fact a very important constitutional issue, an important question about whether or not this House is in charge of its own agenda. As the Leader of the House has refused to put forward any motion on this matter, the only mechanism we have for debating this issue is to move dissent from your ruling.

I want to make two points. Your ruling is saying that you are upholding standing orders which say that a bill may only be introduced by the government. The problem is, Mr Speaker, that the bill has already been introduced. The bill is alive and before this parliament. Indeed the Selection Committee which you chair and which was set up under the new paradigm—where all the crossbenchers said there must be a voice for private members' business; this was an important tenet that they agreed to support the government on—has recommended that the bill be listed for a vote on its second reading. The government acted in defiance of your recommendation last week by failing to list the bill. Instead, the bill was brought on by suspending standing orders, which we agreed to, and we had the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders rather than on the second reading. The bill was read a first time and the second reading commenced, so the bill is already here. The government had two speakers in the second reading debate on the bill, but not one of them raised the constitutional issue that this was an appropriation bill—not one. At no stage was this issue raised in this House. It was not raised from the chair, it was not raised by the government and the debate went on; we argued the merits of the bill. It was only when it came to the suspension vote that we were able to voice the fact that the government was now raising this question and wanted to somehow knock out the bill. It sent around a little cheat sheet for the Independents to use, and those Independents who spoke did not at all comment on the proposition that I made—which I believe is the only sensible way out of this dilemma—that the bill could proceed to a vote on the second reading and then the government during consideration in detail could move an amendment to say that the bill would not come into force until the government undertook to move an appropriation bill. That is a way around this dilemma, because the bill is already in this place. It has been debated, and it is awaiting a vote.

I turn now to section 56 of the Constitution. Mr McClelland in his advice to you dated February, when we were dealing with the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011], pointed out that section 56 states that appropriation bills:

... shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

That is quite right, but that message does not come until after the second reading vote has been held, and I am putting to you, Mr Speaker, that by ruling on the two standing orders it is too late—it is post factum. The fact is that the bill is already in this place and it must proceed to a second reading. What happens after that is another matter. We would then move to consideration in detail. The question of section 56 of the Constitution could be raised. The government could accept my proposition.

I was very disappointed when those members of the crossbenches who did speak last week on the suspension motion did not address that point that I raised at all; they simply addressed the matters that the government had put in the little sheet that they sent around. I was most disappointed, because I like to think that the Independents do consider things in all seriousness, and it is not too late.

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

Shame the opposition didn't do it.

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

You did not speak, Mr Windsor, Member for New England. I deliberately only mentioned those who did, and you cannot hide behind that pile of papers. (Time expired)

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

(—) (): Mr Speaker, I rise to support your ruling and to express the ongoing confidence of the government in your speakership. I think it is very good that today we have some clarification of both the short-term issue that was before the House last Thursday and the longer term rulings that are required. This is a very simple issue. It goes to the operation of the Constitution, the standing orders and the House of Representatives Practice; it goes to the way that our form of government operates, which is that only the executive can appropriate money; and it goes to good governance. If it is the case that each issue can be considered one by one without having the context of the overall fiscal position, then you will certainly not have a return of the budget to surplus in 2012-13.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the greatest joke of all time.

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

Order! The Leader of the House has the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Constitution and the House of Representatives Practice are very clear. The Constitution enshrines very clearly under sections 53 and 56 the way that money bills come before the House. Section 53 says:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

That is a section of the Constitution that from time to time people in the Senate have expressed a different view on. It is understandable that from time to time people will try to increase the importance of the chamber in which they reside, but that is not a principle that has ever been supported by the House of Representatives and neither should it be. Section 56 of the Constitution reinforces section 53. It says:

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

It is very clear that there is no message from the Governor-General with this legislation. It is quite clear from the speeches of the member for Mackellar and others that this bill, were it to be passed, would indeed require additional moneys to be expended. The financial initiative of the executive is enshrined not only in the Constitution but also in the House of Representatives Practice and standing orders. House of Representatives Practice has been used in this chamber since this chamber was formed. Page 408 very clearly outlines the financial initiative of the executive:

It is there in the House of Representatives Practice in black and white for all to see, and the Manager of Opposition Business knows this to be the case. Page 431 of Practice goes on to deal with section 53 of the Constitution and the limitations on the Senate powers of amendment. Further, page 567 of House of Representatives Practice says:

A private Member may not initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or moneys. This would be contrary to the constitutional and parliamentary principle of the financial initiative of the Executive—that is, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Government.

So it makes it very clear. Page 568 of Practice says this:

It would not be possible for a private Member to obtain the Governor-General’s recommendation for an appropriation. Furthermore, of those bills requiring a Governor-General’s message, only those brought in by a Minister may be introduced and proceeded with before the message is announced.

It goes on to say:

Therefore, only a Minister may bring in a bill which appropriates public moneys.

It could not be clearer. Standing order 179(a) is also very clear:

Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge.

There is no possibility that those who have moved opportunistically to dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, can argue that this does not change the scope of the charge. There is no possibility that they can argue that. They know that that is the case, and they know that their position is contradictory to the standing orders and to House of Representatives Practice. Standing orders 179(b) and (c) say:

(b) Only a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which increases or extends the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.

(c) A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.

So we have a very clear position here which is backed up by the Constitution, the House of Representatives Practice and the standing orders. Indeed, when this issue raised its head at the end of last year in this new parliament, the Member for Opposition Business made it clear in public interviews that he understood that only a minister can introduce a money bill. On a number of occasions, the Manager of Opposition Business and other senior members of the opposition have stated that their intention in raising these issues is to get the government to adopt them. They say that in recognition that only a government minister can introduce money bills into this House and only with a message from the Governor-General.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that your ruling is absolutely correct today. This House has continually reaffirmed this principle, without exception. The House has done so because the founding fathers—and they were all men—were very wise when they wrote the Constitution and put in place provisions that have served this nation well for 111 years. These provisions ensure that when expenditures are approved people know where the money is actually coming from. You cannot have one-off bills not considered as part of the executive government because if you had that there would a range of expenditures which, by themselves, every member of this House would support. Who would not support, in isolation, the concept of giving more money to the homeless or the disadvantaged? Unless it is viewed in the context of a budget, which is the role of the executive government, you simply cannot have a responsible government that puts in place appropriate economic management in the interests of this nation.

We are determined to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. That is why we have put forward a responsible budget. Those opposite are determined to wreck the budget surplus. They are determined to put forward opportunistic propositions for expenditure and they are determined to opportunistically block savings measures even when they are their own propositions, which is what you see in the alternative fuel debate. Mr Speaker, I ask the House to express its confidence in you, as it has earlier this week, and support your ruling.

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

First of all, Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and the clerks for the attention you have paid to this matter and for the note. I have not yet had a chance to read and digest that note, so I make these comments without having read it. I must say that it is only because the motion is moved in the form of dissent to your ruling that I will not be supporting the motion, but I do it through gritted teeth because this should not be about whether or not there is confidence in you. This is an important matter that goes to the role of private members in a minority parliament. I agree with the member for Mackellar and the Manager of Opposition Business that this is not an appropriation bill and I think that should be something that is resolved by the House through a motion on the merits of the bill and not by way of a proxy debate through dissenting your ruling.

I can indicate to you, Mr Speaker—especially not having had the chance to read the advice that has come—that I could not guarantee that I would vote the same way next time. I also indicate to you and to other members of the House that, if this were a motion that were to come in some way other than in the form of a dissent from your ruling and would allow the House to be master of its own business and would allow these kinds of bills to be debated, my inclination would be to support it. The question of past practice and precedent is of limited relevance because every past ruling and every procedure that has been referred to—again, without having read the Clerk's advice—has been developed on the context of majority government, and of course it would make sense in those instances to deal with amendments from the opposition in that way.

But that is not the case we have here. Private members, whether on the crossbenches or from the opposition, ought to have their full rights to move amendments or move bills, even though the government might consider they are appropriation matters. If the House considers they are not appropriation matters, they should be able to be debated. I indicate that I will not be dissenting from your ruling, but I cannot guarantee that that would occur in the future. I hope that there is some way in which a motion may come back before the House to allow this to be debated in a form that is not dissent from your ruling.

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

I ask that leave be given to permit the Attorney-General, the member for New England and the member for Lyne to address this question for a time no longer than five minutes each.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would permit the Attorney-General, the member for New England and the member for Lyne to address this question for no longer than five minutes each.

Question agreed to.

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

Mr Speaker, you have, with respect, correctly identified the two issues that arise from this bill, namely, in the first case, the need for an appropriation for the bill and, also, the extension of a charge that results from the bill. You have identified that both issues, as a consequence of the bill, are enlarging the class of persons to whom an appropriation on the one hand and a charge on the other could apply.

In dealing with the second issue first—that is, in respect to a charge—the Leader of the House correctly identified that it is quite plain on its face that standing order 179(a) necessarily applies because it increases the scope of a charge, and it is noted in the memorandum from the Clerk that the incentive for employers to pay their superannuation contribution is that if they fail to do so or fail to do so in full they are liable for a superannuation guarantee charge. That is necessarily the case.

Dealing with the second issue with respect to appropriation, could I refer the House—and I have previously touched upon these issues, but perhaps not in great detail—to an advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, when he was the Attorney-General, on 20 February 1962. In the advice he in turn referred to the passage from the book, The British Budgetary System, by Sir Herbert Brittain, published in 1959. I quote from that:

Underlying the parliamentary procedure on supply is a rule of the House of Commons which is of fundamental importance. It is enshrined in a standing order, which, in its earliest form, was passed in 1706 and is which now, according to the relevant standing order that existed in the House of Commons, this House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service or proposed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue whether payable out of consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by parliament unless recommended from the Crown.

The significance of that is that it notes a principle going back to 1706. The Leader of the House has referred to the debates of our founding fathers—our constitutional fathers—who were well aware of that heritage and adopted the same principles in our Constitution. Indeed, the author, Sir Herbert Brittain, summarised:

Only the Crown therefore can initiate proposals for expenditure in the House. The Crown's right and responsibility in this respect are exercised by ministers in the government of the day.

That is reflected in standing order 180, which requires a message from the Governor-General, which message is given on the advice of the day.

The Clerk's advice appropriately refers to Pape's case by way of footnote. That was a recent decision of the High Court of Australia and that also confirmed the principle. I also refer to the fundamental principle described by the High Court in Combet's case, where the majority judgment of justices Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon noted that it is the executive government which begins the process of appropriation. This the executive government does by specifying the purpose of the appropriation by message to the House of Representatives.

Again, that message comes from the Governor-General. Similarly, in that case Justice Kirby referred to the discussion in the issue in Lane's Commentary on the Australian Constitution of 1997 and concluded that:

… the initiative for proposed appropriations belongs to the Executive Government, in accordance with s 56 of the Constitution.

Again, the will of the executive being referred to in the message of the Governor-General, with the Governor-General acting on the advice of the executive of the day. So, with respect, Mr Speaker, your ruling is entirely consistent with the standing orders but, more than that, it is entirely consistent with our Constitutional heritage.

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

I appreciate the House allowing an extension of this debate, and it is entirely appropriate that a motion has been put and, as is the right of all members, for some members to want to dissent from that ruling. The matters of the last fortnight do weigh heavily. I would hope other members are like me and wake up in the middle of the night worrying about the standing orders and trying to work through the issues of the last two weeks. I would hope this is not going to mean sleepless nights for the next two years. I would hope that this is a moment when we clarify and, from that, stabilise the processes of government not only for this parliament but also for future parliaments when these questions may arise. This is therefore an opportunity, not a threat, for this parliament to resolve some of these issues.

I want to clarify the issue of the last week because it is going to be important to the views on this motion. I believe in the independence of a Speaker, I believe in the authority of a Speaker, and I have confidence in a Speaker. There may be some confusion about the position taken on a naming motion. I do not believe that anyone should vote in this place based on the implications of a future vote. When a member is named, in no way is that reflecting on the chair. It is weighing up the issue before me as a member of parliament and, if I do not see or hear the incident in question, that is not dissenting from or seeking a wont for disorder in the House. It is basically making a ruling at my end on the question that is being put before me as to whether there was or was not disorder. For whatever reason, whether it is the location that we sit in this House or any other reason, I did not see or hear what happened.

For that reason, without that being confused with any sort of challenge to the confidence or independence of the chair, I will be referring the matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure to clarify because, if we are serious about an independent Speaker, the question then is why the Speaker has to put a vote to seek order in the chamber. Now we have put in place in this parliament a system of an independent Speaker, potentially we could align that with giving the Speaker the authority to not only dismiss someone for an hour but also potentially for 24 hours. That is, hopefully, a question that would resolve the issue at my end and resolve the issue for this parliament.

Consistently, that leads into the thinking behind the question before us. If we are to believe in the independence of a Speaker and to have confidence in the authority of a Speaker, then this process is entirely appropriate. The bill that was put before the House had some questions around its status of whether it is a money bill or not. There were several of us who asked the question—and expressed frustration—about whether these bills were leaving open that question. We had advice from the Clerk, for example, and advice from the Parliamentary Library that was completely contradictory. For that reason, the Speaker quite rightly took on the issue of trying to resolve it.

If the clerks are the clerks of the parliament and not the executive, then they have duly done their job of providing advice to the Speaker of the parliament, not the executive, and the Speaker has provided advice to the parliament that is now—having gone through a due and proper process—entirely worthy of support, if we are to accept that we have an independent Speaker that we have confidence in. I do. I think we do have an independent Speaker whom we have confidence in. The process that we have gone through to get the advice that we have got has been appropriate. Therefore, I will not be supporting the motion before the House.

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

Mr Speaker, this pile of documents does not relate to your ruling; it relates to the Murray-Darling report that will be coming up soon. This debate on the motion of dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, has been interesting and I hope it does go some way towards putting in place a bit of a glide path for this parliament. That is not to deny the member's right in this case to bring a bill before the parliament, but we do really need some clarification.

Mr Speaker, your ruling today and the contribution from the member for Lyne have both given some clarification to this issue. If this issue is not determined today, I would suggest that there would need to be maybe a meeting between the two houses or some formal process set in place to try to resolve this issue. It is one that is going to continually plague this parliament, where Independent members in a minority in the parliament have made a determination of the government. The government of the day has a right—and it would have been the same if the determination of the government had been the other way—which we have supported, to access supply and to make its budgetary arrangements.

This bringing on of bills which are essentially, in my view and in the determination of the clerks and you through a number of rulings, appropriation bills does need to be clarified; otherwise, we will just get an avalanche of these bills which will destabilise the budgetary process. That might be all very well politically—I do not think anybody doubts the intent of a lot of these bills that are being introduced—but we saw a successful outcome with the youth allowance bill. That bill did not get through the parliament because of the same issues that have been raised here, but the issues that were raised were of such importance that the government has initiated a review of the process. So I would suggest that maybe that is a way through this. But, if it is not a way through this, maybe at some stage the House has to pass some sort of appropriation bill, for $1, so that it can be tested in the courts for future reference. By that time, the hung parliament will probably be well over and done with. But I would suggest that if we cannot find a formal process that resolves this and we have this continual round of debates over this issue then maybe that is a way forward. I went through exactly the same experience with a different form of government in the hung parliament that I was in in New South Wales. I supported the Liberal Party on that occasion. The country Independent was subjected to a whole avalanche of country bills, as we used to call them, to put that member of parliament in a difficult position in terms of the determination and the politics that could be played in relation to that. But on all of those occasions I supported the government of the day in its responsibility for supply. So I will not be dissenting from your ruling.

Whilst I have a few seconds, I recognise that there is a Chinese wall between the Speaker and the executive. It has been spoken about on a number of occasions. The member for Braddon has been very vocal on that issue of having a Chinese wall between the executive and the Speaker. I think the Speaker knows what I am referring to. I apologise for not being in the House on the occasion the other day when the vote was taken in relation to the Speaker's ruling. In all the parliaments that I have been in, on all occasions I have always supported the Speaker of the parliament, irrespective of their political tone. I will continue to do that because I think the independence of the Speaker is something very special in our parliamentary system.

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

on indulgence—Mr Speaker, this morning your ruling was made on the basis that you had had advice from the clerks, and we have had debate on the procedural motion I moved because there was nothing else I could do to have the debate. My question is this: I have read the advice that the clerks have given to you and at no point have they advised you on the question that this is in fact a live bill. None of the debate from the government or the crossbenchers has addressed that question. This is totally different from any other circumstance. This is a bill that was in fact introduced, whereas the standing orders would preclude it if you ruled. The matter is that it has in fact been introduced and no advice has been given to you on that point.

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

Order! The member will resume her place. A more sensitive and 'precious petal' soul could suggest that that was reflecting on the way that we have come to this decision. I assure you, for the last week we have not just been looking at the tea leaves and the written word. The member would be aware that this is something that has been under discussion for even longer than the past week. I assure her that I am cognisant of the fact that a process commenced and I have made my ruling.

Question put:

That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

The House divided. [10:01]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.