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 item of private Members' business being called on, and considered immediately: Wild dogs—Order of the day.

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

I move as an amendment:

That the following words be added to the motion:

"and (2) that private Members' business notice No. 4 given for Thursday 25 August 2011, standing in the name of the Member for Sturt, be considered immediately."

Mr Speaker, this motion will allow the member for Dobell to come into the House to make a statement to the parliament.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: an amendment must relate to the motion that was moved. It is quite clear that this motion that has been moved is specifically about matters that have been considered by the Selection Committee and determined to be voted upon. There is a process before the House if the member for Sturt wishes this to be voted upon, but it is not in order to move any amendment whatsoever to any process that is moved before the House.

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

Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I simply point out that this is a suspension of standing orders motion moved by the Leader of the House. It contains one item. There is absolutely no reason at all why it cannot contain a second item.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The motion is a suspension of standing and sessional orders and in the past there have been amendments of the ilk of the amendment of the Manager of Opposition Business that have been allowed. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment allows the government to finally make sure that the member for Dobell comes into the House and makes a statement to the parliament surrounding the issues which have been dogging and paralysing this government for far too long. If I were any Labor Party member of the House of Representatives, I would be demanding that my colleague the member for Dobell come into the parliament and make a statement and clear the air so the government can move on.

This issue has been paralysing the government all week, and for longer in the public eye. All week in the parliament the opposition has tried to give the member for Dobell an opportunity to make a personal explanation and he has refused to do so. If I were a member of the Labor Party caucus I would be wondering: 'Why are we allowing this guy to drag us down? Why are we allowing the member for Dobell to stop the government from getting on with the business of being interested in jobs, being interested in how to resolve this carbon tax dilemma and being interested in how to protect our borders?' Today in the Australian Financial Review Geoff Kitney writes:

One Labor elder says, "It's as ugly out in the electorate as it can get. The depth of anger and hostility is reminiscent of the worst times in 1975 and in 1996. It's absolutely dire."

He goes on to say—

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

Order! I remind the Manager of Opposition Business that this is a suspension of standing and sessional orders. His contribution should relate to that motion.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason standing orders should be suspended and the member for Dobell should be required to make a statement to the House is that the member for Dobell's failure to make a personal explanation about claims that he says are misrepresentations is paralysing the government and is now perilously close to paralysing the country.

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 Manager of Opposition Business is indeed defying your ruling. I know that he is obsessed by this issue but he must address the question about why standing orders should be suspended.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will go to this suspension of standing and sessional orders and his contribution will be based on this motion. I call the member for Sturt.

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

I hear you, Mr Speaker. The reason it is so important that standing orders be suspended and that this amendment be carried to form part of the suspension of standing orders is the country is unable to get on with the necessary business of protecting our borders, of resolving the carbon tax disagreements that the House has, of ensuring that people's cost of living is not going through the roof, which it is at the moment, and of trying to keep down interest rates and addressing inflation. All of these issues are on hold while the government is paralysed by the issues surrounding the member for Dobell. My point was that, if I were a Labor member of parliament, I would want him to come into the House because, as one senior caucus member said in the Australian Financial Review today:

This is the last thing Julia needed … It gives Abbott another way to highlight the integrity issue which is the albatross around Julia's neck …

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order—

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

This is just obfuscation, Mr Speaker.

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

I call the Leader of the House, on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, this is an outrageous abuse of standing orders. He must address why standing orders should be suspended in order to do that. It cannot be relevant to the motion before the House for him to read into Hansard copies of the Australian Financial Review.

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The contribution of the Manager of Opposition Business must go to the reasons for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The member for Sturt has the call.

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

Yes, Mr Speaker, and the amendment that I have moved is for the suspension of standing orders motion to include my motion—and I will read it to the House because it obviously goes very much to the reason why the suspension and the amendment should be carried—which is:

That this House requests the presence of the Member for Dobell to make a statement with respect to all the matters pertaining to his time as National Secretary of the Health Services Union and canvassed in the press, including but not limited to, his receipt of a gift from the NSW branch of the Australian Labor Party that remained undeclared on his Register of Members Interests for 77 days after the time had elapsed that such a declaration should be made.

The capacity to make a personal explanation in this House is a unique one for members of parliament, under privilege, to make a claim that they have been misrepresented and then personally explain that misrepresentation to the House. That is exactly what the member for Dobell will be given the opportunity to do if this amendment is carried. He can put his side—

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 Manager of Opposition Business continues not to speak to the issue of the suspension of standing orders but to address the substance of the motion that he would move without addressing why this is a complete breach of the processes of the Selection Committee and the agreements that we have about the functioning of this parliament.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business is aware that he must contain his remarks to the suspension motion and not enter into a debate that would be allowed if the suspension was successful.

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

The reason all other business of the House should be suspended and nothing else should proceed until this matter is dealt with is what I am speaking to. A suspension of standing orders is essentially saying to the House that no other matter is as important as the matter for which we seek to suspend standing orders. Quite frankly, in this parliament today, until the member for Dobell makes a statement to the House the government is paralysed, distracted and incapable of getting on with the business of governing. The member for Dobell has made the most calamitous defamation action since Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensberry.

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

Order! The member for Sturt must return to the suspension.

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

And it is behoven on him to come into the House and explain to the parliament why it is that the rest of the parliament and the government—

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

The member for Sturt is now debating the motion that he is seeking the suspension about.

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

Standing orders should be suspended and the opportunity provided to the member for Dobell to come into the House and explain why it is—

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

That is not the intent of the suspension. The suspension is for you to move a motion, so you must debate that.

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

What I am saying, and I have said it repeatedly, is that no other item of business on the Notice Paper today can be proceeded with until the government lances the boil of the member for Dobell and allows him to give an explanation to the House.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business has clearly run out of things to say. He should stick to the purpose.

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

There is no point of order. The member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment, Mr Speaker, and reserve my right to speak.

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

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. There being no objection I will put the motion in that form. The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

We have established before this parliament, as part of the parliamentary reform, a number of processes for dealing with private members' business motions so that both motions and bills can be voted upon before this House. We have a process whereby we have a Selection Committee in which you, Mr Speaker, play an important role and in which crossbenchers, members of the government and members of the opposition are represented in a way in which the government does not have a majority.

What that Selection Committee does is to provide an opportunity in private members' business greater than ever before for members to have a discussion on issues of concern to their electorates or of concern to the nation and then have votes on them in the House of Representatives. This is a change of practice from what has occurred in the previous 42 parliaments. It has led to a situation whereby, by agreement, we have on Thursdays, in an orderly way, a suspension of standing orders moved by me as Leader of the House and then votes occurring. Those votes occur regardless of what the outcome of the votes will be in terms of the government and the opposition. They are a way in which we have facilitated the engagement in a much greater way, particularly by backbenchers, in the operation of this House. They have enabled us to have some important determinations on specific issues of concern to the electorate or broader issues such as the motion today that has been agreed would be voted upon about wild dogs that was moved by the member for Gippsland.

The very moving of this amendment to my suspension motion, and this amendment being carried, undermines the very integrity of that process. I say to the opposition, and in particular to the Manager of Opposition Business, that the moving of this motion changes the way in which I will operate as the Leader of the House, because this has been done by consensus as part of the reform of the parliament. But, once again, we are seeing that there is no convention and no principle in the operation of this parliament that the opposition are not prepared to undermine and to trash. It is particularly important that we uphold the principles embodied in the parliamentary reform document, which everyone signed up to in the operation of the new House.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, who interjects: what about the way the opposition cut off question time with their relentless moving of suspensions of standing orders? Once again they refuse to engage in proper processes. The Manager of Opposition Business said, somewhat disorderly but he said it nonetheless, that his amendment to my motion should be allowed because this is somehow a distraction for the government from government business. Yet what we see from the opposition, with their relentless negativity, with their refusal and failure to ask a single question yesterday about any policy issue, with their moving of this amendment—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I hesitate to play the petty game playing of the Leader of the House but, as I was constantly being called to order by him and by you, quite properly as the Speaker, I fail to see how yesterday's question time could possibly be relevant to the motion that my amendment be agreed to.

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

The Leader of the House knows that he has to argue a case to do with the suspension, and I am sure he is aware of that.

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

I am indeed, Mr Speaker. I am also addressing the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business and the arguments that the Manager of Opposition Business put in moving that amendment. The Manager of Opposition Business purports to argue that he is concerned that the government is unable to get on with government business, yet he is moving a suspension of standing orders which would do precisely that. The fact is that just prior to this motion I moved yet another piece of legislation. I expect it will join the 183 pieces of legislation that are being carried by this House on the government agenda. I understand the frustration of the opposition with its failure to defeat a single piece of legislation that has been put before the parliament. Last night, of course, the opposition opposed the tobacco legislation after saying that they were going to support it. So relentlessly negative are they that, even when they come out and make statements saying that they are supporting reform, they cannot bring themselves to actually vote for a piece of government legislation.

I say to the opposition: this is an ill-considered amendment. This amendment will completely undermine, and its moving has already undermined, the processes that have been determined and that have been operating effectively and providing opportunities for each and every member of the House, but particularly members of the crossbenches. The motion that I have moved will facilitate voting on a motion moved by a member of the opposition. I move that motion to facilitate the activity of the opposition. If it is the case that the opposition wishes those processes to not occur and for me, as Leader of the House, to not facilitate votes by members of the opposition, then I can say they have gone a major step down that track in moving this amendment. I ask them to reconsider their position.

The problem with this opposition is that it looks only for the immediate; there is never a plan for tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. This suspension motion will not be carried because the Manager of Opposition Business knows it is a very short-term view that he brings to this. Another member would like to participate in this debate. I say we should reject the amendment if we wish to retain the integrity of the way these processes work, which has been by consensus, which has been through the Selection Committee, which has been through proper processes. I say to the opposition, and particularly to the crossbenches: it is a fact that if this amendment is carried it will completely undermine the selection process.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not see how making a plea to the crossbenches can possibly be relevant to the motion that is before the chair, and I ask you to call him back.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. 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

What is relevant is that we have been cooperative with regard to the facilitation of votes on private members' motions and also on bills. The cooperation of the government is required in order to allow votes to occur in private members' business. It is something that has not happened in the past; it is something that did not happen under the Howard government for 12 years. We have a very clear process, which is that members put motions on the Notice Paper and they then go to the Selection Committee—there is a proper process here.

If the member for Sturt wishes his private member's motion to be determined, then the appropriate thing is for it to go to the Selection Committee. That is the process that we all have agreed on. That is the process that has been applied without fear or favour. That is the process in which I have facilitated votes on private members' motions, whether the government was in a majority or not. But this situation will stop it occurring. It will stop the proper process; it will undermine the Selection Committee. It will mean that whether there are to be votes on private members' business will no longer be determined by the Selection Committee but be determined in a partisan way. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I, as Leader of the House, have a fair bit of say over whether that occurs or not. This is ill considered and it should be rejected. (Time expired)

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

As a member of the Selection Committee I would like to address some of the points that have been raised so far about the integrity of the Selection Committee process. As someone who has sat on the Selection Committee, as members in this place are probably aware but members of the public may not be, opposition, government and crossbench members have the opportunity to come to the Selection Committee and identify which motions they want to be debated. Those motions are then debated the next week and voted on soon after that. If one wants a motion debated, it can happen in less than two weeks.

In all the Selection Committee meetings that I have been to, not once has anyone from the coalition asked for this motion to be debated. If they actually want it to be debated—and it is well within their rights to do so—they could simply have asked for it to happen. We could even be having a vote on it today had they got their act into gear and identified the motion before. If they want to do it at the next Selection Committee, they can do it then. The Selection Committee met twice this week and at no stage did anyone from the coalition ask for this motion to be debated. I think on that basis alone that the amendment should be rejected. If it is not, then we do not have an orderly process for dealing with private members' motions, and that is something that will ultimately come back to affect all of us in the parliament who want to move private members' motions and have them debated and voted on in an orderly way.

One thing I can say about the operation of the Selection Committee and this parliament so far is that it has provided, I think, unique opportunities for matters to be debated that in a majority parliament would not be debated. I think that as a process it has worked well. Indeed, we have seen as a result legislation passed through this parliament that has originated from the member for Denison and from members of the crossbench. If we jeopardise this process, we might lose that opportunity.

I simply encourage the member for Sturt, if he wants to move this motion, to get his representatives on the Selection Committee—and they could have done it a day or two ago—to have time set aside for it to be debated. I can guarantee that I will be amongst the first, as I have done consistently on the Selection Committee, to make sure that opposition motions have just as much time to be debated and that the government is held to its promise that they be voted on in a timely manner. I think that is critical if we are to allow the views of private members in this place to be debated in an orderly way.

On the point about whether or not there ought to be a suspension of standing orders, as I have indicated previously I do not believe as a general rule it is for this parliament to compel members to attend and give answers to questions. Certainly, from what we know about the member for Dobell at the moment, I do not think the facts suggest that there is any reason that he is entitled to anything other than the presumption of innocence. I do think that we should respect proper processes and this parliament should not become a court. This parliament should not become a Star Chamber. However, I do think that, reflecting on the points that have been made in the debate, perhaps the member in question should consider whether voluntarily appearing and making a statement would clear the air, but that is a matter for him. On the facts at the moment, it would not be right for the parliament to seek to compel him to appear or to draw any adverse inference from his failure to make such a statement. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendment.

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

Just to concur with my colleague, I thought this morning we, as per the schedule, were to be debating a motion on wild dogs moved by the member for Gippsland and not to be, as it looks to have become, debating like wild dogs over issues unrelated to the work of the day. I am concerned, as previous speakers have raised, about what seems to be some backing down on an agreement reached on how this place will and should work as the 43rd Parliament.

There is a process in place that does involve the Selection Committee. There has been no evidence yet over the first 11 months of this parliament of any member of any political persuasion, government, opposition or crossbenchers, being denied their rights to get their bills or motions before the House. In fact, the evidence trail is that we are seeing more opportunity for private members' business from all political persuasions, from all members, than we have ever seen in the history of this parliament before even contentious issues such as pricing carbon and calls for plebiscites. The Leader of the Opposition, with that private member's bill, could not have done that in any other parliament other than this one, because of agreements reached. That has gone through the proper process of the Selection Committee, with the approval of crossbenchers, government members and opposition members involved in that selection committee process, and has been brought forward to the parliament for debate. That is the proper process. If any member wants to use it for any issue that they think is important to them or their constituency, that is the process we have all agreed on.

I see in some commentary that ownership of the 43rd Parliament and parliamentary reform seems to have been given to only a handful of members of this chamber. That is completely incorrect. We were there for the group hug—with the Leader of the House and the Leader of Opposition Business. It was there for all to see. And in a somewhat frivolous moment there were 16 days of genuine committed work when ideas came from Liberal and National party members who for years had argued for parliamentary reform in certain areas. There were also ideas from the Labor Party, who for years had been arguing to have parliamentary reforms in certain areas, as they were from the Greens and from the crossbenchers. We sat around and worked it out and agreed. Now there seems to be some backpedalling on agreements reached, and that should be of concern to all members of this chamber. There is a process in place. I would urge all members to reflect on that and to use those agreed processes for all issues of relevance to public policy in Australia today.

What seems to have become an issue of urgency in the last three days is an issue that has been around, by the looks of it from what I read in the paper, for at least three years—and, by the looks of it, there are certainly issues developing.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

As the Father of the House interjects, I would hope he has seen enough business in this chamber, in government and in opposition, to stand strongly by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle under the rule of law that should stand for a Labor member, a crossbench member, a Greens member, an opposition member, members in the upper house, and 22 million Australian citizens under the rule of law in this country. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle we should all defend if we want to defend democracy and the parliamentary processes.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

So until the evidence is in—

Honourable members interjecting—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What evidence? He won't come into the chamber!

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

Order! Whilst the interjection from the Leader of the House is disorderly, and therefore the reminder that I give the chamber applies very much to him as well, as I indicated yesterday, when every person's vote in this chamber is as valuable as it is in this unique situation of the hung parliament I hope that people realise that I still have powers under 94(2)(a) to give even greater value to the vote. I think that it might help and assist the chamber if the rest of this debate is heard absolutely in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is coming to the important point whether the parliament should force another member to make a statement or not based on media reporting and allegations that are made before being proved. I do not think that is my role or the parliament's role. Whether personally that individual member should make a statement for their own conscience and for their own reasons, that is a separate matter for us to deal with and for their own personal judgment and for the decisions of the party that they are a member of, but for the parliament itself to force and call for someone to make a statement to this House based on allegations and not based on proof I think is an abuse of the parliamentary processes.

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

Order! The member for Lyne would realise that I have to remind him that this is a debate about the suspension.

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

Okay. But I think that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having this debate and part of the reason why I will not be supporting the amendment. Firstly, the process that is there has not been used and so private members' business and private members' time now look to be challenged. I would urge those who want to bring forward issues to use proper processes. Secondly, and fundamentally in defence of this chamber, if we are going to suspend standing orders and move motions based on allegations in the media or otherwise, whether serious or not, and call on people to make statements before things are actually proven, we are not going to do the business of this House that needs to be done.

Thirdly, and for the general theme that it is a year into this 43rd Parliament, I will make a final point because I think this is partly questioning the value of whether the parliament is working or not. I think that it is. I think what we are seeing right here right now is a demonstration of intent of character and it does expose the hearts and minds of various members of parliament and what drives their business in this chamber. That is for the audience of Australia to have a look at and to decide upon at the ballot box. What a parliament cannot normally do when it is in a majority situation is this sort of intense character assessment of who is doing what and why, which we are seeing being openly exposed now. So I call on the Australian people to look at this and question what is being done as an abuse of parliamentary process in order to try to prove that democracy is dead. In fact, it is more alive than ever and everyone, all of us in this chamber, will be held to account for our behaviour.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not going to speak on this suspension motion moved by the Leader of the House and the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business until I heard the speech by the member for Melbourne. I have been in this place now for 15 years and, even though there are set standing orders in this place, there are certain conventions and it is often the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who set the tone of the House. I was in this place, as the Leader of the House has referred to, during 1996-97, when a number of ministers were forced by the Prime Minister to resign because of their behaviour, and the Prime Minister on numerous occasions came into this place and gave speeches.

The reason we are moving this motion today is that we have tried to use the standing orders as they stand—

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

Wrong!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to have the evidence come before the House—

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

You're wrong.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The outspoken member for Lyne just said, in this place, 'innocent until proven guilty'. That is damn right: innocent until proven guilty. But, if a member of this House goes on 2UE to do an interview with Michael Smith and makes certain admissions and then cannot be tested in this place on those admissions, it is the independent member for Lyne and others who are refusing to properly use the mechanisms of the House.

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

Order! Let's get back to the motion, which is the amendment before the House, because people have strayed. We are not debating the motion that gives the reasons for the suspension. I think if we get back to focusing on the suspension of standing orders it will be much better.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, but—

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

No 'but-buts'. I have been very tolerant and I am just saying I think we should be more focused in this debate.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am endeavouring to do so, Mr Speaker, because the motivation for this amendment by our side to the motion to suspend is due to a frustration that the House is not operating sufficiently properly to ensure that a member of parliament is properly accountable for the words that they utter in a public forum. For crying out loud—if this place prohibits someone from being accountable for their words then this House is worth nothing.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney must address the suspension motion, not the—

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

We didn't interrupt you.

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

You did interrupt me.

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

The member for Sturt just does not seem to get it, and if I hear a squeak from him for the rest of this debate he will be out under standing order 94(a). That would mean that the last 50 minutes for him has been wasted. These are crucial debates. If you think that they are important, please find it in yourself to sit there quietly. I say to the member for North Sydney that the motion before the chair is an amendment to an original motion by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. He will go to the reasons why he believes that sessional and standing orders should be suspended now—not generalities.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I am saying that there should be a suspension of standing orders, which is perfectly legitimate, and it should be done now because traditionally the government has always taken suspensions that go to the character of an individual in this place. Previously, they have always done it. I tell you what—John Howard did it and other Prime Ministers have done it, but this Prime Minister has refused to countenance other motions to suspend standing orders at previous times this week. She even went so far as to close down question time yesterday, which I must say is unprecedented, in order to avoid the scrutiny associated with this suspension—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is now speaking about question time; he is speaking about anything but why the suspension of standing orders is required and why the Selection Committee processes are not being adhered to. He is straying from the question before the House.

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

I call the member for North Sydney.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say, because it is so important, that all the standing orders are available for proper use by all members of parliament, and the standing orders serve to ensure the great tone of this place—that is, accountability to the Australian people for our words and deeds. That is what this place is about—

Mr Husic interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Chifley has no greater protection than the member for Sturt.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are not accountable in this place for our words at all times when this chamber is sitting then we devalue this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we must suspend, and suspend now—just as our suspension should have been accepted by the government earlier in the week, and as the Prime Minister should have accepted questions yesterday and must accept questions today. When it comes to the Selection Committee, I understand, as does the coalition, that there is a process in place. But, when you suspend standing orders, you are in fact suspending the process to ensure that a matter that is more significant to the Australian people comes before the House immediately.

This is not a game. This is about the reputation of this place, the reputation of an individual and the reputation of a government. It comes down to the proper workings of this place and whether we are mature enough to be able to deal with issues in the public domain immediately. That is what the suspension of standing orders is about. It is about dealing with an issue directly relevant to the Australian people immediately—because it is an issue that is dominating.

I refer to some of the words of the member for Lyne who said that a member in this place should be treated as innocent until proven guilty—absolutely right. No charges have been laid in this matter. What matters is the fact that a member must be accountable—

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

The member for North Sydney is straying.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come back. I am just responding to the member for Lyne.

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

I am inviting you not to stray.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am coming back, Mr Speaker. Because charges have not been laid, it is a matter that can be debated by this House now. Sub judice does not apply—and this is specific to the standing orders—until formal charges have been laid. If we are now saying that we cannot suspend standing orders to have a proper debate about an issue relevant to the words of an individual because it may somehow condemn that individual, that is redefining the operations of this chamber in a substantive way. That is why we are moving the suspension. That is why I would expect that those people who believe in this chamber will similarly support the suspension of standing orders this morning.

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

I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate and, while the member for North Sydney is in the chamber, reflect on the historical context of due process. I will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Sturt to the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders for similar reasons to those of the member for Melbourne. I would appreciate it if the member for North Sydney stayed because I think there are some issues that he was involved in historically that may shed some light on the process that we are involved in at the moment. I endorse the comments of the members for Melbourne and Lyne on the opposition's attempt to compel a member to face the chamber.

The member for North Sydney and I go back a fair way. There are certain parallels that I think he may well remember in another hung parliament where my vote was the determining vote in the formation of the government. In that case it was the Liberal government of Nick Greiner in New South Wales, and I still have great respect for Nick Greiner. The member for North Sydney would remember because he was one of the messenger boys back in those days. I appreciated his company then as I do now. He would well remember the way in which the dogs of politics turned on Nick Greiner at that time, including—and this is where I think it is important in terms of the debate we are having here now in a hung parliament—the independent members of that chamber. He may also remember that I was not one of those who took the judicial process into the parliament and judged an individual—Nick Greiner, the Premier of the state—before the appropriate processes of the law were applied. In that case, it was the accusations that were before the ICAC in New South Wales.

In that case there were demands in the press, as there are now; and demands of the political process, as there are now. The Liberals were in government and Labor in opposition, so they were on different sides of the chamber, but the same game was being played. At that time the three independent members of the parliament were playing the same game as the opposition. In a sense, what we are being asked to do here—

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the outcome? Remind them of the outcome.

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

We will get to the outcome, Alby—you would be aware of the outcome.

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

Order! The member for Hume! And I remind the member for New England—I appreciate the spirit of the debate by all, including the member for North Sydney, whom I was harsh upon—that he knows what is before the chamber at the moment.

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

I know, and I will bring my contribution to a conclusion. The outcome, as the member for Hume has indicated, is very important. I can remember talking to Nick Greiner on the Sunday before he resigned when his own people, the Liberal Party, took it upon themselves to turn on him.

Mr Schultz interjecting—

Alby, just listen to me. On that occasion it was the National Party that stood by Nick Greiner. But the appropriate point is that four or five days later—and the member for North Sydney might have a better memory than me—the ICAC brought down a finding that Nick Greiner had not committed—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to direct relevance: the issues of the Greiner government and the ICAC and anything else—

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

The member for Fadden will resume his seat. My feel is the tolerance of the chamber is departing and leaving the member for New England, so he should focus very much on the motion.

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

I think what happened in New South Wales encapsulates the arguments that are here today in terms of the dogs of politics. We do have a separation of powers and I for one will stand by that separation of powers. I did then and I will today in a different hung parliament.

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

I invite the member for Hume to withdraw the remarks that he made by interjection during the member for New England's contribution.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I approach this debate on the motion to suspend standing orders and the amendment from the point of view of supporting proper process. I, and I hope everyone in this place would, agree that the member for Dobell is innocent until proven guilty. I hope we would all agree that the process of Fair Work Australia and perhaps the New South Wales Police should be allowed to run its course and we should not pass judgment on the member for Dobell until those inquiries are finished. We should not simply be passing judgment on him in this place. I would normally leave it to the Selection Committee to steer us through the business in this place. As a general rule, I would agree with the member for Melbourne, and in fact the member for Lyne, on the importance he places on the Selection Committee. But this is a remarkable episode. There is no denying that the member for Denison is the subject of extraordinary—sorry, the member for Dobell.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The member for Denison has the call.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison is sometimes accused of all sorts of things, but in this case the member for Dobell is accused of all sorts of things and some of those accusations are most serious. I do believe that in an extraordinary situation like this it would be appropriate for the member for Dobell to stand and make a statement, even if it is as simple as saying, for example, 'These are serious allegations currently under investigation and I think it is appropriate to reserve my comments until those investigations are complete,' or whatever he might choose to say. He might choose to address each and every one of the allegations point by point. It is up to him. But I think it is appropriate that he stand up and say something. Then we can end these constant attempts to suspend standing orders, which have now disrupted three days of sitting in this place.

This is a remarkable episode. It is out of the ordinary. I will support the amendment put forward by the opposition.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise in this debate very conscious of your desire to keep the debate tight on the matter before the House. I certainly intend to do so. This is a debate really about whether we be on private members' business as determined by the Selection Committee or whether we have another stunt in this place that is all about political opportunism and, worse than that, about running interference on proper legal processes. I rise in this debate wearing three hats: as a member of the Selection Committee, as the Chief Government Whip and as a private member in this place. On all three counts, I rise as a fierce defender of private members' rights in this place.

We do have a process. I am now making a contribution on behalf of government members of the Selection Committee. Both the member for Lyne and the member for Melbourne sit on the Selection Committee. They have now made very substantial contributions. I want to thank them for that. The only person who has not now made a contribution to this debate is a member of the opposition who sits on the Selection Committee. I am not surprised. The member for Berowra is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. The member for Barker is in the House and he is capable of making a contribution. Both are members of the Selection Committee. I invite them to make a contribution to this debate. I think their contribution is critical in determining what the House should be doing here: whether we should be giving priority to private members' business and rights or whether we should be backing a stunt.

I suspect they are very reluctant to make a contribution because they find themselves sitting there in agreement with me, in agreement with the member for Melbourne and in agreement with the member for Lyne. They know as members of the Selection Committee, as do you, Mr Speaker, as the esteemed chair of that committee, how hard we have worked to make this agreement work and how hard we have slogged to ensure that not only do private members get maximum opportunity in this place but also it works in a bipartisan way.

As you know better than anyone, Mr Speaker, it has been a messy process from time to time. Indeed, occasionally it has been a bit of an ugly process. Each and every one of us—those on that side of the House, those on this side of the House and, indeed, those on the crossbenches—have worked very hard to put politics aside, to work with what we have been given and to make this process work. I have to say that, while it is not always easy for a government to have such a fierce defender of private members' rights, giving so much opportunity to private members, including the opposition in this place, has been a healthy process and a breath of fresh air. It has worked because we have worked together. That is really what this debate is about: whether we want to trash all of that hard work now, a year on, or whether we want to stay with it in recognition of the hard work that has been done. I invite the member for Leichardt, who is now in the chamber and is the most senior member of the opposition on the Selection Committee, the member for Barker or the member for Berowra—they can draw straws or work it out amongst themselves—to stand and explain to the House why we should now be affording priority to a stunt, a bit of political opportunism, over the processes of the Selection Committee.

I want to express my support for everything that has been stated by the Leader of the House and those who have spoken from the crossbench. I want to thank them for their contributions. They were reasoned and sensible contributions. They were contributions that anyone in this House thinking objectively rather than in a partisan way would surely accept, but those on the other side will have an opportunity to respond to that.

The matter for Mr Thomson is complex. I take on board what Mr Wilkie has said. He made the point that maybe he should just come in here and make a short statement. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements. Indeed, he has made a number of statements—

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

The Chief Government Whip must go to the reasons for the suspension or otherwise.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, this is a debate about whether we should be dealing with private members' business or allowing a stunt. Mr Thomson has made a number of statements not under the cover of parliamentary privilege but outside of this place—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the debate as it has gone on has become slightly more frayed in terms of relevance to the suspension of standing orders, which sometimes happens in these debates, but when I was the first speaker I was pulled up on four or five occasions by the Leader of the House and by the Speaker. The Chief Government Whip is really making no attempt at all to be relevant to the motion before the chair. I ask you to draw him back to it.

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

Not only has the debate become frayed but perhaps the chair has become a little frayed too. I remind members if they are contributing to this debate that over an hour ago it started as a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and it is still a debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders and we should be debating the reasons for the House to suspend the standing orders or otherwise.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is reasonable to say that on any objective analysis I have been far more relevant in this debate than the member for North Sydney ever was, and I think that same test would fairly apply to the member for Sturt. But let us go back to what has been happening here. The Leader of the House attempted to do what he does every Thursday and that is to move a suspension of standing orders so that private members' business can be brought on for a vote. That is the process that emanates from the Selection Committee. Then of course—very tricky as he can be—the member for Sturt did an extraordinary thing: he moved an amendment to that suspension so that, rather than deal with important private members' business, we deal instead with a stunt. That is what we are debating this morning and that is what I am talking about. I would have thought that the member for Gippsland might have made a contribution to this debate too, because this is his motion. The member for Gippsland obviously went to a lot of work: he consulted his constituency, he identified a very real problem, he took time in consultation with the clerks—

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

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. At the end of the day the original motion was from the member for Gippsland. Even in a frayed debate, sometimes we intersect with what we are here for.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gippsland, having done some research, consulted with the clerks, had a motion drafted, put it on the Notice Paper and no doubt lobbied the member for Leichhardt hard to have his matter put before the House. We know many members put motions on the Notice Paper and, despite the additional private members' time we have available to us, still there is some competition. We cannot possibly deal with all of the motions in the House. The member for Gippsland obviously lobbied members of the opposition—those who sit on the Selection Committee—hard to have his motion debated in the House. We have done that. Rather extraordinarily, opposition members on the Selection Committee decided that this was a matter that should be voted upon. That surprised me, because I thought it was a bit like putting Christmas to a vote. I do not think anyone in this House would find the motion objectionable—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it is to bring him back to the suspension motion before the House. We know he is doing it because the Prime Minister has a press conference, and before he tells us what he had for breakfast this morning—

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

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Tolerance is being stretched, and I remind him about the value of his vote. It might be instructive to remind members of the question. The original question was the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing orders. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion and the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. The Chief Government Whip has the call and he will be relevant to the motion before the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I certainly will be. The member for North Sydney could take another lesson in work ethics, because if he had done his homework he would know that the Prime Minister is paired with the Leader of the Opposition. It will not be necessary for her to attend the division that will be coming before us shortly. I go back to the member for Gippsland—a very fine member. I will not go through the whole scenario again, but I think we have found ourselves at the Selection Committee determining whether this very fine motion from the member for Gippsland should be debated and voted upon in this place. The member for Gippsland felt so strongly about this motion on wild dogs that he went to the members for Leichhardt, Barker and Berowra and said, 'Please, I need this to be voted upon.' I do not really understand it—it is quite a non-objectionable motion. Wild dogs are a real problem in regional Australia; I have the same problem in my electorate—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 75 refers to the Speaker's power that when a member is persisting in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his arguments or of another person's arguments, he may be directed to discontinue his or her remarks.

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

There is no point of order.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making the point that wild dogs are also a problem in my own electorate. I am very conscious of the impact

Opposition members interjecting—

Now the members of the opposition are laughing—on flora and fauna, native vegetation and native animals in my electorate. They think that is funny. The member for Gippsland goes to the Selection Committee with what he claims was a serious motion. They think it is so serious and important that they not only allocate time for debate but also determine we should vote upon it in this place. Now they do two things. They try to run interference in that process and they try to deny the member for Gippsland the opportunity to put his motion to a vote—and now they laugh at the motion. It says something about their state of mind—a state of mind which is being driven entirely at the moment by what they see is an opportunity to sit on this side of the House. They are going to find themselves very, very disappointed.

The behaviour of the opposition just now proves without any question that this is a stunt and any objective member, particularly those sitting on the other side, would have to agree with those on this side and on the crossbenches that, in any contest as to whether it is more important to be dealing with private members' business in an orderly process, this motion should be afforded far more priority than a stunt from the other side which is purely about politics and political opportunities. It is about going after a member of this place who has legal processes underway and who is constrained on legal advice about what he should be saying publicly, whether in this place or elsewhere. It is all about sniffing a bit of blood. I want to close by restating my invitation (1) to the member for Gippsland to stand in this place and say he really believes that he would rather have us deal with a stunt than deal with the motion he put so much thought and effort into, and (2) to members of the opposition who sit on the Selection Committee to stand in this place, having worked so hard with me and other members from the government and the crossbenchers in getting in place these orderly processes—processes which afford private members so many rights—and explain why they are about to vote for a stunt rather than to vote for the rights of private members and the processes of the Selection Committee.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to be relevant and short. As a member of the Selection Committee let me make it very clear that the opposition members support the procedures, and the suggestion that we are not committed to those procedures is false and does not reflect our views. As the member for North Sydney made very clear, I think in the most relevant comment that I have heard in this debate so far, the agreement that was made for the way in which this parliament would conduct itself did not remove the right to suspend standing orders where matters were urgent and required further attention. That is simply what we are seeking to do here.

I am not one who is unaware of the way in which this parliament has been conducted in the past. I have been the subject of untrue and false allegations made by the then opposition which were shown to be untrue and false in an inquiry that was set up by them, yet they come in and endeavour in relation to an important matter that is on the public record to say that this should not be raised by this opposition. This is no more or less than government members did when they were in opposition. Let me make that very clear.

In relation to the member's right to remain silent, I respect that. But my view is that that is something—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consistent with your previous rulings, the member for Berowra must address why the suspension of standing orders should be carried or why the amendment to the suspension of standing orders should be supported or opposed.

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

I ask the member for Berowra to take that into consideration wholeheartedly as he makes his contribution.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleagues have before me, I will endeavour to be totally relevant to the matter that is being discussed. This is a matter of some urgency. It goes to the member's reputation. I do not think the member should be called upon to make statements if he is advised that to do so may in some way jeopardise his legal position, but I think he has an obligation to claim that right to silence. If he intends to do so, he should come into the chamber and do just that. He has spoken in other forums and I think the parliament is entitled to ask that he informs us as his colleagues.

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

Order! The original question was the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders. To this the member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion. The immediate question is that the amendment by the member for Sturt be agreed to.

Question put.

The House divided   [10:23]

(The Speaker—Hon. Harry Jenkins)

The numbers for the ayes and the noes being equal, Mr Speaker gave his casting vote with the noes.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.