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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the resignation of Mr Mike Williamson from the national executive of the Australian Labor Party—a political party regulated by the government's Electoral Act. Given the Prime Minister has refused to countenance the resignation of the member for Dobell until all investigations concerning the allegations surrounding him have been resolved, did she or her office similarly ask Mr Williamson—

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.

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

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. This is not directed at the Leader of the House but the cheer squads. I wish the chamber to take these matters with great caution, so the matters that those with the call have should be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question is not within the parameters of questions allowed in question time that go to the responsibility of the Prime Minister. This is about internal affairs of the union or a political party or something, but it certainly is not in accordance with rulings by Speakers over many, many years about internal matters.

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

I am obliged to listen carefully to the questions because to try to predict where the question is going presents difficulties for me. The House is aware of my concern about questions, so I just say to the member for Sturt that the question has to be very, very tightly framed.

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

Mr Speaker, so that you can consider it in its entirety, I will begin again. I refer the Prime Minister—

Government members interjecting—

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

Order!

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

Well, how can you not? I refer the Prime Minister to the resignation of Mr Mike Williamson from the national executive of the Labor Party, a political party regulated by the government's Electoral Act. Given the Prime Minister has refused to countenance the resignation of the member for Dobell until all investigations concerning the allegations surrounding him have been resolved, did she or her office similarly ask Mr Williamson to remain on the national executive until the investigations into his conduct were resolved?

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

I think I ruled a similar question out of order last week on the basis that it is not in order to ask questions about internal operations of political parties.

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. This is a very important ruling because what the question asks about are the actions of the Prime Minister or her office about a member of the national executive of a political party regulated by an act for which her government is responsible and in relation to a member of the parliament who is a member of her political party and whether she applied the same standards to both members, both of whom you could say she is responsible for, and her actions about those two members.

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

On the basis of what the member for Sturt has put to me, I disagree. I think that in neither case is the Prime Minister responsible. In fact, as I have consistently said, for an individual member, a backbench member—and I stress this and underline it: a backbench member, not a member of the executive—I believe the Prime Minister has no responsibility. I know that examples have been given under other administrations but that has been about the actions of members of the executive government. I, if you will remember, ruled questions out of order on the previous member for Robertson and I have referred to those rulings earlier where I believed that the House had indicated a different attitude. What I am now saying to you—and I said this late last week—is that I am reverting, having read Practice, to a belief that members of the executive are the responsibility of a Prime Minister, not backbench members.

Mr Abbott interjecting—

Order! The Leader of the Opposition cannot think that he can get away with just interrupting me. On that occasion, you will remember, comments were made on the public record by the Prime Minister. The question is out of order.

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

Mr Speaker, just to clarify, because this is a very important ruling—I am not trying to be arch about it—what you have essentially ruled is that the Prime Minister is not responsible for her own actions in what she or her office have done.

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

No, what I am saying is that the Prime Minister is not responsible for matters involving backbench members of the parliament. In fact, you have not indicated in your question any basis for your question.

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

Mr Speaker, further on the point of order, I indicated in the question that the Prime Minister had not countenanced the member for Dobell's resignation. She has expressed full confidence in him in this House on many occasions.

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

And what I am indicating—even under those questions and every time they were asked—is that you will remember that, whilst I allowed them, I considered it doubtful that that is the intent and purpose of question time. And, in reverting late last week to a stronger interpretation of the standing orders, I believe, having warned the House, that my ruling on this question is consistent.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would refer you to page 527 of the Practice. I refer to that part where it says that the use of question time is for 'political impact'. It says:

... the opportunity given to Members to raise topical or urgent issues is invaluable. Ministers accept the fact that they must be informed through a check of press, television or other sources of possible questions that may be asked of them in order that they may provide satisfactory answers.

Mr Speaker, I put it to you that the question that was posed falls right within the parameters of that section of the Practice and that the question is in order and should be allowed to stand.

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

Good try! Page 527 also says:

It is also a time when the intensity of partisan politics can be clearly manifested.

It can be but I prefer it not to be. The member for Canberra.