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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Curtin from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the Australian people why she should continue to hold the office of Prime Minister, an office she has debased in the manner in which she came to it, in her handling of the Craig Thomson affair, in the contradictions that riddle her explanation of the role her staff played in the Australia Day riot and in her deception of the Australian people before the 2010 election over the introduction of the carbon tax, gambling reform, means testing the private health insurance rebate and operating an open and transparent government.

The office of Prime Minister comes with great responsibility, and the person who holds that office must have integrity, honesty, competence and good judgment. Standing orders must be suspended because this Prime Minister has so debased the highest office in the land, and her government is in such turmoil as a result, this motion must be debated. The Prime Minister lacks the fundamental qualities that a Prime Minister, the pinnacle of government, demands, and without integrity, without honesty, without competence and without good judgment in the Prime Minister this government cannot function. Standing orders must be suspended to debate this motion.

Cabinet ministers are spending their evenings with Labor backbenchers counting numbers, tallying up the columns of names and not running the country. One of the great burdens that falls upon the shoulders of any Prime Minister is to be the custodian of our parliamentary system and to ensure that the bonds of trust between the parliament and the voting public are not broken. I can assure the member for Griffith that he has the vote of the Chief Government Whip. The Prime Minister has monumentally failed in that task, and that is why standing orders must be suspended.

The Prime Minister betrayed the trust of the former Prime Minister when she was his deputy. The Prime Minister betrayed the trust of the member for Denison. But, most grievously, the Prime Minister has betrayed the trust of the Australian people. The conduct of this Prime Minister makes it clear that she has little regard for the truth and thus that she holds the Australian public in contempt. That is why standing orders must be suspended.

There have been new revelations overnight about this Prime Minister's conduct which require standing orders to be suspended so we can debate my substantive motion. The Prime Minister cannot on the one hand express noble sentiments, such as those in her fine Closing the Gap address this morning, while presiding over a culture within her office so squalid that they saw fit to incite the Aboriginal tent embassy protesters on Australia Day, to attempt to use Aboriginal people in a tawdry, deceitful fashion.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you made a ruling the other day that people actually had to speak to the suspension. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is speaking to the substance of the motion—a motion she has no chance of getting the numbers for.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. While at times she almost seems to be leaving the substance of the motion, she does come back to why standing and sessional orders should be suspended. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will continue to address the motion before the chair.

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

Standing orders must be suspended because of the revelations overnight about the squalid culture in the Prime Minister's office, about how they sought to use Aboriginal people for tawdry, deceitful purposes. That sort of culture has no place in any public office, let alone the office of the Prime Minister. That is why standing orders must be suspended.

To compound the error, this wretched series of events surrounding Australia Day, the Prime Minister gave a press conference—and that is the subject of the motion we propose to debate—to explain how and why this Aboriginal tent embassy protest came about. That public explanation by the Prime Minister now appears to be false. The Prime Minister was given the opportunity in question time today to correct the public record. The Prime Minister has relied in this House on the transcript of Ms Kim Sattler, but there is a contradiction between the transcript the Prime Minister relied upon and the actual words spoken by Ms Sattler. And the Prime Minister has refused to correct the record. That is why standing orders must be suspended—because this Prime Minister must explain to the House and to the Australian people why she has conducted herself in this way, so debasing the high office of Prime Minister.

Take, for example, the fantasy the Prime Minister has invented about her conduct during the overthrow of the former Prime Minister. Standing orders should be suspended to debate the new revelations about that matter. This Prime Minister would have us believe that she was the reluctant candidate, drafted against her will into the challenge that she did not want to mount. This is important and it is why standing orders must be suspended—because the Australian people were deeply unsettled by the unprecedented removal of the former Prime Minister and they have been given no plausible explanation except naked, ruthless ambition. The problem for this Prime Minister is that her own colleagues and ministers are contradicting her version of events—a version of events invented by the Prime Minister and given to the public but which is the opposite of what actually happened. That is why cabinet ministers have been doing the numbers overnight.

Standing orders must be suspended as there are fresh revelations reflecting on the Prime Minister which must be debated. Her office was drafting an acceptance speech for when she became Prime Minister at least two weeks prior to the challenge, yet the Prime Minister wants the public to believe that she knew nothing about the plot or the challenge that she was about to make. The US Secretary of State knew about the challenge two weeks before it occurred. The Australian ambassador in Washington was called in to give assurances to the United States that there would be no destabilisation of the relationship when there was a change of leader.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the substance of the motion.

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

This is a very serious allegation and that is why standing orders must be suspended—so that this issue of national security can be debated and so the Prime Minister can explain to the House how it is that she did not know her office was in fact drafting her acceptance speech. I wonder if they are now in there drafting her concession speech.

The Prime Minister also said that she did not know that there was polling showing that she was the preferred Prime Minister over the then Prime Minister. Yet we now find from revelations overnight that the very person who was seeking to replace the former Prime Minister was personally campaigning and lobbying other members of her frontbench and backbench with that very same polling which was so damaging to the then Prime Minister and supportive of her campaign for the job. But the Australian people have been told that she did not have any recollection of these momentous events—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the substance of the motion.

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

and that is why standing orders must be suspended—because the truth is slowly and painfully being revealed by the Prime Minister's own colleagues. It is becoming obvious to all that the Prime Minister was up to her eyeballs in the coup to remove the former Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister should simply come into this House and tell the truth. What was her role in the removal of the Prime Minister? Did she know about the polling? She was handing it around. Did she know about the speech? The ambassador in Washington knew and the US Secretary of State knew.

We know that the member for Denison holds in his hands a signed contract with the Prime Minister, the contract which supported the formation of this minority government and allowed this Prime Minister to remain in office. That contract turned to dust with no apology for the monumental deception played upon the member for Denison—and that is why standing orders must be suspended. The Prime Minister led the member for Denison on for months. And then there was the most blatant betrayal of the Australian people—the promise that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led.

These events are themselves serious enough to warrant a suspension of standing orders, a condemnation and censure, but of equal or greater concern is that the Prime Minister believes it is proper conduct to seek to mislead the Australian people with her improbable, implausible, disingenuous, unbelievable explanations and excuses. The devious conduct and personal behaviour of this Prime Minister calls into question her fitness to hold office. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Standing orders should be suspended here and now because there is a death stench hanging over the Prime Minister of this nation. The standing orders should be suspended here and now because we have a Prime Minister who is evading question after question when she ought to have the courage to come into this place and face up and answer questions which are in the public interest and about the good government of this nation. That is why standing orders ought to be suspended.

We have seen a progressive pattern of denial from this Prime Minister. For example, take the denial on Four Corners on Monday night, when she was asked whether she knew that a speech was being written by people in her office. A clear enough question: did she know that a speech was being written by people in her office. What was the answer? The answer from the Prime Minister on Four Corners on Monday night was:

… I did not ask for a speech to be prepared …

This is perfection of the non-denial denial. That is what we have from this Prime Minister. She got a direct question, 'Did she know something?' and she said:

… I did not ask for a speech to be prepared …

When she was pressed by the interviewer, Andrew Fowler, she said, 'That's the best answer I can give.'

Anybody in Australia who has been following this debate knows that the reality is that we have the most evasive Prime Minister who has ever occupied that chair in this parliament. It is a disgrace to the office of Prime Minister that we have such a cowardly person in it and that is why standing orders need to be suspended. This is such a cowardly person that she will not come into this chamber and face up to the questions that are being legitimately asked about the administration of her office and therefore the good government of this country.

When it comes to these issues about what actually occurred, there are only two possible explanations—and remember, this was the most important issue that was running that day. The first explanation is that before all this occurred it was totally hidden from the Prime Minister. It was the most important issue of the day. She was going to the Lobby restaurant, something that would occupy not only her advisers but her chief of staff and her communications director—her media advisers—and somehow all of those people in her office hid this from the Prime Minister. We know from what has been slowly forced out over the days since then is that these people knew about what was happening.

Standing orders should be suspended because either all the senior people in the Prime Minister's office were out on a frolic of their own, totally unknown by the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister actually knew what was going on. These are legitimate questions and that is why standing orders should be suspended. These are legitimate questions that should be answered in this parliament. They should be answered in front of the people of Australia who watch and listen to these proceedings in question time each day. Yet what do we have? Day after day, we see total evasion by the Prime Minister.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The Leader of the House complains about another move to suspend standing orders. We would not have to do this if we had a government who had the courage to come in here and answer the questions. So do not give us this nonsense, leader of the opposition—Leader of the House, I mean. He maybe leader of the opposition one day, but we do not know about that. But what we do know is that this total evasion, which is going on day after day, is demeaning the office of Prime Minister.

In this country we now have a Prime Minister whose credibility has been totally shredded not only over this issue but over the abandonment of the promise that she made to the member for Denison and a whole series of other issues. That is why standing orders should be suspended on this occasion: so that this Prime Minister can answer the questions that are being asked. If the government think that by running away from this, by evading it, the questions are not going to continue to be asked then they are sadly mistaken. These are legitimate questions that demand legitimate answers, rather than the cowardly behaviour and performance that we continue to have from this Prime Minister.

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

There is some irony in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contributing to this debate given the content of her speech. She gave a speech about loyalty. She knows; she has been loyal to all three leaders she has been deputy to—Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, and I am sure there will be more to come. We also heard about loyalty from the Leader of the Opposition. Ask Peter Reith about loyalty from the Leader of the Opposition, who put in him in a ballot, asked him to run and then ratted on him in the ballot—on TV. And he has the hide to come in here and run lectures about loyalty.

This suspension of standing orders is the 39th attempted suspension of standing orders from those opposite. That in itself tells you why we should not suspend standing orders. The suspension of standing orders or a censure resolution is a mechanism available under parliamentary procedures for serious issues on serious occasions, not to be used every single day, as those opposite do, because, quite frankly, they cannot get their act together to get a decent question time pack out of their tactics committee. We know that that is the case because their tactics committee is bigger than their frontbench, and we know that they have 32 on their frontbench because two of them are currently scrambling around hoping they will make the top 30, given the legislation put forward to provide salaries for 30 shadow ministers not the 32 under the Howard government legislation. What we have seen here today is a bid by the member for Menzies to make the top 30. What we have seen from the member for Mackellar is the raising of points of order to see if she can make the top 30. We know that those opposite have got an ambitious backbench. We know that the member for Higgins and the member for Mayo and all of the others are scrambling to get into that top 30—they are hanging on. It is extraordinary that we have had from those opposite a suggestion to suspend standing orders on matters that are erroneous.

What we see from those opposite, day after day in debates on legislation, is an attempt to scare workers and their families. We know what the CEO of Alcoa has said about Point Henry and about the future of that plant. But there is no factory and there is no work site—particularly in Queanbeyan, for the member for Eden-Monaro—that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to go to and run a scare campaign.

This parliament should be about serious issues. We had it this morning with the private health insurance legislation, this afternoon we will be debating the ABCC legislation and we have question time available to people. The most serious thing that has happened today was about righting a historic wrong: the Closing the Gap statement by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Both of them are sincerely committed to making a difference when it comes to Indigenous Australians, as is the parliament as a whole. But what we saw today after the Closing the Gap statement, when the member for Franklin was on her feet answering a question about Indigenous employment, was an ongoing chant from a senior member of the opposition of 'Boring!'

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The honourable member for Menzies, presumably on a point of order—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise to draw your attention to the motion.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will direct himself to the motion before the chair.

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

I am directing my remarks to the sorts of issues that we should be discussing in this parliament rather than moving these daily suspensions of standing orders. Question time is continually interrupted by those opposite to move suspensions of standing orders. We heard a question about the Maldives yesterday from the shadow minister for foreign affairs, who has moved this motion, attempting to make a joke of what is a very serious international issue. This is from the party that a few weeks ago were making jokes about the Costa Concordia disaster—they thought that was an appropriate comment to make on radio in Adelaide. That is the sort of moral standard that we get from those opposite.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I call on the honourable member for Cowper on a point of order.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this is a motion for the suspension of standing orders and I would ask you to draw the speaker back to the topic.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is referring to the motion. I think what he is talking about are the issues that the parliament should be talking about and which it could talk about if the motion for suspension of standing orders is not carried. The leader has the call.

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

There is a little green book called the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders and there is a big book called the House of Representatives Practice. I suggest that just once some of their senior people have a look at them because I am perfectly relevant in talking about what this parliament should be discussing. Those opposite want to have a discussion about honesty and issues relating to the concerns they have which are all just about politics. You never hear from those opposite a concern about the economy, a genuine concern about jobs and employment, a genuine concern about fairness and equity, a genuine concern about the policy debates before the parliament. We saw it today with the passing of the private health insurance legislation. Those opposite now have to declare whether they will repeal that legislation and therefore add to their $70 billion black hole. My attention is drawn to an op-ed piece by the now Leader of the Opposition, who had this to say in the Australian on 24 July 2009:

Opposition, by contrast, tends to be a permanent debating society because even the most final decisions can sometimes be revisited in office.

There you have their principle in writing—you know you cannot trust him unless it is in writing—'Don't worry about anything that is said.'

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will return to the substance of the motion.

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

I certainly will, Mr Speaker, because these are the sorts of issues that we could be discussing in alternate circumstances. So far today, those opposite have made three attempts to shut me down in the debate. They had 10 minutes and they had five minutes but they cannot cop 10 minutes in reply. When it comes to a one-on-one debate, anyone on this side versus anyone on that side, they lose. In any debate there is simply no substance from those opposite. We know that they choose to oppose no matter what issue is before us. They come in here and try to assassinate the Prime Minister's character. Their only policy position is to talk down the economy and to talk down Australia, except when they are overseas and then the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that Australia is the envy of the world. We are not going to cop lectures from someone who is prepared to make jokes about the Italian cruise liner or from someone who was prepared to bag Bernie Banton, the asbestos campaigner, when he was on his death bed.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This speech is irrelevant to the subject of the motion before the House.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has the call and will be completely relevant in the 35 seconds he has left.

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

Then there was the great comment about John Brogden when the Leader of the Opposition said, 'If we did that, we'd be as dead as the former Liberal leader's political prospects.' We are not going to cop lectures from those opposite, who have no morals, no political strategy and no economic policy for the nation. What we see in here—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw the statement that members opposite have no morals.

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

I withdraw, Mr Speaker. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the Hon. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.