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

I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Members on both sides will return to silence, including the Leader of the House.

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 moving immediately—That this House call on the Prime Minister to explain the circumstances surrounding the botched attempt to install Bob Carr as Foreign Minister, the role of the Defence Minister in vetoing it and how the Australian people can have any trust in a Prime Minister with a pattern of behaviour that calls into question her integrity and who lacks the authority to control the faceless men of the Labor Party.

Standing orders must be suspended—

Government members interjecting—

Mr Laming interjecting—

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

The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a).

The member for Bowman then left the chamber.

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

Standing orders must be suspended, and this motion must take precedence, because overnight more revelations have emerged that contradict the Prime Minister's version of events over the Bob Carr fiasco. The pattern of behaviour that is emerging borders on the pathological. The Prime Minister has turned denying the undeniable into an art form. The Prime Minister, when confronted with indisputable facts, manufactures a version of events that invariably turns out to be the opposite of what is true. She is a fabricator. That is why standing orders must be suspended—so that the Prime Minister can explain to this House and to the Australian people why she said that an article in the Australian was completely untrue, when the salient facts in the story have been confirmed by none other than Bob Carr himself. The Prime Minister did not claim that parts of it were untrue or that there was an incorrect nuance; she said it was completely untrue.

But we now know that Bob Carr was offered the foreign minister's spot. She said that was completely untrue. We know Bob Carr was contacted by the Prime Minister. She said that was completely—

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

The Deputy Leader will return to the motion she has moved.

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

That is why standing orders must be suspended—so that the Prime Minister can explain how it is that she claims that the offer being withdrawn after the intervention of the factions was completely untrue. These matters require the Prime Minister's explanation. Legitimate questions are arising about the Prime Minister's respect for the truth. Even those who are desperate to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt admit that she has a passing acquaintance with the truth. I would say that the Prime Minister and the truth are total strangers. That fact is—

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

Order! The Deputy Leader will withdraw that. I point out that this is not a motion of censure. The Deputy Leader must focus on the substance of the motion, and the sorts of things that she could talk about in a substantive motion cannot be talked about in a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders.

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

I withdraw. Standing orders must be suspended so that the Prime Minister can explain her behaviour. I have spoken about the pattern of behaviour which is part of the motion, and that is why standing orders must be suspended. For example, the member for Griffith learned, to his great personal cost, that the Prime Minister's word cannot be relied upon—that her word is worthless. For months leading up to 23 June 2010 she declared loyally that she would not challenge the Prime Minister. Even on the night she betrayed him she promised she would give him more time, only to go back on her word moments later. That is why standing and sessional orders must be suspended.

The member for Denison learned to his great cost that the Prime Minister's written word cannot be relied upon, and she must explain this. The member for Denison was strung along for months, seduced into believing that her written word was worth something—but then he was betrayed. There is a pattern of behaviour here. The Australian people learned this when she made her promise that there would be no need for concern over the erosion of the private health insurance rebate. Now this Prime Minister is eroding that very same rebate. The Prime Minister also told the Australian people that, if they voted for her, there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. This is part of the pattern of behaviour that she must explain. The Prime Minister betrayed their trust and standing orders must be suspended so she can explain why she makes these statements that are then shown to be false.

We will recall that before the last election the Prime Minister announced the East Timor processing centre. She said she had spoken to the East Timorese President. She was subsequently ridiculed for poor judgment, for her diplomatic failing, and then she denied that she had nominated East Timor for the processing centre. In fact, she said:

I'm not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location.

So are we led to believe that she was speaking to President Ramos Horta about a processing centre in Antarctica? No wonder Laurie Oakes said of the Prime Minister—

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

The deputy leader will return to the substance of her motion.

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

I am speaking about the pattern of behaviour, Mr Speaker, which is why the suspension motion should be carried.

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

The deputy leader must focus on why standing and sessional orders should be suspended.

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

That is right, Mr Speaker. Standing and sessional orders must be suspended so that the Prime Minister can answer the charge from Laurie Oakes that she is silly and slippery and slimy and shifty. She must be given the opportunity to come into this place and explain this same behaviour that emerged over the Australia Day riot. When the truth would have done just fine, this Prime Minister gave a version of events that has proven not to be true. Even on the most straightforward issues the Prime Minister seems incapable of calling it as it is. After unleashing her dogs of war with a most personal and vitriolic attack on the member for Griffith, she now wants to believe that she was not publicly humiliating him—she was in fact honouring him. Standing orders must be suspended so she can explain this behaviour. The Prime Minister could not even get it right when she was talking about his achievements, saying that the member for Griffith created the G20 and created the East Asia Summit. Not even the member for Griffith would claim such grandiosity. That is why the Prime Minister must explain herself.

Standing orders must be suspended so that the Prime Minister can give her version of the events of the Carr wreck. We will recall that the Prime Minister said she was not involved in the toppling of the member for Griffith; that she was not in any plot to overthrow the Prime Minister. We now know she was hawking around polling; she was having speeches written in her own office. Her version of events is simply implausible. Last week the Prime Minister's version of why the member for Griffith had to be removed was revealed as not sustainable. She said she believed that it was a good government that had lost its way, but we now know that she did not believe it was a good government. She in fact thought it was chaotic and disorganised and paralysed and not focused on the national interest. In fact her deputy said—and this is what she should be called in to explain and this is why standing orders must be suspended—that this was a government that had contempt for the cabinet, contempt for the caucus, contempt for the parliament and contempt for the public. So, far from the Prime Minister's version that it was a good government that lost its way, she now admits that it was a bad government getting worse. That is why standing orders must be suspended.

The Prime Minister wanted us to believe that she did not tell the truth about the events of 23 and 24 June because she did not want to hurt the feelings of the member for Griffith. Spare us, Mr Speaker! Do we have to have any more of this? Having unleashed the most personal abuse on the former Prime Minister of this country, she now wants us to believe that she did not want to hurt his feelings. The fact is that the Prime Minister's instinct is to manufacture and to fabricate to suit her political purpose. No wonder a third of her caucus decided that she was not worthy of their vote.

Standing orders must be suspended so the Prime Minister can explain the circumstances surrounding the role of the Minister for Defence in vetoing the Prime Minister's choice of Bob Carr for foreign minister. The Prime Minister says that allegation is completely untrue, but we will soon know. If the Prime Minister appoints the defence minister to be the foreign minister, that is evidence of his veto. Surely the Prime Minister would not otherwise want to appoint the fourth Labor defence minister in four years. We have learned that the minister for regional Australia has also vetoed the Prime Minister's choice of Bob Carr, so both ministers want the job. The Prime Minister is faced with a choice between the member for Perth and the member for Hotham—a choice between a rooster and a feather duster, so wipe the floor with that one. Standing orders must be suspended so the Prime Minister can explain how she can claim a new assertiveness one day when the next day she is completely and comprehensively undermined by the factions.

Standing orders must be suspended so the Prime Minister can explain matters that go to her very character, to her personal integrity and to her fitness to hold office. We are seeking the opportunity for the Prime Minister to explain why she seeks to construct versions of events when the truth will do. Members will recall the Prime Minister telling us that she was a prize winner in Bible studies. Perhaps she might remember Matthew 12:37: by your words you will be justified; by your words you will be condemned. (Time expired)

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

Is motion seconded?

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

I second the motion, Mr Speaker. Standing orders must be suspended because the Prime Minister says you cannot believe everything you read, but the real problem with this Prime Minister is that you cannot believe anything she says. The Prime Minister should be required to come into the House and explain the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the botched attempt to appoint Bob Carr as the foreign minister. The Prime Minister is condemned by her own words. In question time today the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question from the opposition:

I believe that it is appropriate for me as Prime Minister to have discussions with people about having the best possible team. I have got a great team, but when we are seeking to add to the team of course you have a range of conversations.

The reason the Prime Minister was speaking to Bob Carr on Monday night is that she was seeking to bring him in from the outside to add to the team. It does not stack up with her statement yesterday that the Australian's report of this story was completely untrue. Again, she was condemned by her own words. In question time today she was asked a very straightforward question.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will return to the substance of the motion.

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

The reason standing orders should be suspended to give this motion precedence is that we on this side of the House would like to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to explain to the House her answer today to a question from the opposition, which was that, if her statement to the Australian at a press conference that the story was 'completely untrue' was in fact true, would she repeat the statement in the House. Do you know what she did? She did not repeat it in the House. She left out a crucial word. She left out the word 'completely' from her statement today. We know why. It is because they are weasel words. She knows that if she tells the truth in this place, if she misleads the House in this place, it is a sackable offence, whereas misleading the press and misleading the people is just more Labor spin, which she has been getting away with for 4½ years in government.

The reason standing orders must be suspended to give this motion precedence is the pitiful truth that the faceless men used this Prime Minister to politically assassinate the former Prime Minister in 2010. They did it again on Monday and they don't need her any more. The circus has moved on and the Prime Minister is going to be left in the litter as the faceless men divide up the spoils of a new government under a new leader.

The facts that have been agreed in this case were well put by Dennis Shanahan today in the Australian. He said:

These are the agreed facts … Carr was offered the Senate vacancy and the position of foreign minister; Gillard spoke personally to him at least twice on Monday night; after the conversation Carr believed he was going to be foreign minister; Carr was prepared to come to Canberra on Tuesday for an announcement; Stephen Smith and Simon Crean objected; and finally the offer of foreign minister was withdrawn on Tuesday morning and the alternative of defence (Smith’s portfolio) or trade (Craig Emerson’s) was offered.

None of those facts has been disputed by anyone in the government. The Prime Minister has been left like a shag on a rock with nothing to protect her from the truth in this case. The opposition will prosecute this case, and we are getting plenty of help from the Labor Party. Even this morning backbenchers and frontbenchers were throwing up their hands in horror about the performance of the Prime Minister.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will return to the motion.

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

There was this brief shining moment of independence for the Prime Minister on Monday. She was like a hostage briefly freed.

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will talk to the substance of the motion.

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

The reason this motion should be given precedence is that, like a hostage freed briefly on Monday, the Prime Minister tasted freedom but she was quickly wrapped up by the faceless men and put back in the dark where they think she belongs.

The Australian people deserve better than this. They deserve a government that will restore hope, reward and opportunity—not the self-indulgent rabble that now occupies the government benches. That is why standing orders should be suspended. There is nothing more important before the House than discussing the integrity and honesty of a flawed and broken Prime Minister.

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

Today I rise for the 44th time to a suspension of standing orders motion moved by the opposition. Every day they come in here and stop question time in order to move a suspension of standing orders, because they have nothing to say about the future of this nation. Not only do they have nothing to say about the future of this nation, they do not even bother to try to hold the government to account on any of the major issues of the day that confront Australia—not on the economy, not on social policy, not on health policy and not on education policy. I have had one question in years on infrastructure and transport, even though the Leader of the National Party is the shadow minister. It shows—and this is the reason we should not support the suspension motion moved by the opposition—that every day this is just an act of self-indulgence. Every time they do this they say that they just care about themselves and not about those they purport to represent. Every time they do it they remind the Australian people that they are not interested in issues. They remind Australians that, in today's case, they are pushing off the matter of public importance debate, which is about a price on carbon. Remember that. They thought it was important, but today they move a motion that, if carried, will mean we will not have a debate today about the price on carbon. We on this side of the House are very happy to debate a clean energy future, what it will mean for our economy, what it will provide in terms of support for pensioners, what it will provide in terms of the support for working Australians through tax cuts, what it will mean for families in the suburbs and what it will mean for future jobs as we move to a carbon constrained economy.

Regarding the resolution today moved by the shadow minister for foreign affairs, you would think that she would just be embarrassed. The only questions that we have had from the shadow minister for foreign affairs have been ones that have sought to play politics and make fun. They are the only things that have been raised. There is never anything serious. There has never been anything about famine in Africa, the great global issues confronting the G20 or the European economy and there has never been anything about the implications for this nation of all those great global issues.

It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said about the member for Kooyong on 28 August last year, 'I've got to say it's nice to have someone in the parliamentary party who understands foreign affairs at last.' What an endorsement! And he heard his name: he thought it was a call from the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry, Josh, it is not my decision; it is the decision of the bloke in front of me. And this bloke in front of me is quite happy to have a lame duck who is not interested in foreign affairs as the shadow minister. We want to debate the substantial issues. That is why we do not support the suspension of standing orders. The member for Kooyong came in with some hope and he did not last a minute! That says it all about those opposite.

We are happy to debate the great issues of the day, such as our stance as enhancers of opportunity versus their stance of entrenchers of privilege, or our stance as builders of the nation versus their stance as wreckers, or our stance on a return to surplus versus their stance, with their $70 billion black hole, or what we stand for with our positive vision for the future versus their stance as a bunch of negative hollow opportunists.

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

The Leader of the House will return to the question before the chair.

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

I am speaking on the question, Mr Speaker. During question time, I want to continue to debate our politics of conviction versus their politics of convenience. I want to have questions asked of us about the great issues of the day and the fact that we are focused on the big picture: infrastructure, skills and climate change. I want to debate how we put the national interest first while they just play politics and put their party first. I want to debate how we stand for a fair share for working people while they stand for special deals for the big end of town.

We saw this in the last question asked by this side of the House of the minister for workplace relations about safe rates. I also had the privilege of meeting today the families of those who have lost loved ones in accidents involving heavy vehicles. This is a big issue. It is one on which the member for Hinkler produced a seminal report many years ago—a decade ago. But it was not acted upon. We on this side of the House have given this issue a very considered response. We have consulted independent contractors.

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

The Leader of the House will talk about why standing orders ought not be suspended.

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

Yes, Mr Speaker. These are the issues that we could have got more questions on this afternoon rather than this petty politics. These are the issues that matter. I bet that if this suspension had not occurred I would have got the next question. This is a very good argument for why we should not suspend standing orders. I care about these issues. This parliament should not just be concerned with the negative. This parliament has to be concerned with the positive and with the future issues facing our nation, such as the need for safe rates for people who drive our trucks and keep this country going.

We very firmly believe that we have a strong, positive agenda across the policy spectrum. Day after day, ministers come in here and they may as well bring in novels, because there is no chance of them getting—

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. In relation to the defence of why standing orders should not be suspended, is it appropriate for the Leader of the House, who did not support the Prime Minister, to stand and defend her?

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

The honourable member for Mackellar will remove herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 94(a).

The member for Mackellar then left the chamber.

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

Mr Speaker, that decision is a very popular one on both sides of the chamber!

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

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

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

I will, Mr Speaker. I have nothing more to say about the future of the modern Liberal Party, who leaves the chamber as we speak. The fact of the matter is this: we oppose this suspension because we want to discuss positive issues. Those opposite just want to muckrake during question time and during these daily suspensions. When we do discuss issues, those opposite say no to a surplus, no to jobs, no to action on climate change, no to a future for manufacturing, no to the NBN, no to helping working people, no to tax cuts for small business, no to better superannuation for workers and no to pension increases. That is all that they have to say about the issues facing this nation. That is why every day they come in here and move these motions. They have done so on 44 occasions.

I will conclude with a Robert Menzies quote, who said this:

…on far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says 'No.' … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.

All those years ago, in 1944, Robert Menzies had figured this bloke out. Robert Menzies was indeed a visionary, because he knew what his party would become. Frankly, the Australian people deserve better and that is why this ridiculous suspension motion—the daily suspension motion typed up in advance, typed up in the morning and moved like clockwork at 2.48 pm every day—should be rejected. (Time expired)

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question before the chair is that the motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders, moved by the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition, be agreed to.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.