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

I move:

That standing order 13 be amended by omitting paragraph (c).

The current standing order was drafted as a response to the landmark 1994 About time report by the Procedure Committee. That report recommended a package of reforms to increase opportunities for private members to participate in the proceedings of the parliament to create time for government and non-government members to engage in and reinvigorate the proceedings of the House. For example, that report led to the establishment of what is now known as the Federation Chamber and allowed House committees to undertake advisory inquiries into legislation. It was a bipartisan report, and part of the package was the understanding that the presiding officer position should be available to all members of the House.

So the intention behind the original standing order 13 was to allow people from opposing sides in the two roles of Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker. Before then, non-government members would not have been as able to preside over the House as they are now. We saw that last night with the election of the member for Maranoa as Deputy Speaker. The original standing order was about striking a balance while increasing participation. It follows now that the balance should be restruck to reflect the intention behind the original standing order. That is what the amendment I am moving here today does, and I commend it to the House for support.

After the last election—when the parliament was, for the first time since the Second World War, one in which one or other side of politics did not have an absolute majority in their own right—there was a series of discussions and meetings about parliamentary reform. I was a participant, as was the Leader of the House, along with the Manager of Opposition Business and the crossbenchers, particularly the member for Lyne. Also participating, in terms of signing off on those reforms, were the current Prime Minister and the current Leader of the Opposition, who were at that stage indeterminate in terms of who would be in a position to form government.

One of the decisions that was made unanimously was that there would be a pairing in effect—as all pairing arrangements are informal arrangements—between the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. That is, whichever side of politics the Speaker came from, the Deputy Speaker would come from the other side. They would in effect be paired, cancelling out their votes, thereby removing the partisanship behind who held the high office of Speaker of the House of Representatives. That was an agreement all sides of politics struck to ensure that people would not attempt to select someone as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in order to take away a vote from the floor of the House of Representatives. Given the nature of the parliament, that was agreed by all sides.

The member for Lyne played a particularly important role in that parliamentary reform process. I have been reminded that it is almost two years to the day since the infamous group hug in the courtyard outside Aussies. At that time, some spoke about a kinder, gentler parliament. That was just before the Leader of the Opposition determined to try to wreck the parliament by cancelling question time day after day through moving suspensions of standing orders on what is approaching 70 separate occasions now—the sort of destructive negativity that we see in this parliament every day. But at the time the view was that this change would be a part of moving towards an improvement in the way the affairs of this House were conducted.

That agreement was reneged on immediately once the government determined that the Prime Minister would be in a position to form a government. Those people who had freely put their signatures to that reform document walked away from those reforms, including the pairing of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. Under those circumstances, the standing orders were not changed to allow for a proper balance to occur in the deputy speaker positions. There is a guarantee in the standing orders that the Second Deputy Speaker position will go to the opposition. The government of the day, because of its majority, has ordinarily in all of the other parliaments—the previous 42 parliaments—held the position of both Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The Second Deputy Speaker position was created so that there would be some representation from both sides of politics. Therefore, in the circumstances in which the Deputy Speaker is from one side of politics, it is appropriate that the Second Deputy Speaker be from the other side of politics.

Hence the changes that I am moving here, which are about getting the balance right and the spirit of the reforms that this government has maintained a commitment to. This government has attempted, despite the relentless negativity of those opposite, to continue to promote the reform of the parliament. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

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

All the honeyed words of the Leader of the House do not abrogate the fact that this is an absolute setup to fix up the shambles of yesterday in the House of Representatives. This is the sort of thing that you expect at the ALP conference in Sussex Street, New South Wales; this is the kind of thing that you expected from the Politburo of the former Soviet Union. The government is changing the rules halfway through the ballot. That is what the Labor Party is proposing to do today: change the rules halfway through the ballot. The parliament met last night and elected a Speaker. We then elected a Deputy Speaker. The member for Hindmarsh lost.

The government, to its horror, realised that the standing orders meant that the Second Deputy Speaker could not be the member for Hindmarsh. They have obviously done a factional deal to give the member for Hindmarsh a job to try and prop him up in his seat of Hindmarsh before the next election, to try and give him a bit of profile in his seat in South Australia. The government tried to do a deal with the member for Hindmarsh and they have realised that he cannot be the Second Deputy Speaker under 13(c) of the standing orders and that it has to be a member of the non-government side of the House, which means a member of the Liberal and National parties or the crossbenches. So they had to change the rules. In typical ALP style they adjourned the parliament last night—we did not finish the ballot last night, which of course we should have—and came into the House this morning when the Leader of the House proposed a fix. It is a fix so that the member for Hindmarsh can be the Second Deputy Speaker.

This is not the greatest issue of moment before the House today but it is an important principle of the chamber and an important principle of politics that you cannot change the rules half-way through the ballot just because you were not going to win. I know that the right wing in the New South Wales ALP have been doing this to the Leader of the House for his whole career. I know that Senator Faulkner, from the Left in New South Wales, would be smiling today, thinking to himself that Mr Albanese, Leader of the House, is getting a bit of his own back on the Liberal and National Party, because for years the Left in New South Wales have had to put up with just this kind of thing. When they were about to win a pre-selection for a state or federal seat the state executive of Sussex Street would come in and change the rules.

Ms Bird interjecting—

They would abolish the pre-selection and give the federal executive the vote so that they could get the right-wing candidate in—Sharon Bird, for example. Sharon Bird is being very noisy over there, Madam Speaker.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will refer to people by their appropriate titles.

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

The member for Cunningham would have been—

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

And refer to the motion before the chair.

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

Certainly. The motion is to change the rules half-way through the ballot. And I am just referring to where this has come from: why the Labor Party would regard this as normal, where the Liberal and National parties, and hopefully the crossbenchers, would regard it as utterly abnormal. When there are rules you cannot change the pre-selection half-way through the ballot. You cannot, just because you want to get the member for Hindmarsh up as the Second Deputy Speaker, realise you have made a shambles of it and come in and try to change the rules to get the fix you want.

Are there any more examples that we need that this government is a shambles? We have had three Speakers—I am not reflecting on you, of course, Madam Speaker—in two years. The government lurches from one crisis to another—from one shambles to another. The Leader of the House made a complete hash, yesterday, of the election of a new Speaker. The government yesterday made the catastrophic decision to lead the Peter Slipper defence team in the parliament rather than do what the parliament knew it should have done. In fact, the former Speaker made the good judgement to resign last night—a judgement the Prime Minister did not have during question time.

So, we will be opposing this motion because you cannot change the rules half-way through. Bob Hawke got elected in 1984 on a slogan, 'You shouldn't change horses mid-stream.' It was a great slogan and he understood the principle that you cannot change the rules half-way through the process. This is the kind of thing you would have expected of the former Soviet Union.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

You would be all across that, member for McEwen, because the former—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Were you Peking or Moscow? I imagine you were Moscow. This is the kind of thing you would have expected from the Moscow politburo, and they imported it into the Victorian ALP. Isn't that where the far Left came from? Bill Hartley in Victoria—was he Moscow aligned or Peking aligned? Or maybe he was aligned with Pyongyang; it would not surprise me at all. I will not delay the House much longer.

We will not be party to changing the rules for a political fix, to fix a caucus deal for the member for Hindmarsh. We will not be party to the shambles that this government has been for two years. We will not be party to fixing the Leader of the House's tactical and strategic errors yesterday. Therefore, the opposition will not be supporting this motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the call—and, as it is the first opportunity to be on my feet, I congratulate you on your elevation. I wish you good luck in trying to lift the standards in this place and regaining the faith of the Australian community in the running of the people's chamber.

With regard to what is before the House at the moment, I think it is a fair change to be made to the standing orders. When you look at the list of who were previously the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and then Second Deputy Speaker, we are essentially seeing you move up the ladder one rung. We see the former Second Deputy Speaker move up the ladder one rung—and, therefore, in the interests of fairness, just as happened in the last ballot for the previous Speaker, the person who failed to get the Deputy Speaker's role should take the Second Deputy Speaker's role.

This is not a precedent. This is reflecting, as closely as possible, what was agreed to two years ago and reflects exactly what happened in the last ballot for Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that we are here again trying to resolve this issue. It would have been much better if agreements reached at the start of this parliament, put in writing, were actually stuck to by all members, who did agree to it in writing at the time. It is unfortunate that events have unfolded the way they have, but I sincerely hope that today's vote, on the back of yesterday's vote, is a circuit breaker for this parliament and that we do all, individually, work on regaining the faith of the Australian community; and we do all, collectively, work on lifting the standards in this chamber.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I think that sometimes things are said in here that are just for party political advantage and that those who say them might, on reflection, regret having done so. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, with the greatest amount of kindness I can muster: if he really has some great respect for the institution, he would understand that the standing order we are actually talking about this morning is a relic of 'fair play' by the then Labor government when the position of Second Deputy Speaker was first created. And, just to remind him—because he started to get into the internecine dealings of, especially, the New South Wales Labor Party—the main instigator of these proposals was one Leo McLeay. And Leo, in fairness to him, knew that there was a problem if there was a single vacancy for the Second Deputy Speaker—because the intention, always, was that the Second Deputy Speaker would be an opposition member under a majority government. The difficulty we had was that, when that position was first elected, of course it was a single vacancy. So, elegantly, the standing order was put in place that, in a single vacancy, an opposition member should get elected. Now, I should know this, because at the time I was the Deputy Speaker. What qualifications did I end up having to be elected Speaker? Well, Madam Speaker Burke, the greatest qualification I had was that I lost four ballots for Deputy Speaker! In a contested ballot, of course, the loser became the Second Deputy Speaker. Again, in majority government that is likely to be a non-government member. I have to say that I was a little worried in 1996 when we had only one-third of the votes because if the coalition had decided to play games then they could have got two candidates up and I would not have been—

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

We are too statesmanlike for that, Harry.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sturt for his intervention, because that is all I am asking him to consider: that on this motion he be statesmanlike.

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

You can't change the rules halfway through.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a chatterbox, isn't he?

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will stop provoking people who are on their feet.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure whether I have to put that in inverted commas, because we are a bit worried about calling people names. I remember, because I had an interest during this 17-day period, and when there was a lovely scene out in one of the courtyards—the great love-in of parliamentary procedure—one of the agreements was the pairing of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. I wonder what position I would have in this place if that had been carried through, but I digress a little and it is not about me.

There was the intention that we recognise in this minority period that again the two positions of Deputy Speaker be shared, and that is all that is happening here. Finally, now the member for Sturt is quiet, reluctant as I am to give tactical advice to those opposite, I simply say that if he had thought a bit about what was actually happening in the parliament last night and not been worried so much about the politics then he might have seen this happening; he might have seen this coming. If he did not see it, that is bad luck. If this motion moved by the Leader of the House gets up we will achieve the appropriate action that was decided not only in the way that the Second Deputy Speaker position was created but most importantly in this period of minority government in the way in which we could best have this parliament and this House operate.

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

Madam Speaker, firstly, I congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. We share an electoral boundary and I know you from not only here but also joint activities that occur between our electorates from time to time. I congratulate you on your elevation.

I simply want to make one point in rebuttal to the member for Scullin. I remind the parliament that at the start of this parliament the Speaker was a Labor member—namely, the member for Scullin—the Deputy Speaker was a Liberal member—namely, the member for Fisher, nominated by the government—and the Second Deputy Speaker was a National Party member—namely, the member for Maranoa. So that was good enough for the Labor Party two years ago at the start of this parliament. I simply make that point by way of rebuttal to the proposition being put here that this is about principle and there are no politics involved.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to such a high office and I congratulate those who were appointed last night, including the member for Maranoa. You are both members of this House deserving of such important roles. Having said that, we are talking about the conventions of the House—the standing orders and the spirit. If I believe the member for Scullin, and in full knowledge that the opposition leader in the House has the ability to get into places of mischief and intentional mischief, I think with the spirit of this and the intention of the House we have come to a point now where we find that the standing orders are very important because they affect the day-to-day operations of the House and who holds what positions.

So it is a matter of having regard for the conventions of the House and the spirit of what we are doing—and any argy-bargy or rebuttal that may be put in place—making the point that when we are discussing standing orders and the changes to standing orders, and they are controlled by hug-ins and love-ins rather than consideration of the proper processes of the House, we are going to come to appointments like this that fail to deliver what the government of the day or even the opposition of the day may have intended.

I believe the government will have its way in a few moments, after we take this vote, because the vote will go that way. Whilst the mischief is there—and there is some smile in the mischief that we make today—as the Manager of Opposition Business said, this is not the most important issue of the day that this parliament should be discussing, and therefore it is time for me to sit down and get on with the vote.

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

To conclude the debate—so that no-one else jumps on it!—I want to thank those members who have participated. I particularly thank the member for Scullin for giving us the historical facts. I certainly had the principles and knew how this standing order came about, but I was not aware of the role of one of my predecessors as the member for Grayndler, Leo McLeay. He is—and this was not always known within our relationship—one who understands fairness in terms of equity between proportions in political bodies. Leo is someone I have come to classify as a friend—something I would not have thought 20-odd years ago. He is someone who had a vision in terms of the way the parliament should operate—in a fair way. I found that out when I came here as a much younger member. In spite of our difficult past, he was prepared to play that mentoring role, which was very important, just as the member for Scullin has played for many members of this House—not just on this side of the chamber but I think across the parliament. I thank him particularly for his contribution.

The member for Lyne is quite right and has also outlined the particular circumstances of how it was envisaged that the positions of Speaker, Deputy Speaker and second Deputy Speaker would be carried under the agreement on parliamentary reform. This motion is consistent with that agreement on parliamentary reform. It is consistent with the good functioning of this parliament, and I commend it to the House.

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

The question is that the motion be agreed to.