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

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to enable the House to divide again on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to.

I move this motion consistent with the positions that were put in place as part of parliamentary reform in what is an unusual parliament in terms of Australia's historical position. Historically, of course, governments have had absolute majorities on the floor of the House of Representatives. When the Australian people made their determination in August 2010, they chose that that would not be the case. As a result, discussions took place in good faith between the government, the opposition and crossbench members—particularly the member for Lyne—about parliamentary reform ensuring that proper functioning could occur. Members would be aware that in the Senate, because of the nature of the Senate, where the government party has historically—with some brief exceptions, which is why we got Work Choices—not had a majority on the floor, an arrangement exists whereby, if someone inadvertently misses a division, there is a recommittal. It happens without fuss. It happens as a matter of course. In fact, it happens pretty regularly.

In this parliament we unanimously chose to alter the standing orders to allow, through standing order 132, for a recommittal to be put if a member is accidentally absent. There is a very sensible reason why this is the case. That is because, were it not to be, the views of this parliament—this House of Representatives—could be distorted by misadventure or someone simply missing a vote. Therefore it was determined that, if that occurred, the bill would be recommitted. It was stated very clearly in the parliamentary reform agreement. It was put in the standing orders and understood that this would be the case, in a similar way to the way in which the operation of pairs ensures the principle that a result should not be distorted because of a member's absence from parliament. Were this not to be implemented it would lead to an outcome whereby the proper determination of a majority of members of this House is not put into the law of the land. That is why I am moving this recommittal motion.

I am frankly surprised that the Manager of Opposition Business is not simply supporting this. We had very clear discussions, which included the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Lyne and others, about the circumstances in which this could occur. We explicitly discussed that an explanation should be given to the parliament of why people have missed a division. Today, as part of the budget process, the Treasurer addressed the National Press Club in the Great Hall of Parliament. This is a procedure that in the past has occurred at the National Press Club but in recent times has been moved to the Great Hall in order to accommodate the numbers of members of the community who want to participate. There were four government members—the member for Chifley, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Moreton and the member for Brand—who attended that function where the bells did not ring because they were turned off, one would assume as a result of the fact that it was broadcast live as a National Press Club activity. It was unfortunate—and I have communicated to the four members, very directly, that they were perhaps amiss in absenting themselves from that division—but it clearly falls within the parameters which were envisaged.

In addition to this, the member for New England was in the Senate where he did not hear the bells. He also expected to vote in that division. I, of course, am not in a position to communicate in the same direct way with the member for New England as I do with my friends and colleagues on the Labor benches but in terms of—

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should be nicer to him!

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

You should try it sometime, I say to the member for Indi. She is on to us! I am nice to the member for New England because he is a good bloke.

We have circumstances here that are precisely those circumstances that were envisaged, covered and signed off in the agreement for parliamentary reform. They are covered by the standing orders before the parliament and, in terms of process, we should really not be wasting the parliament's time. There should be an automatic recommittal as long as people are prepared to put on the record the reason for their absence. I have done that in an appropriate way on behalf of the five members who were absent from the division. It is appropriate that that be done but these are circumstances which are clearly understandable given the fact that, if you are in this building, it is a normal expectation that you will hear the bells ring.

It is also the case, in terms of the procedure, that the standing order which is relevant—standing order 132—was unanimously adopted by this House. No-one has said that it should not be so. No-one has said that it is inappropriate. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised because I expected this would happen automatically. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that if you have a majority for a particular proposition you can achieve an outcome—so it can be done more quickly or it can be done more slowly, in terms of the process, if you have a majority.

In terms of this legislation the opposition amendment does not have a majority of members of the House of Representatives and the bill does have majority support of the House of Representatives. If those are the circumstances and you have support for that, then we can either do it the easier way or do it in a much more prolonged way to achieve the same outcome. That is why the standing orders reflect this change. I 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

The relevant section of the standing order that deals with the recommittal of motions is section 132(b) of the standing orders, which states:

If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move, without notice and without the need for a seconder, 'That standing orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again'.

That is what the Leader of the House has done. That standing order is designed to ensure that, if a member is unable to be present for a serious reason, the House will recommit in good faith a vote to reflect the wishes of the House. When this matter was debated in 2010 by me, the crossbenchers and the Leader of the House we envisaged that such occasions were when a member had a very unfortunate health incident that caused them not to be able to get here, when they might be locked inadvertently in a room in the building and not be able to escape, and when they might have had a family emergency which caused them to not be able to leave their office or attend the chamber. But it did not envisage, in this case, three members being in the Great Hall having lunch, listening to the Treasurer's National Press Club speech; not having taken their pagers with them, which all members are supposed to carry at all times; not keeping their eye on the coloured lights in the building that are designed to alert us when a division occurs; and a fourth member who was simply doing a radio interview and did not want to be interrupted. A cabinet minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy, did not want to interrupt a radio interview to vote in the House on behalf of his party.

The member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Chifley and the member for Moreton were just having lunch, on the people's time, at the National Press Club address in the Great Hall and they did not want to be interrupted. They wanted to hang around the Treasurer and listen to his speech. They did not want to come into the chamber and vote on a very important bill.

So the opposition is not of a mind to support the suspension of standing orders because we expect members of parliament, when they are in this building, to be aware of what is happening in the chamber. There may be only five weeks left of this parliament and members might be looking for another job if they are going to lose their seats or they might be planning what they will do in the 44th Parliament. But they are still required, five weeks from the end of this parliamentary sitting period, to keep an eye on what is going on in this chamber, especially on important bills. If any members had a health issue, a family emergency or been inadvertently imprisoned in the building, then of course the opposition would have been more than happy to recommit this motion. But none of those things occurred. Instead, three of the members were lunching in the Great Hall, a few hundred metres from where we stand today. Other members of parliament who were at the same luncheon had no difficulty in getting to the chamber. They were carrying their pagers, watching the lights. Many members of parliament even have their staff be aware of what is going on in the chamber so that if there is a division they can be alerted and make their way to the chamber.

You would think that the member for Brand, a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Small Business, and the member for Eden-Monaro, also a cabinet minister, who is the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, with their legions of staff, would have had at least one person in their office keeping an eye on the chamber so that their boss did not make a mistake and miss a vote.

Four members of the Labor Party could not be bothered turning up for a very important amendment, an amendment that requires three independent directors to be appointed to industry superannuation funds. The opposition likes this amendment. It is a good amendment and we are delighted that the parliament voted for it. It did not win by one vote; it won by four votes. It was a clear and emphatic victory: 72 to 68. This amendment improves the bill. Now that the amendment has been carried by a democratic vote of the House, it should be put to the parliament as the final bill and should be carried in the best interests of industry super funds.

The opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. It is important for the House tonight that the parliament gets 76 votes for this amendment to be recommitted. One member of the government is not able to be here for very good reason. Of course, as you would expect, he has been paired by the opposition, in tragic circumstances. But one of our members on this side of the House, the member for Fairfax, went home this afternoon, in Canberra, because he is ill and the government has broken the pair.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

You should check with your chief whip, such as he is! He could not keep his own whip in the House. The member for Moreton is a recently appointed whip and he could not even be in the House for a vote. That is who the caucus voted for.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Could I remind members that the discussion is through the chair, not between one another.

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

The minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition and arrangements had been made for another member of the opposition well in advance of this vote. The government does not get to choose our pairs. The simple truth is: the minister for tertiary education is paired with another member of the opposition in a longstanding arrangement made today and we are not breaking that pair, because our view is that that would be the wrong thing to do. But the government is breaking the pair with this side of the House when one of our members, the member for Fairfax, is ill.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, should I respond to him or will you ask him to—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The chamber is far too noisy.

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

It is. You are in charge of it, Mr Deputy Speaker. You should get him back to order.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask members to resist from interjecting across the chamber. 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

I would urge the Leader of the House to speak to his chief whip, who I think is the member for Werriwa, and ask him if it is true that the government intends to break the pair for the member for Fairfax in order to achieve 76 votes. The Independents need to think very carefully whether they are prepared to sign up to the government breaking the pair of the member for Fairfax, who is ill and has returned home, by all voting with the government to recommit this bill. The right thing to do if they had any integrity at all would be for one of them to absent themselves from that vote or vote with the opposition to ensure that the member for Fairfax is paired. If the crossbenchers were acting with integrity, one of them would pair themselves with Alex Somlyay, the member for Fairfax—

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

After three years of no pairs! That is golden!

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

That is your problem, mate, not mine. They would pair themselves with the member for Fairfax to ensure that his vote is not counted on the side of the government in spite of the fact that he is not well enough to be here. So I call on one of them to do it—not necessarily the two in the chamber; maybe the member for New England. Obviously the member for Lyne is showing his true colours. But there are others: the member for Denison, the member for Kennedy, the member for Melbourne, the member for Fisher. They may well want to pair themselves with the member for Fairfax in order to ensure that this vote is not counted, because he has returned home. He is ill. He is incapable of being here, and the government has broken that pair in order to ensure that they get to 76 votes. I ask them to think very carefully about doing that.

The opposition will not support the suspension of standing orders. We support the bill and the amendment that has been made, moved by the shadow minister for small business, the member for Dunkley. We believe that a vote should be recommitted on the basis that a member has missed the vote for a very serious reason. In this case four members of the Labor government did not miss it for a very serious reason, and so I urge the House to reject the suspension of standing orders and one of the crossbenchers to do the right thing and absent themselves from the vote in order to ensure that the member for Fairfax is correctly paired.

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

To start on the issue of pairing, which has very little to do with this debate and this suspension of standing orders: I have given it due consideration from my perspective, and the answer is no. The answer, very simply, is no because for three years the question of pairing of crossbenchers has been a very real issue within a parliament where all members surely should be entitled to the same rights. At times when requests for family reasons, for health reasons and for any number of reasons that pairing exists for members of political parties, that pairing arrangement has been denied. So it is a little bit rich for the Manager of Opposition Business now, when it is convenient for the claim being made under this debate of section 132, to make a request to the good conscience of the crossbench to stand by and do the right thing on pairing arrangements which for crossbenchers effectively do not exist. I say: welcome to our world. From my point of view, no pairing arrangements exist.

On the issue of section 132 for the shadow minister in the chair and for all members of this chamber: thank goodness that three years ago there was some foresight that in a parliament like this accidents would happen. This is the second such example where this has happened, the first time over a year ago when the member for Cowper had a piece of legislation to do with bats at one of his local schools. I think it was the Maclean High School that had some bats coming in. He was putting through a private member's bill from an opposition position in this parliament and I think was successful in getting that piece of legislation through this chamber. That is something for reflection for all members in this chamber: anyone can stump up and put a good idea into this chamber and on merit be successful. But there was an issue of a member of parliament being accidentally absent and a tied vote. The record was corrected under section 132.

So the events of today are not unusual. They have happened before and were dealt with in a sensible way to the benefit of the opposition in the passing of an amendment to a piece of legislation carried through this chamber by a private member, the member for Cowper. Now, again, because it is not convenient for the Manager of Opposition Business, we seem to be arguing the toss over some very clear wording from section 132 and from those discussions with foresight—and with a little group hug at the end—from the very start of this parliament. That foresight was to recognise that in an incredibly tight parliament people will miss votes and, if we are going to reflect the true will of the House, there is going to be a moment where you have to correct people who are absent or who accidentally miss votes. It is incorrect for the reinterpretation of history from those discussions to be that it was only for health, for family, for sickness or—I enjoyed this one—for inadvertent imprisonment in the parliamentary precinct. If that were the case, it would have been explicit in those terms in section 132. It was purposely kept loose and broad as 'accidentally absent or some similar incident'. That is a pretty broad and loose definition, in a lively working parliament, of pretty well any series of events that happen by accident, without intention and maybe leading to the true will of the House not being reflected in a vote. So 132 is very clear.

Another point of interest for the walk down memory lane is that this was actually the one point of dispute in the parliamentary agreement reached across party lines making its way into the standing orders. Yes, we lost a whole range of issues— (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is carried by an absolute majority of members, as required by standing order 47, and therefore resolved in the affirmative.