Peter Slipper (Fisher, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of honourable members and some members of the media might well be wondering why I chose to abstain from the vote this afternoon on the motion moved by the honourable member for Denison to suspend standing orders and seek an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, with which I must say I had quite a lot of sympathy because no-one in this country supports terrorism and no-one would support the lack of inquiry into a circumstance relating to the detention of a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist and how, indeed, that person was detained. As Speaker, however, I was always of the view that the standing orders of this place ought to be respected, and there are very many opportunities in our parliament for members such as the honourable member for Denison to raise issues which are of importance to this nation.

For instance, we have private members' bills, private members' motions, the adjournment debate in either this chamber or the Federation Chamber, the grievance debate, questions without notice to ministers, questions in writing to ministers, petitions, committee and delegation business, private members' business—bills and motions—and 90-second statements. In the Federation Chamber, time is allocated for three-minute constituency statements, committee and delegation business, private members' business, petitions, members' statements, the adjournment debate, the budget debate and the address-in-reply. But for this parliament to operate as it should, when I was Speaker—like, no doubt, most of my predecessors—I sought to enforce the standing orders and make sure that, while standing orders were in place, those standing orders were observed.

Despite my sympathy for the motion sought to be moved by the honourable member for Denison, it is important to recognise that the standing orders establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security outline its responsibilities in dealing with matters of principle and administration and the listing of prohibited terrorist organisations. The PJCIS is explicitly barred from considering operational matters such as how, why, when, and who knew this alleged Egyptian terrorist was kept in a lower security detention from November 2012 to April 2013.

Unfortunately, this contrasts with Britain's Parliamentary Intelligence Committee and the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the US congress. The correct procedure for this parliament would have been to have moved in a debate to change the standing orders under which the PJCIS operates and if the parliament had, after mature discussion, fully considered the implications of this and had voted to change the standing order, then I would have been the first person in this parliament to stand up and support the motion outlined by the honourable member for Denison.

It would be quite proper for the PJCIS to discuss the inquiry being undertaken by the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security once she had made a detailed report to government. IGIS, like ASIO and other security services, reports on matters of principle and administration to the intelligence committee. So, while I greatly admire the stand taken by the honourable member for Denison, I believe that it is incumbent on all of us not simply to take positions of, shall we say, political advantage. We should not be taking the opportunity to take pot shots at one another. I think that it is entirely inappropriate for the parliament to carry a motion to suspend standing orders when in fact, had that motion been carried, we would have been breaching the standing orders of the House of Representatives itself.

We are a parliament which operates by rules. We change those rules from time to time. It is within the ability and capacity of us as members of the House of Representatives to change the standing orders whenever we collectively believe they should be changed. However, the motion moved by the honourable member for Denison, while well-intentioned, was not within the standing orders. I was approached by the opposition, by the government and by a member of the crossbench to participate in that vote but the concern I had was that, had I supported that vote in parliament, which was my intention, I would have been breaching the standing orders of the House of Representatives, and that would not be appropriate. (Time expired)