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

I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to the proposed amendments to the standing orders by inserting the amendment to be moved by me to change standing order 215, which is the general purpose standing committee. So, just to explain: I did ask my office to get it around to you but, in the tumult this morning, it might have got lost in the process.

The standing order changes that have been notified in the Notice Paper need to have the updated list of committees—the new names and the new House of Representatives committees. These are essentially the same as the old ones, but they reflect the new cabinet. I am happy to hand it to the Manager of Opposition Business. There is nothing controversial about it and I am sure, once he has had an opportunity to look at it briefly, he will be comfortable with it. There are no hidden barbs in it. I will give him a moment if he would like to have a quick look at it.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence—I take it at face value that an attempt may have been made to get this to me, but I have not seen this and have not had a chance to go through it. For that reason I am not in a position to give leave. If you want to do the standing order debate after question time, that will make sure that other issues are not interfered with.

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

I will go ahead with the original motion and we will do the committees after question time. I apologise to the member for Bass and the other new members of the House who are preparing for their maiden speeches—I will keep my remarks very brief—but the reason I am moving this debate forward is that the standing order changes impact on question time. I did not want to interrupt the maiden speeches halfway through and cause disservice to the family members and friends who have come for these very important opening speeches. I decided it was important to get these amendments out of the way now so they would be able to affect the first question time.

The standing order changes have been circulated to the House through the Notice Paper and today. They make a few changes. Most of them are machinery provisions recommended by the clerks and by various procedure committees over the years. I will explain a few of them. Some of the changes in the 43rd Parliament were unique to the 43rd Parliament because it was a parliament in which the crossbenchers, through the alliance they had with the government, had a majority. Some of those changes have been removed.

The matters of public importance will be reduced to one hour, as they used to be. We will sit from 12 o'clock on Tuesday. For the first two hours of that day we will not have forums or divisions. They will be delayed until later in the day. We will reduce the sitting hours by bringing the finishing time back from 10.30 on Monday and Tuesday to 9.30. These hours are, we think, more friendly to the health of our good colleagues on both sides of the House. The health of my colleagues is, of course, always first and foremost in my thinking.

We will allow the Selection Committee to refer matters directly to the Federation Chamber. In the past there has been a convoluted and complicated process involving the Speaker, but we will allow the Selection Committee to refer matters to the Federation Chamber without the Speaker's involvement. This change was recommended by the clerks and various procedure committees. We will allow the Leader of the House to refer matters to the Federation Chamber without votes in order to ensure the smooth and democratic passage of non-controversial legislation, committee reports, delegation reports and private member's business.

One of the changes we are making is the implementation of interventions in the House of Representatives. This is a matter that I have long wanted to introduce into this parliament. It is very common in the House of Commons in Westminster and it allows a more spontaneous debate, a more free-flowing debate in the chamber. During his or her second reading speech, a member would have the opportunity, if another member wanted to interrupt them, to give way to that member. That member might want to ask a question or make a statement. It does not have to be a hostile question or statement. In fact, these matters could come from either side of the parliament. This change would introduce more spontaneity into the parliament and allow a more free-flowing debate. I envisage that, over the months and years, as members become more confident with the prospect of interventions in the chamber, they would give way and allow debate to flow more freely.

We will not be continuing with supplementary questions in this 44th Parliament. I regard that as having been a pilot program of the 43rd Parliament and I do not think its benefits measured up. Unfortunately, I think the government in the 43rd Parliament abused supplementary questions—they were not really genuine. As a consequence, we are going to remove the discretion of the Speaker to allow supplementary questions.

Members on both sides of the House will be very familiar with the practice of making an outrageous statement about another member of the House, whether it is accusing me of wanting to sack one in seven teachers or whether it is accusing the Turnbull-led opposition of voting against the first stimulus package. Time and time again, members had to rise to the dispatch box to correct such misrepresentations when they knew the person making it knew it was a misrepresentation. I think all sides of the House are thoroughly sick of that pantomime and we intend to eliminate it. The Speaker will be able to decide that, if a misrepresentation has already been corrected, the continued making of that misrepresentation is disorderly. I think that will improve the atmosphere of the chamber.

Many of the other changes are machinery changes designed to give the Federation Chamber more status, to allow a freer flow of business to the Federation Chamber. We will not be continuing with the situation where the Selection Committee has a majority of non-government members on it. That would be unusual in a parliament where there are 90 government members and 60 non-government members. We will be removing the crossbench member from the Selection Committee. We are also putting into the standing orders the longstanding practice that the Prime Minister chooses the chair of standing committees in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition chooses the deputy chair.

I believe these standing orders will add to the lustre of the parliament. I think they will democratise the parliament more and they will give members the opportunity to take part in debates in a more spontaneous way. Before I move the motion standing in my name, I ask whether the Manager of Opposition Business has had an opportunity to look at the list of committees and whether he is happy for me to move that amendment?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not yet, no.

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

In that case, I will move the motion as it stands. I move:

That:

(1) standing orders 1, 13, 29, 34, 39, 41, 45, 55, 66A, 68, 101, 133, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 155, 183, 192, 197, 198, 215, 222, 227, 229, 232, 235 and 257 be amended as provided; and

(2) the House adopt a resolution concerning procedures for dealing with committee witnesses as provided.

1 Maximum speaking times

The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.

13 When Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker elected

(a) The Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker shall be elected at the beginning of each Parliament, or at any time the respective office becomes vacant. Whenever the two offices are vacant at the same time, elections for both offices shall be conducted together.

(b) The Speaker shall conduct the elections under standing order 14, and may not vote in an ordinary ballot.

(c) Only a non-government Member may be elected as Second Deputy Speaker.

(d) A Member shall propose the nomination of a Member to the vacant office by moving, without notice, that such Member ‘be elected Deputy Speaker (or Second Deputy Speaker)’.

29 Set meeting and adjournment times

(a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House, unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order 30.

(b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31 and 32:

34 Order of business

  The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.

   Figure 2. House order of business

39 Announcements concerning inquiries and presentation of reports

(a) The Chair or deputy Chair of a committee may make a statement to inform the House of matters relating to an inquiry during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays ( standing order 34). The Selection Committee shall recommend time limits for such statements.

(b) Members may present reports of committees or delegations:

  (i) as determined by the Selection Committee, during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber ( standing orders 34 and 192); or

  (ii)   in the House at any time when other business is not before the House.

(c) Members may make statements in relation to these reports:

  (i) during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber (standing orders 34 and 192); the Selection Committee shall determine time limits for statements, of not more than 10 minutes for each Member; or

  (ii)   in the House at any other time, by leave.

(d) The Member presenting a report may move without notice, a specific motion in relation to the report. Debate on the question shall be adjourned to a future day and the resumption of the debate may be referred to the Federation Chamber.

(e) Unless otherwise ordered, a committee report presented in accordance with this standing order shall be made a Parliamentary Paper.

41 Private Members’ business

(a) In the periods set for committee and delegation business and private Members’ business under standing orders 34 and 192, private Members’ notices and orders of the day shall be considered in the order shown on the Notice Paper. When the time set by standing orders 34 or 192 or determined by the Selection Committee ends, the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and the matter shall be listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.

Private Members’ bills—priority

(b) The Selection Committee, in making determinations:

  (i) shall give priority to private Members’ notices of intention to present bills over other notices and orders of the day; and

  (ii)   shall set the order in which the bills are to be presented.

First and second reading

(c) Subject to this standing order, the first and second reading shall proceed in accordance with standing orders 141 and 142. The Member who has presented the bill may speak to the second reading for no longer than 10 minutes at the time of presentation and 5 minutes on resumption of the debate. The Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remainder of the second reading debate.

Priority following second reading

(d) If the motion for the second reading is agreed to by the House, further consideration of the bill shall be accorded priority over other private Members’ business and the Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remaining stages.

Alternation of notices

(e) Subject to paragraph (b)(i), the Selection Committee shall provide for the consideration of private Members’ notices to alternate between those of government and non-government Members.

Participation of Speaker and Deputy Speaker

(f) The Speaker and Deputy Speaker may participate in private Members’ business.

45 Order of government business and programming declarations

(a) The Leader of the House may arrange the order of notices and orders of the day for government business on the Notice Paper as he or she thinks fit.

(b) The Leader of the House or the Chief Government Whip may make a programming declaration in the House in relation to one or more items of government business.

The declaration may refer a government business order of the day to the Federation Chamber, or may require a government business order of the day to be returned from the Federation Chamber for further consideration in the House. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.

55 Lack of quorum

(a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall count the Members present in accordance with standing order 56.

(b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12 noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so desires.

(c) On Mondays and Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 8 pm, if the Member then so desires.

(d) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House prior to 2 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House after the discussion of the matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires.

(e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct).

66A Interventions

During consideration of any order of the day a Member may rise and, if given the call, ask the Speaker whether the Member speaking is willing to give way. The Member speaking will either indicate his or her:

(a) refusal and continue speaking; or

(b) acceptance and allow the other Member to ask a short question or make a brief response immediately relevant to the Member’s speech, for a period not exceeding 30 seconds—

Provided that, if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, the intervention may be denied or curtailed.

68 Personal explanation

A Member may explain how he or she has been misrepresented or explain another matter of a personal nature whether or not there is a question before the House. The following conditions shall apply:

(a) the Member must rise and seek permission from the Speaker;

(b) the Member must not interrupt another Member addressing the House; and

(c) the matter must not be debated.

If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats the matter complained of, the Speaker may intervene.

101 Speaker’s discretion about questions

The Speaker may:

(a) direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders; and

(b) change the language of a question in writing if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.

133 Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays

(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon.

(b) On Mondays and Tuesdays, any division called for between the hours of 6.30 pm and 8 pm shall be deferred until 8 pm.

(c) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

(d) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate.

(e) This standing order does not apply to a division called on a motion moved by a Minister on Mondays and Tuesdays, during the periods specified in this standing order.

138 Initiation of bills

A House bill may be initiated:

(a) by the calling on of a notice of intention to present a bill;

(b) by an order of the House; or

(c) without notice by a Minister under standing order 178 (Appropriation Bill or bill dealing with taxation);

A bill not prepared according to the standing orders of the House shall be ordered to be withdrawn.

140 Signed copy of bill presented

(a) A Member presenting a bill must sign a legible copy of the bill and give it to the Clerk at the Table.

(b) The title of a bill must agree with the notice of intention to present it, and every clause must come within the title.

141 First reading and explanatory memorandum

(a) When a bill is presented, or a Senate bill is first received, the bill shall be read a first time without a question being put.

(b) For any bill presented by a Minister, except an Appropriation or Supply Bill, the Minister must present a signed explanatory memorandum. The explanatory memorandum must include an explanation of the reasons for the bill. For other bills, the Member presenting the bill may present an explanatory memorandum.

142 Second reading

(a) If copies of the bill are available to Members, the Member presenting the bill may move immediately after the first reading, or at a later hour—

That this bill be now read a second time.

At the conclusion of the Member’s speech the debate on the question must then be adjourned to a future sitting.

(b) If copies of the bill are not available, a future sitting shall be appointed for the second reading and copies of the bill must then be available to Members.

143 Bill referred to Federation Chamber or committee

After the first reading but before the resumption of debate on the motion for the second reading:

(a) a motion may be moved without notice to refer a bill to the Federation Chamber for further consideration as provided by standing order 183; or

(b) a motion may be moved without notice or a determination may be made by the Selection Committee as provided by standing order 222 to refer a bill to a committee for an advisory report. The motion or determination may specify a date by which the committee is to report to the House. After an advisory report has been presented to the House, the bill may then be referred to the Federation Chamber under paragraph (a).

(c) If, having considered a bill referred to it for an advisory report, a committee finds no issues requiring a formal report, the Chair or Deputy Chair may make a statement to the House to that effect. The statement, with the presentation of the relevant minutes of proceedings, discharges the committee’s obligation to report on the bill.

146 Amendment to dispose of bill

An amendment may be moved to the question—

That this bill be now read a second time—

by omitting ‘now’ in order to insert ‘not’, which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the bill. No amendment may be moved to this amendment.

155 Question for third reading

(a) When a bill has been agreed to, the House may grant leave for the motion for the third reading to be moved immediately, or a future sitting may be set for the motion.

The question shall be proposed on the motion—

That this bill be now read a third time.

(b) The only amendment which may be moved to this question is by omitting ‘now’ in order to insert ‘not’, which, if carried, shall dispose of the bill.

(c) After the third reading the bill has passed the House and no further question may be put.

183 Establishment of Federation Chamber

The Federation Chamber shall be established as a committee of the House to consider matters referred to it as follows:

(a) proceedings on bills to the completion of the consideration in detail stage;

(b) orders of the day for the resumption of debate on any motion;

(c) subject to paragraph (a), private Members’ notices and other items of private Members’ and committee and delegation business referred in accordance with a Selection Committee determination pursuant to standing order 222;

(d) further statements on a matter when statements have commenced in the House; and

(e) items of government business referred from the House by a programming declaration made in accordance with standing order 45.

192 Federation Chamber’s order of business

The normal order of business of the Federation Chamber is set out in figure 4.

   Figure 4. Federation Chamber order of business

The meeting times of the Federation Chamber are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Times shown for the start and finish of items of business are approximate. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips.

Return of matters to the House

The Federation Chamber may return a matter to the House before its consideration is completed.

(a) A matter may be returned to the House on a motion moved without notice at any time by a Minister—

That further proceedings be conducted in the House .

     The motion shall be put without amendment or debate. If the Federation Chamber agrees to, or is unable to resolve, this question, the bill or order of the day shall be returned to the House. Consideration in the House must continue from the point reached in the Federation Chamber and the House must resolve any issues that the Federation Chamber reports.

(b) The House may at any time require a matter to be returned for further consideration, on a motion moved without notice by a Minister. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.

(c) An item of government business may be returned to the House by a programming declaration made in accordance with standing order 45.

198 Report to the House

(a) When the Federation Chamber has fully considered a bill referred to it, a final question shall be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate—

That this bill be reported to the House, with [out] [an] amendment [s] [and with (an) unresolved question(s)].

(b) The Clerk of the Federation Chamber shall certify a copy of the bill or other matter to be reported to the House, together with any schedules of amendments and unresolved questions. Unless otherwise provided, the Speaker shall report the matter at a later hour that day when other business is not before the House.

215 General purpose standing committees

(a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:

  (i) Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs;

  (ii)   Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry;

  (iii)   Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts;

  (iv)   Standing Committee on Economics;

  (v) Standing Committee on Education and Employment;

  (vi)   Standing Committee on Health and Ageing;

  (vii)   Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications;

  (viii)   Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and

  (ix)   Standing Committee on Regional Australia.

(b) A committee appointed under paragraph (a) may inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or document.

(c) A committee may make any inquiry it wishes to make into annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House. The following qualifications shall apply to these inquiries:

  (i) Reports shall stand referred to committees under a schedule presented by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.

  (ii)   The Speaker shall determine any question about responsibility for a report or part of a report.

  (iii)   The period during which an inquiry into an annual report may be started by a committee shall end on the day the next annual report of the department or authority is presented to the House.

  (iv)   If a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, the committee must notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of its intention, in writing.

(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of seven members: four government Members and three non-government Members, provided that if a non-aligned Member is appointed to a committee, such committee shall consist of eight members: four government Members, three non-government Members, and one non-aligned Member. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.

222 Selection Committee

(a) A Selection Committee shall be appointed to:

  (i) arrange the timetable and order of committee and delegation business and private Members’ business for each sitting Monday in accordance with standing orders 39 to 41;

  (ii)   select private Members’ notices and other items of private Members’ and committee and delegation business for referral to the Federation Chamber, or for return to the House;

  (iii)   select bills that the committee regards as controversial or as requiring further consultation or debate for referral to the relevant standing or joint committee in accordance with standing order 143; and

  (iv)   subject to standing order 1, set speaking times for second reading debates.

(b) The committee shall consist of eleven members: the Speaker, or in the absence of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip or his or her nominee, the Chief Opposition Whip or his or her nominee, the Third Party Whip or his or her nominee, four government Members, and three non-government Members. The Speaker shall be the Chair of the committee. A quorum shall be three members of the committee.

(c) For committee and delegation business and private Members’ business, the committee may determine the order of consideration of the matters, and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking.

(d) In relation to committee and delegation business and private Members’ business the committee must report its determinations to the House in time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the sitting Thursday before the Monday being considered. In relation to bills the committee must report its determinations as soon as practical in respect of each bill or each group of bills.

(e) Reports of the committee under paragraph (d) shall be treated as having been adopted when they are presented. Reports shall be published in Hansard.

(f) A referral by determination of the Selection Committee pursuant to paragraph (a)(ii) or (a)(iii), once the determination has been reported to the House, is deemed to be a referral by the House.

227 « « « «

229 Appointment of committee members

(a) Members shall be appointed to or discharged from a committee by motion moved on notice.

(b) Special arrangements are required for a change in membership when the House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks. The relevant whip must nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the Speaker. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Speaker receives the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Speaker shall report the change to the House and the House shall resolve the membership of the committee.

(c) If a committee is considering a bill referred under standing order 143, one or more members of the committee may be replaced by other Members by motion moved on notice. This does not affect the ability of a general purpose standing committee to have its membership supplemented under standing order 215(d).

232 Appointment of committee Chair and deputy Chair

(a) Before the start of business and at any time a vacancy occurs, a committee shall be informed of the name of the member who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to be its Chair. The Chair shall have a casting vote only.

(b) A committee shall also be informed of the name of the member who has been appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to be its deputy Chair. The deputy Chair shall act as Chair of the committee whenever the Chair is not present at a meeting. If neither the Chair nor deputy Chair is present at a meeting, the members present shall elect another member to act as Chair at the meeting.

235 Proceedings and sittings of committee

(a) A committee or a subcommittee may conduct proceedings using any means approved by the House and in the following manner:

  (i) in private meeting;

  (ii)   by hearing witnesses, either in public or in private; and

  (iii)   in the form of any other meeting, discussion or inspection conducted under the practice of committees of the House.

(b) A committee may conduct proceedings using audio visual or audio links with members of the committee or witnesses not present in one place. If an audio visual or audio link is used, committee members and witnesses must be able to speak to and hear each other at the same time regardless of location. A committee may resolve for a subcommittee to use audio visual or audio links.

(c) A committee or a subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any time or place as it sees fit, and whether or not the House is sitting.

257 Admission of Senators and visitors

(a) Only the Speaker shall have the privilege of admitting visitors into the lower galleries, and may admit distinguished visitors to a seat on the floor of the Chamber.

(b) No Member may bring a visitor into any part of the Chamber, or that part of the room where the Federation Chamber is meeting, which is reserved for Members.

(c) Senators shall have the privilege of being admitted into the Senators’ gallery without invitation. When present in the Chamber or galleries they must observe the Speaker’s instructions regarding good order.

Proposed resolution

Procedures for dealing with witnesses

That, in their dealings with witnesses, committees of the House shall observe the following procedures:

(1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear (whether or not the witness was previously invited to appear) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons.

(2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents or records relevant to the committee’s inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents or records be produced shall be made (whether or not an invitation to produce documents or records has previously been made) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order.

(3) A witness shall be given notice of a meeting at which he or she is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee’s terms of reference and an indication of the matters expected to be dealt with during the appearance. Where appropriate a witness may be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken in public.

(4) A witness may be given the opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence.

(5) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents or records that the witness has produced to a committee.

(6) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness’s evidence, for any or all of the witness’s evidence to be heard in camera, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. The witness may give reasons in camera. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision.

(7) Before giving any evidence in camera a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the House all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the House has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. Should the committee decide to publish or present to the House all or part of the evidence taken in camera, the witness shall be advised in advance. A member, in a protest or dissent added to a report, shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless so authorised by the committee.

(8) The Chair of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee’s inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry.

(9) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to him or her on any ground, including the grounds that it is not relevant, or that it may tend to incriminate him or her, he or she shall be invited to state the ground upon which he or she objects to answering the question. The committee may then consider, in camera, whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee’s inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination, and of the reasons for it, and shall be required to answer the question in camera, unless the committee resolves that it is essential that it be answered in public. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee may report the facts to the House.

(10) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in camera.

(11) Where evidence is given which reflects upon a person, the committee may provide a reasonable opportunity for the person reflected upon to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission or appearance before the committee.

(12) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers and to consult counsel or the adviser(s) in the course of the meeting at which he or she appears. If such an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. A witness accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel or the adviser(s) during a meeting at which he or she appears.

(13) A departmental officer shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of him or her to superior officers or to the appropriate Minister.

(14) Witnesses shall be treated with respect and dignity at all times.

(15) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to request corrections in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional written material supplementary to their evidence. Witnesses may also request the opportunity to give further oral evidence.

(16) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which has been or may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given or in respect of prospective evidence, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the House.

(17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Orders of the day

Contingent notices of motion

Contingent on the motion for the second reading of any bill being moved: Minister To move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.

Contingent on any report relating to a bill being received from the Federation Chamber: Minister To move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay.

Contingent on any bill being agreed to at the conclusion of the consideration in detail stage: Minister To move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

Contingent on any message being received from the Senate transmitting any bill for concurrence: Minister To move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the first instance, before I get into the substance of the debate, I refer to the fact that we have a number of first speeches waiting. It is quite possible within the business of the House to stop this debate at any point, pause it, allow people to make their first speeches, and then return to this debate later. The fact that people are making their first speeches should not be used as an excuse by the government to bludgeon changes to standing orders through without proper debate. The standing orders themselves are meant to be the foundation for debates. If we are not even meant to be allowed to debate them, it says something pretty extraordinary about what the government are trying to get away with in front of us right now.

If you have a look at what has been circulated from the Leader of the House, you find example after example of speaking times being reduced—example after example of the possibility of this parliament holding people to account being taken away. They now find supplementary questions unacceptable, yet they were so happy to stand up and ask them in this chamber at this dispatch box only months ago. Never once in the last term of government did they say there was a problem with being able to ask supplementary questions. They asked supplementary questions and they used them. Yet, the moment they get on the other side of the chamber, straightaway they want to use their numbers to get rid of them.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of what has been brought to this House by the Leader of the House is the new standing order to allow the Speaker to make a ruling that it is disorderly to comment on something where an allegation has been made previously. This automatically involves the Speaker in making a political judgement call on the merits of an argument. Immediately, this change to the standing orders says that, for what is otherwise a matter of political debate across the chamber, we will put into the hands of the Speaker the authority to silence one side of the debate, not on the basis that the words are disorderly—and I am not sure what words are left that are going to be disorderly, after the charade this morning. When there is a genuine cause for political debate, where someone will stand up and claim to have been misrepresented—and they get the opportunity to do that—it does not mean that the House automatically agrees with the claim of misrepresentation that has been made. There would be no shortage of examples where Labor members have stood up and claimed to have been misrepresented and the Leader of the House would say, 'Oh, no, I do not think you were misrepresented at all.' Yet the judgement call is meant to then be placed in the hands of the Speaker to determine whether or not a political charge is true.

Today, we saw the dangers in judgement calls being made where the standing orders are crystal clear—we had a dissent motion about it. The government now wants to increase the powers of the Speaker beyond what they have ever been in the history of this House so as to allow the Speaker of the parliament to apply censorship to political views—to provide censorship to one half of the political debate.

I could not imagine any change to the standing orders that would be considered as extreme as what the Leader of the House has just brought forward here, because there is no doubt whatsoever that the Speaker should not be involved in making a political judgement call. The Leader of the House wants to create a situation where, if we make an allegation about cuts or about something else the government are doing, they can stand up later and claim to have been misrepresented and put the reverse charge, and from that moment on the Speaker of the House can make a judgement call that the Labor side of the argument is not to be heard here.

I am sure there are some parliaments in the world where the person chairing the meeting has that sort of power. They are not known as the democratic nations of the world. Yet that is exactly what we are about to see here. Debates on matters of public importance are a classic example. They are one of the few things that the opposition overwhelmingly gets. Each day of parliament, with the exception of Mondays, the opposition get the chance to choose an issue we believe is important and put it before the parliament. It is an opportunity where the front bench opens the debate and the back bench then gets an opportunity to participate. For many members of the back bench, on the government's side as well, MPI debates are their main opportunity to make a contribution to the debate of the parliament on issues of national importance beyond their electorate. It has frequently been an opportunity for members of the Liberal and National parties to show that they have more talent than some of the people who were sitting in the front row of their own show. Also, there is no shortage of people on the government back benches who are well and truly more talented than the people they have on the front benches. When MPI debates are cut by a third, these people will then not get these chances. The start of the debates, when the frontbenchers get to speak, will still be there. But the backbenchers will be denied absolutely the opportunity they had to speak and to show some of the people sitting in front of them that, to their embarrassment, they are streets ahead of them.

Supplementary questions are not a recent invention of the last parliament. The clause in the standing orders on supplementary questions has been there for a very long time. If the Leader of the House believes, as he implied in his speech, that supplementary questions were a recent invention of the last parliament, that is just plain wrong. Supplementary questions have been available for a very long time, and it has been at the discretion of the Speaker as to whether or not they are to be allowed. Taking this out of the standing orders altogether means that the opportunity to stand up and immediately put pressure back on will have been removed for those occasions—and I reckon there will be a few—where members of the government come to the dispatch box and are not able to answer questions, or are perhaps even treating the parliament the way they have been treating the Australian media, or are unwilling to answer a question, even if they might know some aspect of the answer. Not only will it have been removed for members of the opposition but also it will have been removed from what I thought was meant to be an empowered back bench. Remember backbench question time? Remember that we were told that the backbenchers were going to have all this capacity to raise issues here in the parliament relevant to their electorates? And, if the answer came back and they wanted more information, the supplementary would have been the only way to get it. But at this moment that is gone because of what the Leader of the House has brought in here.

The Leader of the House has never been somebody who has respected debate in this parliament. But he has been somebody—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While those around him may say how unfair that is, if you look at his face, you can see that he thinks it is a fair call. But it is true that he has been somebody who has been more than willing to take advantage of every standing order that is there. Standing orders that were significant to them in opposition they want gone now they are in government.

The culture of secrecy that has been there from day one in this government is something that today enters the Australian parliament. Today, the culture of secrecy and the silencing of public discussion reaches the floor of the House of Representatives with the culling of speaking times, with the abolition of supplementary questions and—most disturbingly—with the change to the role of the Speaker to make the Speaker the chief censor in the Australian parliament. I find it absolutely extraordinary that anybody who believes in having a robust chamber could think that it was fair and reasonable for the Speaker to adjudicate on whether or not a political argument is accurate simply because someone on the government side has stood up and said that they feel that they were misrepresented.

After what we saw this morning with the interpretation that was litigated in the way that it was—and 'interpretation' is a very generous way of describing the farce of this morning—I think we have a pretty good idea that the government intend for this censorship power to be used absolutely by the Speaker. While they intend to engage in childish name-calling and in the teasing of a school playground, they also intend to make sure that political argument is shut down. This House should not let them get away with this today. This House should not stand idly by while the executive is again allowed to silence debate in this chamber.

Not only are the principles that are being undone principles that have been longstanding practice within this parliament; they are also the opposite of what this government told us it was going to do. In January of this year, the current Leader of the House made a speech explaining what changes he would bring to the new parliament if he became Leader of the House. Those election commitments, one by one, have been abrogated. We and the Australian people are discovering that those opposite are not being who they told the Australian people that they would be. Backbench question time is gone. We even had the quip from the Leader of the House earlier, saying, 'Every question time is backbench question time!' He was not saying that in January; he was not using that argument then. The Leader of the House said then that there would be an independent Speaker who would not attend party room meetings. That died yesterday. And it will be a very sad day on Tuesday of next week when, once again, the exact opposite of something that the government said they would do will happen now that they occupy the government benches.

We had from the Leader of the House example after example of reforms that he would make to the parliament. Another one, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, was about your own position. There was going to be a guarantee in writing signed by the Leader of the House that that position would go to the opposition party. That was abrogated yesterday. Deputy Speaker, we have great respect for you in this job. We have a view about a particular promotion that may have been warranted. But there is no doubt that the litany of examples of this government doing something very different to what it told the Australia people it would do has now reached the floor of the parliament.

It is bad enough that the government are not doing the things they told us they would do. What is worse is that they are now going in the exact opposite direction. They are carving up speaking times and making sure that the opportunities for dissent within this parliament are taken away. They are turning the role of the Speaker from that of an arbiter and adjudicator to that of a censorship board. That is not what the Speaker is meant to be about. I am not sure what recommendation has caused this rush of blood to the head of the Leader of the House—that somehow he thinks that the role of the Speaker should be fundamentally changed so that, instead of being the person who manages and adjudicates the debate and who looks after the House, they become the person to stifle debate and to prevent members of parliament being able to put a counterview to the executive.

If you wanted to put a counterview in speeches, those speeches have now been cut. If you wanted to put a counterview in the MPI debate, that debate is about to be curtailed. If you wanted to pursue a minister through a supplementary question, the supplementary questions are now gone. And if you thought the Speaker had any chance of being impartial, unfortunately, what is proposed here puts the Speaker in an impossible position. It puts the Speaker right in the middle of making a judgment call that is not procedural but political. The House should recognise exactly what the Leader of the House is putting forward here and should reject it.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the motion and I move amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) together, as circulated in my name:

(1) Omit proposed standing order 34, substitute:

34   Order of business

  The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.

  Figure 2. House order of business

(2) Add the following paragraph to standing order 100:

  (g) At each Question Time, after five questions have been asked and answered, if a non-aligned Member rises to ask a question he or she shall be given the call.

(3) Omit proposed standing order 192, substitute:

192   Federation Chamber's order of business

The normal order of business of the Federation Chamber is set out in figure 4.

  Figure 4. Federation Chamber order of business

(4) Omit proposed standing order 222(b) Selection Committee, substitute:

222        Selection Committee

(b) The committee shall consist of eleven members: the Speaker, or in the absence of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip or his or her nominee, the Chief Opposition Whip or his or her nominee, the Third Party Whip or his or her nominee, three government Members, two opposition Members and two non-aligned Members. The Speaker shall be the Chair of the committee. A quorum shall be three members of the committee.

The standing orders that we have at the moment are a consequence of the last parliament. One of the best things about the last parliament was the election of six members to the crossbench by the Australian people. That introduced a new era of openness, debate and transparency in the functioning of this chamber; and, despite the best attempts of the then opposition, it was in fact quite a productive time for parliament. One of the key reasons for that was that in the last parliament there was significant time for private members debate. That was not just time for debate on matters raised by the crossbench; it was for all private members. So it gave an opportunity for private members from the government side and the opposition side to raise matters that were of concern to them and that might not otherwise have had an airing. And in the last parliament there was, on average, seven hours of private members' business scheduled, both here and in the Federation Chamber, during the course of an average week. That allowed time for a number of things to happen. One was the debating of private members' bills. As a result of that, we saw in the last parliament reforms that we would not have seen had this place remained a two-party closed shop.

One of the reforms we saw made sure that firefighters who contracted cancer were able to more readily access the workers compensation that up until then would have been denied them. Before that, each time they fronted up to get compensation the lawyers and the courts would say, 'Unless you can tell us which fire the toxic smoke came from that caused you cancer, you won't get compensation.' That issue had gone unaddressed by successive parliaments for several years. In the last parliament I was able to introduce a bill to remedy that situation. That bill not only ended up getting debated but also ended up being co-sponsored by the then government and members of the opposition, and it went through this place without any dissent. Had there not been, under the last parliament, the standing orders that enabled extensive discussion of issues like that, we would not have that significant reform in place today.

Another bill that was debated—and the member for Denison may have something to say about this—ensured that there was additional protection for whistleblowers; something, again, that had been talked about for some time but that successive parliaments, under the two-party closed shop, had not taken action on. And there was, of course, another attempt by the former member for Lyne to bring before the House a bill that I profoundly disagree with but that nonetheless is on the topical issue of the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. That was debated in a way that previously it would not have been. And it was not just bills that were debated in the previous parliament in this private members' time; we had motions debated as well. One of those motions was successful and actually got the support of the opposition, and that was to ensure that the government was put on notice to secure funding for health and medical research in this country at a time when previous budgets had threatened cuts to it.

But perhaps the motion—as opposed to the bill—that was the most significant in the last parliament was the motion to get members of parliament to go and consult their constituencies on the question of equal marriage. That motion passed. It ensured that there was lively debate in this place about a matter that otherwise would not have been debated, and it has helped set reform in this country on track so that it is now a matter of when, not if, we will have equal marriage.

All of that happened because of private members' time and because of the role of the crossbench in the last parliament. That was assisted because under the existing standing orders, which it is proposed will be amended by this motion, there was a selection committee in place. The selection committee moved this parliament beyond the situation in which the processes of this parliament and the timing were just a result of a deal done in a two-party closed shop by the whips, behind closed doors, and instead made it a committee of this parliament where non-aligned members—members not in the government or in the opposition—were able to participate.

As a result of the considerable goodwill that was shown by all sides on that selection committee, everyone got a go. It was not dominated by members of the crossbench, it was not dominated by private members from the government side or from the opposition side, and it allowed debates on matters that otherwise would not have happened. And, indeed, members of the crossbench and the government supported the now Prime Minister debating his legislation in private members' time, and it was done in an orderly way that respected not only the fact that there were six members of the crossbench elected to parliament but also that the reason those six were there—and you have seen it again at this election—was that about 20 per cent of the country does not want to vote for Labor or the coalition. They want a diversity of voices in parliament, and the way that that diversity of voices in parliament is represented and the way that we have the sunlight shining in and greater transparency in the operations of this parliament than we have had before is through the continued representation of members of the crossbench who are prepared to hold this two-party closed shop to account.

Now, that was one aspect. Another aspect was the time that was being given to private members. And another aspect that aided the discussion of issues in the last parliament that would not have otherwise have been raised was the question of questions during question time. Prior to the last parliament, members of the crossbench—members who are not on the government or the opposition side—rarely had an opportunity to ask meaningful questions during an appropriate time in question time. And in the last parliament it was agreed that the sixth question of each day—not the sixth government or opposition question, but the sixth question that was asked—would go to members of the crossbench. That resulted in matters being raised that would otherwise not have been raised, because many, many times—and we saw this on display in the last parliament—you find that the government and the opposition are voting together on a matter and it is left to members of the crossbench to raise the alternative argument. We saw that with the question of sending refugees offshore, we saw it with the question of putting refugees into mandatory detention and indefinite detention and we saw it—most importantly, especially given today—with the appalling approach taken by both sides on climate change, with an inadequate five per cent pollution reduction target, being there by so-called bipartisan commitment.

The standing orders underpinned the ability of the crossbench to raise those issues in question time. What we are seeing in this proposed set of amendments is another step in the shutting down of debate and transparency and openness in this parliament. If I have my maths right, the private members' time goes down almost by half, from seven hours to 4½ hours. That is why I am moving amendments (1) and (3): to restore that time, which resulted in the significant reforms I referred to before.

Significantly, the government is now attempting to take control of the Selection Committee—and there is to be no position for any member of the crossbench, no position for any non-aligned member, on the Selection Committee. The Leader of the House made the point that he did not think the Selection Committee should be one where the government did not have the numbers. But that is not the same as saying the Selection Committee should be one where there is not even a member of the crossbench at all—because one of the purposes of the Selection Committee is to order the private members' time. As I have explained, that is the way in which crossbench members get their say in this parliament. Taking off one member of the crossbench—even one, when there were two last time—and not even having one on the Selection Committee under these proposed standing orders is going to turn this place back into that two-party closed shop that the Leader of the House so desperately desires and ensure that they are not held to account by members of the crossbench, who are standing up for that over-20 per cent of the Australian population who said, 'We want a different kind of representation and a different kind of politics.' And that is why I am moving amendment (4): to ensure that there is a position for a member of the crossbench on the Selection Committee. That should be unobjectionable.

Even more unobjectionable should be amendment (2). This amendment seeks to ensure that members of the crossbench will continue to be able to ask a question at spot No. 6 during question time. It may be said that the last parliament was different. Well, I can say this: there were six members elected to the crossbench at the start of the last parliament and there are five now, so there is still a significant desire from the Australian population to have alternative voices in parliament. That means we need to be able to ask questions in question time. I am very pleased that the Leader of the House has written to me saying that he intends to keep that practice.

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

Correct. So why the amendments?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I presume, then, that the government will support the amendment to put it into the standing orders—because having it in the standing orders will ensure that a member of the crossbench will be able, at each and every question time, to ask questions, as has been the case in the past.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I hear the Leader of the House interjecting to say that yes, he did write that letter and that he does agree to that, so I presume that the government will support this amendment.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne seconded?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendments. In addressing this issue the Leader of the House says, 'I've given you a letter saying I'm going to do this.' Well, I am holding a letter with 20 items on it saying it is going to be the policy to do 'this, this, this and this'—and I think half of them have been spat upon. The ALP gave me a letter to the same effect, and half of those have not been treated with honesty and integrity, if I could put it that way. So what we have here is them saying, 'Trust me.' It is one of my standard jokes: whenever I say something to someone, I say, 'Trust me,' and they burst out laughing! The only place it is not a laughing matter, apparently, is here—it is taken seriously when someone says, 'Trust me.'

Australia is now delineated as the only country left on earth that has a two-party system. Some of you will say America has a two-party system. America has a constituency based system. It is an entirely different system from anywhere else in the world. A quick example is the ethanol debate in the United States. All 12 senators from the oil-producing states voted against it and of course senators from the other states—because ethanol is something that should be done everywhere in the world, for health and medical reasons—all voted for it. There was no voting along party lines. It is a constituency based system and entirely different.

So I defy anyone to point out to me a country left in the world that has a two-party system. It is a primitive system that dates back to 18th century England. It has been completely bypassed by every other country on earth. It doesn't matter whether it is Germany, Japan, France, Canada or Brazil—no other country on earth has this primitive system. But there is an absolute determination, not only by the Liberal Party but also by the Labor Party, that there will be no other players out there—'There will be no other point of view except our point of view and their point of view.' And since both points of view are free-market points of view then the non free-market point of view does not get aired, or even have the opportunity to be aired, by the people of Australia.

With the little power that the people have had in this place, they have exercised that power wisely. In this place Peter Andren and I moved against the sale of the Snowy Mountains scheme. Every single opinion poll that was taken in Australia said 80 per cent of the people in Australia tenaciously opposed the sale of the Snowy Mountains scheme—yet both sides of this parliament agreed unanimously, in this place and in the other place, to sell the Snowy Mountains scheme. But the rage of the people was able to assert itself and we were going to force you to vote on it in this place. So when you were going to vote on it the first time, and the rage and the wrath of people like John Laws and Alan Jones was unleashed upon you, and the power of your electorates was unleashed upon you, 11 of you went off wetting your pants, running to the Prime Minister John Howard—and, God bless John Howard: he showed the good sense and was a big enough man to reverse that decision. I use that as an example. There would not be a person in Australia, I would think, who would not have thanked Peter Andren and me for being in this place and being able to exercise that power to force you to vote on it.

What is happening here is that every effort is being made to extinguish, as far as humanly possible, every other voice except the executive voice. As the honourable speaker for the opposition side: the biggest losers here are you backbenchers! You have been reduced to nothing at all. You didn't start with much but you are going to have one hell of a lot less!

I was in a cabinet room for the best part of a decade and I can tell you what is said in the cabinet room: 'We've got to shut up some of these nutcases on the back bench. We can't have backbenchers shooting their mouths off and embarrassing the government.' So what is happening here is not so much a mugging of us; it is a mugging of you. The member for Perth, who has been on the front bench for an extended period of time, knows exactly what I am talking about.

The ethanol debate in this place was another classic example. Both sides of the parliament agreed to go in one direction. The competitive system, the adversarial system, has some advantages. The Liberals, in opposition, were pro-ethanol, as they were in Queensland; but when they get into government they take an entirely different position. The Liberals switched their position on ethanol because the crossbenchers were very strongly for ethanol—every other country on earth has moved down that path. And once again the crossbenchers were able to side with the then opposition, the LNP, and preserve the little bit of an ethanol industry that we have got left in Australia. This is a very important issue in Australia. Some 1,400 people die every year in Sydney from motor vehicle emissions; they kill more people in Australia than motor vehicle accidents.

The mining tax on metals was another issue again. The Rudd government were quite comfortable, with their numbers, to be able to whack that mining tax through, including metals. I am the first to admit that there is a case for it—although I am not voting that way—with iron ore and coal. There is still a strong case and a strong argument on iron ore and coal. But there was never an argument on metals. To put a mining tax on metals was a diabolical occurrence. It has precipitated a course of events that in North Queensland has placed a copper mine in jeopardy. Of our two big copper miners, Kagara Zinc has hit the wall and ceased operations, and Mount Isa Mines are reviewing all of their operations as well. To throw a mining tax into that mix was a diabolical move.

But once again there is a little bit of a voice of the people here on the crossbench. We represent a very wide range of views in Australia. We have the honourable member for Melbourne, who is a representative of the Greens, and we have the honourable member for Kennedy, who is the representative of the anti-Greens. So we have a divergence of opinion on the crossbench. But it is a viewpoint of Australia that is not the viewpoint of executive government. Executive government, of its very nature, comes under enormous pressure from the corporates. That is part of the system. It is a very evil part of the system but it is an integral part of the system whichever government may be in power. Whether it is ALP, Liberal or some other government, they come under pressure from the corporates.

If you people on the back bench open your mouth, you can kiss goodbye to your endorsement. We all know that that is the reality—and it is even worse over on this side of the House on that front. But we crossbenchers need to open our mouths or else we will not get re-elected; we are forced by the people to open our mouths. When you are forced to vote in here on an motion moved by the crossbench it is not a lot of fun—when you have to face up to your electorate and vote for things like the sale of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme or the sale of the electricity industry in Australia in the state houses.

There is not a lot of analysis throughout the world. I am a prolific reader, but there are not a lot of books in the world on the performance of democracies. Except for a few interesting books that are out on California at the moment, there is not much going around in that area. But when they were forming democracies throughout the world, Alexis de Tocqueville was obviously the greatest commentator. He spoke again and again and again about the tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill, on probably every 10th page of his book On Liberty, makes reference to the tyranny of the majority. He says democracy is not a fair form of government, not a just form of government; it is just a form of government that lives on the majority opinion. But if the minority has no right to speak at all then injustice reigns supreme: the majority get what they want—at the very great expense of minority groups.

And that is why every country in the world has smaller parties and a multiparty system. There is a particular group of people over here who represent manufacturing interests—which, of course, have been slaughtered in Australia. There is a particular group over there, the agriculturists, which is another group in Australia that is being slaughtered. They deserve to have a voice in this place. But they do not have a voice if they are in a majority party, because that is not the majority of opinion. The majority of opinion is free market—which means there is no government that will involve itself in preserving agriculture or manufacturing. So the efforts by the government here, clearly and simply, are primarily to muzzle their own backbenchers and, to a lesser extent, the opposition—but their performance has been so appalling I suspect they do not want to muzzle them; I think they want them to speak out. Most certainly, they want to muzzle the backbenchers.

I come out of the state of Queensland. I thought the Bjelke-Petersen government were pretty bad in the way we treated our opposition, but we were kindergarteners compared with the LNP's efforts now to muzzle all opposition in Queensland. I mean, really, one has to go to the fascist states to find out what is going on: Vietnam vets who ride motorbikes are being put in jail even though they have not broken any laws. The Ulysses Club, which is made up of professional people—very well off, up market, upper class if you like to use that word—that ride motorbikes and get together and have bit of fun. They have ended up in the clink because they were riding a motorbike!

This sort of regime can be addressed if there is a voice of the people. But if your efforts muzzle the voice of the people then you are sowing the whirlwind and you will reap it, as did these people on the right-hand side. They treated the Australian people with contempt, they flew in 125,000 workers from overseas to take our jobs, they sold off asset after asset, and they paid the price—as you people did before them. If I could give you a little word of advice in governing—and I was in a pretty successful government—the best thing you can do is listen to the opposition. When the National Party in Queensland ceased to listen to the Liberal Party and tried to destroy it, from that moment forward we were doomed as a political force in that state. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, proceed. But we will do our best to ensure that the people of Australia know what you are doing—you are trying to muzzle your backbench and you are trying to muzzle the people on this side of the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I just have a little bit of advice for the member for Kennedy: could he please desist from referring to the chair as 'you', as he did in his address a moment ago in a reflection on the chair.

Mr Katter interjecting—

The member for Kennedy does not have the call. He has had the call. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the Leader of the House.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you have already moved that.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Grayndler does not have the call. The question was clear—that the amendments be put. We are now going to the amendments. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I have called the Leader of the House and he has moved—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question that was before the chair was that the amendments be put. That was then put and carried. Now the amendments must be put. That is the question that is before the chair that has just been carried, and we are not able to intervene in between. Therefore, the question before the chair is not that the question be put; it is that the amendment be put and you must put that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( Hon. BC Scott ) (): The question now is the original motion as moved by the Leader of the House relating to proposed amendments to the standing orders in the terms which appear in the Notice Paper.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question, as moved by the Leader of the House, that the motion be put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The member for Grayndler will know that I have called the division and the bells to be rung for one minute.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

I appreciate the comments by the member for Grayndler and ask him to resume his seat.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( 12:43 ): The motion now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:44]

(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Scott)

Question agreed to.