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

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, theSundayCanberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so.

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

Madam Speaker, House of RepresentativesPractice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call.

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

Madam Speaker, I seek the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said.

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

I seek the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the call.

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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives.

It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party.

The media have gone through and checked with your predecessors. Your predecessors have not done that for the very simple reason that your role matters and the dining room that you are afforded with is there—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my suite.

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

for the many important diplomatic functions you host, for the many important charity events you host. That is what it is there for. Your job is not owned by the Liberal Party in the way that you can just dish out a free venue because the Liberal Party, if they went to any other part of Parliament House, would have to pay $600. It is not there for that purpose. Staff come, you have table service, you have staff provided to you, you have various forms of crockery available and everything that is available for cleaning up the office afterwards: this is not an ordinary venue.

Madam Speaker, I do not want to prejudge the work of the Privileges Committee. We have tried to manage this in an appropriate way: calmly through the parliament without blowing this issue up. I ask, Madam Speaker—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I have the motion here; I will just sign it. I am signing it because we were not expecting to move it; we were expecting the ordinary thing that a Speaker does, which is take 24 hours to reflect on the issue and then report back to the House. That is how these issues are ordinarily done.

Madam Speaker, your role and the precedents that come with your time in the chair change our parliament forever. Every action from a Speaker ends up finding its way into House of RepresentativesPractice. I do not want to see a situation where we end up with whoever happens to be in government, and therefore having the majority to elect the Speaker, using it as a tawdry way to save a $600 room hire fee. That is an appalling thing to happen and an appalling thing to happen with that particular office.

Madam Speaker, the comment you made this morning—you made the jibe, when you made the reference earlier, that I was not physically within the House. That is true. I heard the comments though; I was aware of them before I asked any of the questions. And with those comments that you made, you failed to acknowledge one important thing: your office is different to every other office in this building. Because your office is the only one—yours and the President's are the only two, but yours is the only one on this side of the house—that is, in effect, a departmental ministerial office. You manage a department. None of the ministers—I hope, unless they have gone down even further a pathway that I dare say even they would not go—I would presume go and hold fundraisers in ministerial offices and in departmental offices. No ministers to my knowledge ever have, but on budget night—and we are told there is more than one occasion. I thought that was quite a reasonable question: how many times has this happened? Seriously, Madam Speaker, if you had nothing to hide you would have told me. If you had nothing to hide on this information, you would have provided the information that was sought in those questions.

Why is it that the Speaker is unwilling to let the parliament know how many times her office has been given for free for fundraising objects within the Liberal Party? And I have to say there is a reason at the moment why attention has turned around Australia to Liberal Party fundraising methods. There is a reason why, all around Australia, we are starting to find out—and I am glad the member for Dobell is still here in the chamber—and why we are realising the different methods that have been adopted by the Liberal Party in fundraising operations. To think that it goes to the office that is ostensibly the office that is meant to be independent within this parliament is extraordinary!

One of the arguments that is offered in the papers by the spokesperson for the Speaker is that independence of the role only occurs when the Speaker is in the chamber. That is a big call in itself, but how can that be true, Madam Speaker, when you lead parliamentary delegations around the world and you do so representing the parliament? Part of the job you hold extends that independent role representing the parliament beyond this room. It is an important role and it is a role that every presiding officer has. That is the reason you get a dining room, that is why you get it. I know, Speaker, you are shaking your head, but trust me: it is not meant to be for the Liberal Party. That is not the idea of the Speaker being given a dining room. And that is exactly why the member for Chisholm never used it in that way. That is exactly why Harry Jenkins never used it in that way. That is why your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this! This is a fundamental change in your role, Madam Speaker, and if you were confident of your position, I think you would be willing to tell us how many occasions it has happened. If you were confident of your position on this issue, Madam Speaker, I think you would be willing to tell the parliament—because we do have a right to know—whether or not the $600 room hire fee, which would apply to every other private room within the building, every other private dining room that is able to have that table service, was paid.

The SPEAKER interjecting—

You would be willing to provide that information, or at least you would be willing to give an answer as to why you thought what you had done was reasonable. But to instead come in here and to say, 'I read out a script this morning, and no matter what you ask I'm just going to read it again', Madam Speaker, that is just not tenable.

The position of Speaker is one where we—you gave a ruling when you first took the job. You said you would only be answering questions about administration of the parliament. We took you at your word on that immediately. The practice that had been in this chamber for some years of questions to the Speaker happening after question time, questioning how many people you had thrown out and things like that—and realistically we have had more reason to question that than in previous parliaments—we have not been asking those questions for that reason. We have taken seriously the ruling that you gave. Now there is an issue of administration. There is a direct issue of administration. I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about how you have used your office, and you will not tell the parliament. I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair, and you will not answer those questions. You will not tell the parliament.

Madam Speaker, I have asked you to simply let the parliament know how you use that dining room, how you provide a free kick for the Liberal Party, and your view is the parliament has no right to know. So then we say, 'Well, at least can we have the Privileges Committee have this issue referred to them?' That was raised in a way with no argument, with no reflections on you. But you couldn't even bear to let the normal processes of the parliament go through. You couldn't even bear to have the normal processes of this parliament take place and you refer a matter to the Privileges Committee. Worse still, you couldn't even bear to say, 'Let me reflect on it overnight,' which is what speakers ordinarily do. Madam Speaker, none of your predecessors have used the dining room in that fashion. We have a right to know what you are doing with the independence of your office and how you are trashing it. We have a right to ask questions and you, if you are doing your job, Madam Speaker, have an obligation to tell us and through us the Australian people how much the Liberal Party is cashing in on you holding that role.

There is a real focus on the way parties raise money—and quite properly. There have been allegations which have come out through different inquiries around the country that in different ways have reflected on both sides of politics and, Madam Speaker, this one reflects on you. This one reflects personally on a judgement call that you made that previous speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or speakers who had integrity enough to say no.

Madam Speaker, it is with no joy that we get to the point of asking for it to go to the Privileges Committee, and absolutely with no joy that you fail to follow the practice of your predecessors and do not even take time to think about it. To just say straight-out, 'This won't happen,' to just say straight-out, 'Go write to someone else.' Sorry, this is your job. You are the Speaker. You are the person charged with the independence of the parliament and you are the one who, according to media reports, is using your office as a fundraising vehicle for the Liberal Party.

Madam Speaker, we have a situation where, before this parliament rose, I went through example after example of grievances the opposition held on the way that you have held your role. I will not go through them again now, because they are not relevant to this motion. What is relevant to this motion is how quickly you are adding to the list, because, Madam Speaker, in less than two weeks, in just a total of four sitting days, we have discovered—I will go through them—one, apparently you have used your office as a fundraising venue for the Liberal Party on budget night; apparently you may have done this on more than one occasion—you may have done it on many occasions. No-one knows, except for you, and you will not tell the Australian people. Madam Speaker, we then asked questions to you for the first time you've been facing questions in this parliament, and what do you do? You go back to the script and will not depart from a statement that you made this morning, most of which, I have got to say, has nothing to do with this. And if that final paragraph is relevant to this issue, I might add, Madam Speaker, it is a ruling you gave after these events occurred and therefore is irrelevant to these events, because it is a ruling that until you made that statement previous speakers had not been willing to use their offices in this way.

Madam Speaker, at any point during the debate on this motion it is completely open to you to simply say that you will reflect on the matter and report back to the House tomorrow. The moment you do that this motion will be withdrawn, because that is a better process. That is how the parliament ordinarily conducts itself when it has a speaker other than yourself. And if, I might add, Madam Speaker, the matter of privilege had been about anyone else, I reckon you would have reflected on it. I reckon if it had been about anyone else, there is a fair chance you would have said in the ordinary course, 'I will report back to the House tomorrow.' But to think, Madam Speaker, that the one time where you dodge the practice and the precedent is when it applies to you, that really does have people asking questions. It really does have people asking questions about a Speaker who has been under pressure—forget what has happened within the parliament—throughout the Australian media and the Australian community as the most biased Speaker we have ever had. To then be using your position in the most blatant way there is, as a vehicle to provide a free venue to the Liberal Party, is just wrong. It is just plain wrong. And, Madam Speaker, there are venues for hire, but they would have cost the Liberal Party $600. That is what they would have cost. To simply say, 'Oh, look, I paid for the food and drink.' Madam Speaker, there were the staff, there were the cleaners after, there are a whole range of costs associated with that, but, most importantly, there is the venue and it was the one venue that is meant to be independent on this side of this building.

Madam Speaker, I implore you to actually finally do something that is in accordance with the practice of this House. Simply say that you will consider the matter and report back to the House tomorrow and this motion is gone and gone immediately. Because, if not, every member of the Liberal Party is about to vote on the most extraordinary conflict of interest, because they are about to vote on whether or not they reckon they should be able to get a free venue. The poor old Nats are going to have to vote as well, even though some of that money will be used against them.

Madam Speaker, for those opposite, on this we cannot be accused in any way—I am sure it is about to come—but realistically we have not gone looking for this argument. We have gone through this the appropriate way. We have followed practice. You, Madam Speaker, should do the same. There is no seconder.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House.

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

It is disappointing to be lectured by the Labor Party on any matter to do with the speaker ship of the parliament and particularly today of all days when on the front page of TheDaily Telegraph the member for Watson has been exposed as writing a letter calling for consideration be given to releasing a convicted drug trafficker Mr Nweke into community detention.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.

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

You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has the call.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If this is meant to disrupt debate—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No it is not.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I will accept the point of order.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, by the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call.

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

The opposition has moved this motion about whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives. The first point the government would make is that we will not be supporting this motion under any circumstances. The reason we will not be supporting this motion is that this is a motion about smear and innuendo directed at the Speaker's office. Smear and innuendo are the Labor Party's first weapon of choice; it always has been and continues to be so. Smarting from their election defeat last September, from the moment that you were elected, Madam Speaker, the Labor Party has been trying to smear you, denigrate you and traduce you in the chair. On the very first day, the Manager of Opposition Business called you a witch, Madam Speaker. And here we are today debating the latest in the series of attempts to denigrate you as Speaker. Our opinion, on the government side of the House, is that you are upholding the role of Speaker with dignity, decorum and intelligence, as we expected when we elected you last year, Madam Speaker.

Since you have been elected Speaker, Madam Speaker, the opposition have moved dissent motions. If my memory serves me correctly, they moved a dissent motion the first day that you were appointed Speaker. It was one of many dissent motions. They moved a no-confidence motion against you at the end of the last sitting of parliament and now, on the flimsiest of pretexts, the Labor Party has moved a motion accusing you of misusing your position as Speaker because you held a dinner in the Speaker's dining rooms. As you pointed out, Madam Speaker, fundraisers occur in this building all the time. And as long as those fundraisers are paid for either personally or by the political party that a member represents, they in no way breach any rules of this parliament. And so instead of simply accepting that there are no rules breached—and you commented on this, Madam Speaker, this morning—the Labor Party has come into the chamber this afternoon and moved a motion that is clearly designed to smear the position of Speaker and to do another political stunt—in this case, to play the woman not the ball.

We are not going to be lectured by the party of the member for Watson, who was exposed today on the front page of the Telegraph as having advocated for Mr Nweke, a convicted drug smuggler. This is also the party that suborned the former member for Fisher, Peter Slipper, into selling the past and effectively joining the government by taking the Speaker's role in the last parliament, pushing Harry Jenkins, the former member for Scullin, out of the seat in order to gain one vote. This was the brilliant idea of the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler. In a sheer act of genius, they would, in one fell swoop, gain a vote on the floor of the parliament by bringing Harry Jenkins back to their side of the chamber and moving a member from our side of the chamber into the Speaker's chair. Unfortunately, that did not go quite as well as the then government hoped. So we are not going to be lectured by the party of Peter Slipper; we are not going to be lectured by the party of the member for Watson. That is not to even go into the stories that have come out of ICAC involving the Obeid family, Joe Tripodi, Ian Macdonald and many others over the last several years.

All of this is designed to distract the media and the public from the fact that the Labor Party has a complete paucity of policy or understanding of what is needed to be done in opposition. The Labor Party has not yet finished the grieving process of losing the election in September last year. I can understand that after six years they were shocked to have been such an incompetent and terrible government that they ended up back on the opposition benches rather than on the government benches. What they need to do now in opposition is accept defeat. They need to accept that the carbon tax is rejected and allow it to be repealed by the incoming government. They have to start developing the policy that will help them to perhaps regain the government benches over the years ahead. All of these kinds of political stunts, all of these attempts to smear the Speaker, to make the Speaker an object of political football are all designed to distract from the fact that the opposition has no explanation for the debt and deficit disaster that they left the incoming government after September last year. So every day we will hear every other issue other than an explanation for why they were so incompetent that they were unable to leave to the new incoming government the same economic conditions that the Howard and Costello government left to the Rudd government when it came into power in 2007.

The reason we will not support this motion is that the government is going to join in a political stunt that distracts people from Labor's paucity of ideas, from their inability to deal with their own grief having lost last year's election. We will not join in a political stunt designed to smear the Speaker and the Speaker's office. Therefore, the government will not support this motion. I think I have spoken long enough because I think the time of the House is better spent on government business. On that note, I move: that the motion be put.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion be agreed to.