House debates
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Motions
Speaker
3:11 pm
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:
That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
Yesterday in this House, the Manager of Opposition Business moved the motion to refer you to the Privileges Committee for what he described as 'one of the most grievous breaches of parliamentary practice in the history of the world'. His hyperbole attacking you was unprecedented and it was disgraceful. It was based around the concept that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was somehow grossly in breach of the rules of the parliament. At no point was he able to name any of those rules in the parliament that govern the use of members' offices. In fact, you had already indicated during the day, at 9 am and again at question time, that the rules are that Parliament House offices be used for any purpose so long as it is not an illegal purpose. At the time, the Manager of Opposition Business reflected most grievously on you in the chair. He said things like:
Your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this.
That was untrue. In fact, the former member for Watson had done so.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
on the basis of a falsehood. He also said in his speech yesterday:
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.
He said:
… 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.
But the fact is, Madam Speaker, the former member for Watson, Mr McLeay, had held fundraisers in the Speaker's dining room. The Manager of Opposition Business, if he was a gentleman, would apologise to you for reflecting on the speakership, because reflecting on the Speaker is one of the worst crimes that a member of parliament can do in this place.
The pattern since you were elected Speaker has been to denigrate you as Speaker and to denigrate the speakership, whether it has been dissent motions moved from the day that you were elected Speaker, calling you a witch on the first day that you were elected Speaker, moving a no confidence motion in you as Speaker, and yesterday, of course, the grotesque reflection on you as Speaker, accusing you of wrongdoing and accusing you of holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room, in breach of rules unable to be named and in an unprecedented way. But, in fact, the precedent occurred under the predecessor of the current member for Watson's seat—Mr McLeay as the Speaker. This has been a pattern from the first day that you were elected to that office. There has not been a moment that the Manager of Opposition Business and the Labor Party frontbench have not been trying to badger and harass you in this role. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the level of shouting at you as Speaker is bullying you in that role.
Therefore, I do move this very serious motion. It is a motion to require the Manager of Opposition Business to do what he should have done as soon as I pointed out in my question to you at the end of question time that the basis of his motion attacking you yesterday was completely wrong and based on a falsehood. Perhaps his staff should have done better research. Perhaps before he had come into the chamber and feigned this mock outrage for the umpteenth time, his staff should have done better research. Rather than getting a tip-off from the Leader of the Opposition's office that this had occurred and racing out using the Labor Party's dirt unit, their smear and innuendo unit, to try to get these stories up in the papers and in the chamber, perhaps he should have paused and thought carefully about whether this might ever have occurred before. If he had done the research that my office did today, he would have thrown up the article that I quoted from before—that was in 2000, Wednesday, 9 August, when Brian Toohey wrote in the Financial Review under the headline 'Guess who's coming to dinner?':
The former Labor Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Leo McLeay, acknowledged that he held a fundraising lunch with about eight business executives on one occasion in Parliament House.
He said Mr Keating may have dropped in at the beginning or end of lunch, which was held in the Speaker's official dining room. His recollection is that Mr Keating was treasurer at the time or had moved to the backbench before becoming PM.
Why is this so important? It is important for two reasons. It is important because the opposition have to understand that they cannot keep trying to belt the umpire. They have to accept the fact that the government is in power and, as you correctly pointed out at the beginning of question time, Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity to appoint the Speaker. We have done so. When you are in the chair, you are exercising the impartiality that any Speaker should exercise. That is not an excuse for Labor, who lost the election, to decide that attacking the umpire is a better past time than actually addressing their own failures as a government for six years and now as an opposition.
That is one reason why this is an important motion. It is important to restore integrity to the role of Speaker. When an egregious falsehood has been made against the Speaker, when a gross calumny has been visited on the Speaker and has been proven to be a gross calumny, the right course of action is to come into the House and immediately apologise, explain that you may have acted under incorrect information. Now that the information has been provided to you, you withdraw and apologise. That is the way that you maintain integrity in the umpire. If the opposition are allowed to continue to denigrate and to bully the speakership then they denigrate the entire parliament. So I am trying to give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity in this motion, Madam Speaker, to apologise to you and to demonstrate that he has some respect for the office of Speaker and for the parliament.
The second reason this motion is important is because I was a Manager of Opposition Business for almost five years. The relationship between the Speaker and the Manager of Opposition Business is somewhat symbiotic. When I was the Manager of Opposition Business, I always tried to maintain a cordial relationship with the Speaker, to treat them with respect in the chamber, whether it was the member for Chisholm, the former member for Scullin or the former member for Fisher. If the relationship breaks down between the Manager of Opposition Business and the Speaker to the extent that this relationship has broken down, or is in the process of breaking down, then the Manager of Opposition Business's position becomes entirely untenable. So I am giving him the opportunity to apologise to the Speaker. I am not asking him to apologise for all the other insults and offensive statements that he has visited on you in the last nine months. But he should apologise to you for falsely accusing you of something and trying to refer it to a Privileges Committee, and for not having done his homework. He should apologise to you and if he does not apologise to you then he should resign. If he does not resign then the Leader of the Opposition should show the strength of character and leadership that is required in the leader of a great political party and sack him, and replace him with someone who does know how to hold the high office of Manager of Opposition Business.
3:22 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If ever there was an example of overreach in a government behaving as though they are in opposition, it is what we are seeing right now. Sorry, do not expect me to get really angry about a stunt like this. This is silly, from the Leader of the House—really silly. A large number of things was said yesterday. The Leader of the House has not been willing to give me a copy of this in advance. If one of the details that is referred to is whether this happened under Leo McLeay, and if that occurred and if that detail is true—he has given me no evidence he has allowed me to read—then I am sorry that that particular statement was made. Of course I am. Of course I am willing to say I am sorry for that statement if it is inaccurate. Of course I am. But the Leader of the House waited until the end of question time and said, 'Here's the gotcha moment,' read it out, did not provide the material across the chamber and did not acknowledge the critical point: the then opposition, following that, called for the resignation of Leo McLeay and ultimately—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Sixty thousand dollars for a bicycle accident.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
he did retire and he did stand down from that role. What we see here is something that you almost never see from a government. You see, there is a reason why governments do not normally move a suspension of standing orders to debate a political issue of the day. The reason, complex as it is, is that normally they are governing. Normally on that side of the chamber they have government business to get through. Normally on that side of the chamber they have a budget that they are proud of. Normally on that side of the chamber they actually want to talk about their own agenda. But such is the embarrassment of those opposite that they have decided it is more exciting to try to get a gotcha moment on one point in a 15-minute speech.
As I said earlier, if that detail was wrong then I apologise for that. But it was only one of the many issues that I referred to. What I do not resile from for one minute is that this issue should have been referred to the Privileges Committee. What I do not resile from for one minute, Madam Speaker, is that you should have done what other Speakers would do, and that was actually reflect on the issue, get advice from the clerks and then report back to the House. It was completely open to you, Madam Speaker, after that resolution yesterday, at that opportunity yesterday, to reflect on it and to come back—even if the clerks had said that they did not believe there was a matter of privilege—and to say that, given it referred to you, you would give it to the committee anyway. They would do a quick inquiry and report back.
Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Why don't you stop digging and just say sorry?
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have said it three times. Calm down over there. What no-one, no observer of this chamber, should apologise for is the claim that this Speaker is biased. What no person in the chamber should ever apologise for is stating that this is a government without an agenda. Look at it at the moment. We have all these ministers who are meant to be in charge of things, who are actually meant to be governing, hanging around for the debate, hanging around because they think it is fun. Why do they think their entire backbench has stayed here for my speech? They are not ringing their local radio stations to talk about the budget. They are not actually getting out in their electorates to talk about anything that the government is doing. It is much safer for them to be in here because then they do not have to talk about the cuts to schools, they do not have to talk about cuts to education, they do not have to talk about anything on the government's agenda.
I just saw it from you then: as I speak you give that slight shake of your head, and when government ministers speak you give them the constant nod. The subtle rallying is something that has characterised your speakership.
If the words of this resolution before the parliament are serious, given what I have said in this speech, the Leader of the House will withdraw the resolution, because what he is requesting here has already been done. It has been done in the course of this speech. It has been done repeatedly in the course of this speech. If he is just playing politics, this resolution will go to the vote. Let me make this clear: having said a number of times during this speech that if a fact was incorrect then I am sorry that occurred, do not think I am going to say it again because the Leader of the House uses his numbers in this House. If that means you name me straight after this vote then so be it. If that is what this House has come to then so be it.
I am not going to be in a situation where a government uses its majority to demand members of parliament to make particular statements. I am not going to be in that situation. Sure, there are some parliaments in the world where this happens. North Korea probably does stuff like this. There are some parliaments of the world where they think, 'Oh, we've got a majority. Let's make someone say something that they don't want to say.'
These are the same people who in the debate on 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act talk about freedom of speech. They talk about freedom of speech. For a whole week, whenever we raised a point, you said, 'This is the week of freedom of speech.' Well, what is today? What is today, when we have the Leader of the House moving a resolution to demand that particular words be said by a member of parliament? What has happened to Australian democracy if the parliament is such that elected members of parliament get told what to say by Christopher Pyne? What has the parliament come to? What sort of democracy or freedom of speech credentials can those opposite claim if they actually think it is smart, if they actually think they are sending a clever message to the community, by saying to the Australian people, 'We'll use our parliamentary majority to demand that members of the Labor Party will say what we tell them to say'?
Well, Madam Speaker, be on notice: I won't. Be on notice, Madam Speaker. I am not going to be in a situation where a vote of this parliament demands me to make comments. I have already said everything that this resolution requires in this speech. All those words have been said. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget what this parliament has become. If they continue with this resolution, do not forget the extent of the political games that are being played. What is happening here by any definition is an embarrassing bad story for a party that wants to talk about freedom of speech. No matter how bad it is for them, it is better than talking about the budget. No matter how bad or embarrassing this is for them, they think this is better than talking about cuts to health, cuts to education and what they are doing to the pension.
I know the Leader of the House has had a bad day. I know the Leader of the House has had one of his closest factional colleagues become a minister in the Labor government of South Australia. I have some sympathy for the Leader of the House in that regard. If the Leader of the House wants me to say how sorry I am for him, he will not need a resolution of the House; I will happily offer those words to him.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Watson will resume his seat. I think I have been enormously tolerant, listening to the member speak to the motion or pretend to speak to the motion without even touching on the question of the suspension. Because it has involved me, I have allowed you to speak anything you like against me. If you consider that is an apology, I do not. Nonetheless, I have let you go freely and speak, and you can have the rest of your time. But I would ask that you refer, at least once, to the motion before the chair.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your comment and I appreciate that intervention that would normally be made by a member from the floor. I also appreciate that every reason I have given in the speech I have made, and I do not think I have been too subtle, was to explain why standing orders ought not be suspended. If you think this is a really dumb idea, you would vote against the motion. We think this is a really silly thing and a silly, childish game from the Leader of the House.
I reckon there are university councils and student representative councils around the country where they say, 'Let's suspend standing orders on something like this,' and people look and say, 'Oh, what a clever idea, Christopher.' I am sure that there are places where that would be the view. But let us take this all the way back to what is actually happening in the parliament right now. People are elected to represent their individual seats.
Those who form the majority are being told by the Leader of the House to vote to demand that a member of parliament make a particular statement. While I am willing and have been during this speech to say, 'If that detail was wrong, then I am sorry that that statement was made,' under no circumstances will I allow, and be part of a travesty of an Australian parliamentary system, a majority to be used to silence a member of parliament or, worse still, a majority to be used to tell a member of the Labor Party to jump to the call of a member of the Liberal Party. I will not do it. It should not happen in Australia and this motion should be voted down.
3:32 pm
Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Standing orders should certainly be suspended, because this motion goes to the very decency of the Manager of Opposition Business and the very decency of the Leader of the Opposition. Because if he were a Leader of the Opposition of any standing, if he were a real leader, he would require the Manager of Opposition Business to apologise for the denigration of the role of Speaker, to stand here at the dispatch box and apologise unequivocally rather than hiding behind weasel words.
The role of the office of Speaker is of absolute importance in this House. The office of Speaker deserves the respect of members opposite. It is a long tradition in this place that members of this House respect the role of the Speaker, the position of the Speaker and the standards of this House. But, unfortunately, members opposite have form for disrespecting the Speaker and the office of Speaker. We have only to look back at the last parliament to see the way in which the Australian Labor Party treated a very fine Speaker of this House and that was former Speaker Jenkins.
Former Speaker Jenkins, a highly regarded figure in this House, was swept aside for the political convenience of the Australian Labor Party and was replaced by who? Who did the Labor Party install in place of the respected former Speaker Jenkins? No-one other than Peter Slipper. Peter Slipper was desperately defended by the Australian Labor Party, for their own political convenience, despite the fact it was revealed that he had been sending messages, which would have been considered disgusting by anyone on this side of the House but, apparently, acceptable by members opposite, because they continued to defend him.
If the Manager of Opposition Business had any decency whatsoever, he would apologise to the Speaker, he would stand up right here, right now, and apologise unequivocally rather than camouflaging his words in and around a whole range of lucid statements. He should stand and apologise.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the factual incorrectness of the statements that were made. In fact, former Speaker Leo McLeay resigned as Speaker as a result of an accusation with regard to a false compensation claim for $65,000 for falling off a parliamentary bicycle. That is the reason why Speaker McLeay resigned. The Manager of Opposition Business should check his facts before attempting to compare the situations.
The current occupant of the chair, the Speaker, is a highly regarded member of this House, of longstanding experience, who has served both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and who demands your respect, not the contempt that you are showing towards the position of Speaker.
Members opposite are showing their blatant disregard for that office, which has served the Australian parliament well since Federation. Members opposite seem content to place this office in disrepute. Madam Speaker, this House certainly supports your speakership. We certainly support the execution of the role of Speaker, as you have done it, as opposed to the rather poor performances we have seen from the Manager of Opposition Business.
I think it is important that standing orders be suspended so that we may have the matter decided by this House. The role of Speaker should be shown the respect that it is required to receive from members of this House rather than the disrespect that is shown over and over again by members opposite. Members opposite on numerous occasions have failed to respect the office of Speaker. Members opposite replaced a previous Speaker, Speaker Jenkins, who was held in high regard by both sides of this House. The office of Speaker and respect for the office of Speaker should be upheld. That is why standing orders should be suspended and it is why the member opposite, the Manager of Opposition Business, should apologise.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
3:47 pm
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the House for agreeing to the suspension of standing orders and, as a consequence, I move:
That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
In the member for Watson's defence on the suspension of standing orders, he made the rather extraordinary claim that when it was discovered that the previous member for Watson had a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room the then opposition demanded his resignation and he resigned over that matter. Just to indicate how bad the Manager of Opposition Business's position has become, let me explain some of the facts and the timing of what actually occurred in that decade, because, as you know, Madam Speaker, you and I were both in the parliament.
The member for Watson might like to check the record, because he has now made another false statement to the parliament. In fact, former Speaker Mr McLeay resigned as Speaker because he was accused in 1993 of falsely making a claim for $65,000 of benefits from the Commonwealth for falling off a bicycle. Subsequently it was found that his claim was within the guidelines, but by that stage he had resigned and was no longer in the Speaker's chair. In the year 2000, seven years later, this article appeared and that is when the then government—the Liberal Party—discovered that in fact the former member for Watson had held a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room.
So it is quite chronologically impossible for the member for Watson's previous claim, made only 30 minutes ago, to be true. How could the so-called then opposition, which was now in government, have demanded that the member for Watson resign over fundraising in the Speaker's dining room when we did not know about it until seven years after the former member for Watson had resigned from the Speakership?
What this points to of course is that every day the Manager of Opposition Business comes into this place and seeks to find some fig leaf with which to attack the chair. This has been a pattern from day one. Today it is confusing the years in which Leo McLeay was Speaker and when the revelation was made about him fundraising in the Speaker's dining room, and I have made that very clear to the House. But every single day the member for Watson seeks to denigrate the chair, whether it is calling you a witch on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a dissent motion on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a no confidence motion within weeks of the parliament starting to sit in November last year. Every day the Manager of Opposition Business tries to distract the House by attacking the chair.
Now, it is a fine Australian tradition, particularly in this House, that the chair is respected. All of this bullying, all of this dissent, all of this denigration, these no-confidence motions and these insults are usually reserved for the people who are sitting on the floor of the House, because they can ostensibly defend themselves against those charges or that bullying, those insults. The Speaker's position is raised above the House, and that is why the Speaker should not be attacked and certainly should not be accused of doing something based on a falsehood.
We are asking the member for Watson to apologise for reflecting on the chair based on a falsehood—
Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
According to you.
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
the falsehood being that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was unprecedented and improper. The member for Melbourne Ports interjects, out of his seat, 'According to you.' No, it is not, Member for Melbourne Ports, according to me. In fact, it was the former member for Watson who, in the year 2000, admitted that he had held at least one fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room. So it is not me saying that it is a falsehood. The fact is that the former member for Watson made it perfectly clear that neither is it unprecedented or improper for fundraisers to be held in the Speaker's dining room.
On that basis, the current member for Watson should apologise to you, Madam Speaker, in the House—because he made a false claim based on a falsehood, the falsehood being that fundraisers in the Speaker's dining room are unprecedented and improper. They are neither improper nor unprecedented.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I've apologised five times for that.
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Watson has at no time found any rule in any of the standing orders or House of Representatives Practice that would indicate that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was in any way improper. That is why he should apologise.
The member for Watson keeps saying, 'I've apologised five times for a technical error.' He misses a vital point, and his colleagues should start thinking about whether he best represents them as Manager of Opposition Business or whether he might be better suited to another role in the parliament, perhaps on the front bench. This motion is not about him apologising for a technical breach, for making an inadvertent error; this motion is about requiring the Manager of Opposition Business to apologise for deliberately trying to cast an aspersion on the Speaker where that aspersion has been found to be based on a falsehood. A proper apology would be for the Manager of Opposition Business to stand up in the chamber and say: 'I was wrong to base my assertion on the false information that I had been provided. It is not improper for the Speaker to have acted in the way that she did, and it certainly is not unprecedented; and, if it suits the House, I apologise to the Speaker.' That would be an acceptable apology, to the government. He has an opportunity to do so now. He could do it at the end of my speech. He could stand up and make that apology to the government, to the House, but, most importantly, to the Speaker. In his defence to the suspension of standing orders—
Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Why don't you jail him!
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Isaacs will desist!
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Isaacs loves to shout because he is not very good at argument. He is only really good at bellowing. He is not good at arguing; he is very good at shouting. The problem is: I have the microphone and I am not going to stop just because we have a loud member of the audience in the member for Isaacs.
In the Manager of Opposition Business's defence, he tried to comment on every other subject because he knows how wrong he is. He tried to talk about the Racial Discrimination Act and the changes to section 18C; freedom of speech; South Australian politics; even student politics. He did everything other than talk about the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is that he should apologise to the Speaker for denigrating the Speaker's role, for attacking the chair based on a falsehood. So I would like to give him the opportunity to do the right thing. This motion will be carried because the government—and, I hope, the crossbenchers, but certainly the government—will support it and, if the crossbenchers support it, the government would be pleased.
The Manager of Opposition Business should apologise in order to uphold the dignity of the chair. Whether he likes the occupant of the chair or he dislikes the occupant of the chair is not the issue that is at hand. It is upholding the dignity of the Speakership, which parliaments have done since 1901. It would also show that he is a true gentleman. Gentlemen, when they have been shown to be wrong about something, do the right thing and apologise for it. They are bigger people for doing so. They are limited, quite frankly, when they do not apologise. They show themselves to be bigger men if, when they have been proven to be wrong, they front up and they apologise.
But I am also giving the member for Watson this opportunity because I believe he should try and repair his relationship with the chair. Since the day you became Speaker, Madam Speaker, he has tried to insult and denigrate you in this role. Partisan politics have replaced the dignity of the Speakership from the opposition's point of view. In my view, Madam Speaker, if he does not apologise to you as Speaker today, then his position as Manager of Opposition Business is untenable and he cannot go on in the role. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a very precarious hold on the leadership of the Labor Party and it is very hard for him to discipline his frontbenchers, to stand up to the factions; and I know the member for Watson is a factional warlord from New South Wales and has strong right-wing support, and the New South Wales right wing has strong support in the Labor caucus. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show that he has the bottle, that he has the character and the bottle, to be the leader of the Labor Party—a real leader of the Labor Party, a leader like Bob Hawke, a leader like Paul Keating: they would act against one of their frontbenchers who had shown such a deleterious hold on the position that they held. In fact, very early on in the Hawke government, Mick Young, a leader of the House, was asked to stand down from the front bench over a matter. He was very close to the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. He was asked to stand down because he had proven himself to be wrong about something. That is the kind of Labor Party that the Labor Party used to be, not the Labor Party of today.
But I will give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity to apologise, to take back many of the remarks that he made in the House. He said things yesterday to you, Madam Speaker, in quite an unbridled attack on the Speakership. He said:
… your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this.
He said:
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—
'cashed in on you being in that chair'. Madam Speaker, that one reflects personally on you. That one reflects personally on the judgement call that you made that previous Speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or were Speakers who had enough integrity to say no.
I could go on, but the government has important business of the day that we want to get on with. I have made an arrangement with the opposition that the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, will apparently respond on behalf of the Manager of Opposition Business. Doesn't that speak volumes? Members of the government, the gallery and the press should take careful note. The former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, is going to deliver to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And do you know why, Madam Speaker?
An opposition member interjecting—
Of course he can speak twice—the other motion was for the suspension of standing orders, Michael, keep up. The point is that the member for Grayndler has to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business because he is just better at the job. The former Leader of the House is better at the job and the member for Watson, by allowing the former Leader of the House to respond on his behalf, is admitting what we all know already—that he is just not up to it. If he was really up to it, he would be standing up on his two hind legs and defending himself in the chamber. He is not doing that and I will tell you why: because his position is indefensible. The evidence for that is that the member for Grayndler is, admittedly, probably the opposition's best parliamentary performer—the one who should be the Manager of Opposition Business in the House but who gave it up to the member for Watson, probably as part of a cunning plan hatched when he first lost the leadership to the factional choice over the people's choice. But we will listen with interest to the defence of the should-be Manager of Opposition Business. We will listen with interest to his defence of the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who, quite frankly, if he had the bottle would be prepared to defend himself. More importantly, if he had the bottle, he would be prepared to apologise and move on.
4:01 pm
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am very pleased and, indeed, proud to defend my colleague the member for Watson and the Manager of Opposition Business. They say: why am I speaking on this? This is not an attack on the member for Watson—you attack one, you attack all! This is an attack on the Labor Party. This is an attack on the opposition and this is an attack on the democratic institution of this parliament. If this motion is carried, then any future government by a majority vote can determine that a member of the opposition, who by definition will lose any vote, can be required to come on and take certain actions.
We were in government six years—that never happened. You were in government for 12 years—that never happened. That shows how desperate you are. What you are confirming today is that you had a plan to get into government but you certainly do not have a plan to govern. You would rather talk about anything else than the health cuts, the education cuts, the changes to pensions, the public transport cuts, the attack on economic growth—your pathetic budget of broken promises just two weeks ago.
We were told by those opposite that the adults were going to be back in charge. This is the most childish student-politics stunt that I have seen in this parliament since 1996, a desperate government desperate to defend the Speaker and her right to continue to hold that position. In order to have the confidence of the House, you have to be accountable to this House, Madam Speaker, and what the member for Watson did yesterday was raise, quite correctly and completely in order with the standing orders, a question to you about how many times your office had been used to raise money for the Liberal Party.
You refused to answer that. You refused to be accountable to this parliament and, hence, the member for Watson then went to the next step, which is to ask you whether that constituted a breach of privilege by using the Speaker's office to raise partisan money for the Liberal Party on budget night—and who knows how many other nights it had been raised. We know that extra crockery had to be ordered into your office the night before budget night. We know that was the case. But the Manager of Opposition Business, quite correctly and in accordance with standing orders, raised the question.
Under any circumstances it would have been reasonable to say, 'I am directly involved in this, so I will just refer it off. I will not make a ruling,' but you chose not to do so. You chose to make a ruling and to say that you were not going to refer it. So then the Manager of Opposition Business moved a motion. Under any previous circumstances, it would have been reasonable to say—as we did when we were the government—'Okay, let them have a look at it.' Yet that was voted down. Then the Manager of Opposition Business wrote to the Privileges Committee and they have said, 'We cannot even consider whether we will consider it because of that resolution.' It is absolutely extraordinary.
Today of course we finally saw someone from that side ejected from the parliament. Interesting that it was the same day that this motion has come and I am not clear whether you had advance notice of this motion coming, but I would be surprised if this was a spontaneous outburst from the Leader of the House. The member came in before one hour was up, but that was all okay as well, contrary to all the precedent that is there.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The substance of the issue which should be considered is over whether it is appropriate for your office to be used for a fundraiser. That is what the Manager of Opposition Business raised, and it says very clearly—
Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, is it appropriate that the member at the dispatch box be disparaging of the Clerk of the parliament?
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member will resume his seat. When I ask someone to sit down, I expect them to. Yesterday you refused to sit down and you went out under 9A, because you once again refused to take a direction.
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes, he is indeed, finally. So I will give the call back. I will answer first on the point of order from the member for Fisher: is it appropriate for the member to abuse the Clerk? No, it is not. But I will give the call back to the member for Grayndler.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.
They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.
Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not! That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!
… I've always supported an independent speakership …
Press comments from him:
I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …
Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.
So, Madam Speaker, I do not hold it against you for the fact that you were wrong. But you were. You were. And we do not ask for you to apologise for that. You got the facts there wrong. And what is their remedy for this? The remedy for this is that the Manager of Opposition Business somehow should be demanded by a majority vote to take certain action. Think about the precedent in terms of free speech!
This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.
Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:
… the Leader of the Opposition—
Tony Abbott—
… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.
They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.
But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:
We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …
This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.
What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.
The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold that job!
4:11 pm
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the motion be put.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
In accordance with the resolution, I call the member for Watson.
4:26 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Madam Speaker, You have called me to the dispatch box?
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, to answer the motion of the House.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I already dealt with the terms of the motion during my speech. I have nothing to add. If members of the Liberal Party think they can silence a member of the Labor Party, bring it on.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member has been asked to apologise to the House—to me. He asserts that he has done so. I do not accept that he has. However, the member for Watson has also called me a warrior, and I am; I am a warrior for the people of Australia, for the parliament and for this House. I simply say that I hope that this salutary motion will bring about more decorum in this place where we will indeed work for the benefit of the people of Australia, and put aside some of the things that have transpired in recent times, so that the people of Australia can indeed feel more proud of us. And with that, I think we will move on to the rest of government business.
4:28 pm
Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Might I say, Madam Speaker, that your statement to the House was extraordinarily gracious, and I hope that it will lead to the behaviour you have outlined in your statement.