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

I move—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

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

No, you are out of order.

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

I would ask the clerk: was it formally moved? Did he move it? The clerk is of the opinion that it had been moved. So you may go ahead.

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

I move:

That the chair's ruling be dissented from.

Madam Speaker, what we have just seen in the ruling that you have given is ruling a question out of order without allowing the question to be stated. It is as simple as that. What was given at the beginning of the question set the context for it and, at the end of the question, the shadow minister for agriculture had just started to ask about future action taken by the Prime Minister with respect to the ministerial code of conduct, something which must be allowed. Because make no mistake about the gravity of this: we have a ruling of a court reflecting on the behaviour of someone who is now a minister of the Crown. This is a significant issue, which we have a right to discuss within the parliament.

You cannot, simply because the preface to the question dealt with what happened to him prior to being a minister, rule that the latter part of the question is out of the order when it deals exactly with what the Prime Minister is going to do now in counselling or not counselling, giving a tick of approval or showing the disapproval that the Australian people feel and that a court now feels, about the behaviour of the Minister for Agriculture.

The contempt of the parliament is shown by the fact that the minister concerned cannot even remain within the chamber while this matter is being debated. The contempt for the parliament is shown by the fact that you as Speaker would not even allow a question to be completed, knowing full well that had the question been completed it was entirely within standing orders. You knew full well that you were not shutting down a question that was out of order; you were shutting down a debate within this parliament. You were shutting down a discussion about whether or not the behaviour in future of a minister of the Crown can be consistent with what a judge has now reflected on, whether the behaviour of a minister of the Crown in future should be allowed to occur in a way that has been deeply reflected on by a court and that goes directly to the benefit of someone who is a personal benefactor of that minister. This is a serious question to be asked within the parliament. And I think you knew well the gravity of it, when you decided to not allow the question to be completed. Because the only moment at which you could have said it was out of order would have been if the member for Hunter had completed at that moment. But he was continuing and you knew that he was continuing and so you stopped him there. You did not allow a rephrase, you did not allow a completion of the question in the full knowledge that, had there been a completion of the question, it was clearly within the standing orders.

A lot of the Australian people would like to know whether the Prime Minister thinks what the Minister for Agriculture did was okay. A lot of the Australian people want to know whether this Prime Minister gives a tick in the future for his ministers to interfere in private litigation. The email concerned was no small matter. This was somebody who was senior, not merely on the front bench of his party at the time but then, as in now, seen as a potential future Deputy Prime Minister when that side of the House is in office. In that context the question has to be allowed and that this parliament is a place where he can be answerable. From the behaviour of the Prime Minister and how quickly they scurried out the door we know full well that it would appear the ministerial code of conduct will do nothing to improve his behaviour in the future. It appears that his own sense of right and wrong—given that he wrote the email when he did—shows that he thinks this sort of behaviour is okay. The one place where he needs to be answerable is on the floor of this parliament, and your ruling, Madam Speaker, said that this parliament will allow the issue to be supressed. Your ruling said that this parliament will make no attempt to pull the Minister for Agriculture into line, and that the Prime Minister cannot even be asked whether or not that behaviour will be acceptable in the future.

The way in which the benefactor concerned provided assistance to the Minister for Agriculture is not limited to him. Gina Rinehart flew three coalition MPs to Hyderabad in a private jet. It was not only the Minister for Agriculture who was concerned here; it was also the Minister for Foreign Affairs—who is not present here today—as well as the Minister for Agriculture, who has been a direct beneficiary of this individual. A direct beneficiary, who, as a member of the front bench and is seen as a future Deputy Prime Minister when there is a coalition government, is willing to try to interfere in private litigation.

Madam Speaker, be in no doubt that every time your rulings try to shut down debate in this parliament the Australian people know to look more carefully. Every time there is an attempt by this government to cover up, the warning lights go off throughout the entire community. There is no way in the world, at its simplest under the standing orders, that this ruling can be justified, because at its core, Madam Speaker, you ruled that a question was out of order when it had not been completed. You ruled, Madam Speaker, that you knew that a question you could not possibly have known the content of, because it had not been said out loud, was out of order. Madam Speaker, that sort of ruling makes a joke of the parliament. That sort of ruling makes a farce of this being question time. Be in no doubt: we had sort of given up on the concept that their answers will be relevant. We had sort of given up on the concept, after the ruling was made a while ago, that if we use 'fairness' in the question anything that relates to the word 'fair' is somehow in. We know that that ruling has been made. But now we are at the point where you will not even allow a question to be stated. You will not even give them a chance to evade, perform and cavort, and play the little games that this mob over here play in question time, because you cannot even bear to hear the full 30 seconds of an opposition statement. You cannot even bear to allow a question to go for the full 30 seconds allowed. You cannot even bear, Madam Speaker, for the question to set the context and then ask for the detail of what the Prime Minister will do now.

Madam Speaker, it is essential, if question time is going to remain some sort of question and answer session that goes back and forth, that there will at least be questions that are not dorothy dixers. But over the last few weeks, Madam Speaker, more and more, you have been ruling questions from the opposition as being out of order. Today your ruling took it to an absolutely new level, where the ruling was made before the question had been stated. Madam Speaker, there is no way on earth you knew whether or not a question that you had not heard was out of order.

The opposition handled it the correct way. We rose on points of order and asked if the question could be concluded, so that you could then rule. The member for Hunter even asked whether it could be rephrased, notwithstanding that you had ruled on something he had not even completed. The opposition has made every effort in question time today not to get to the point we are at right now. But we are at this point right now, Madam Speaker, because of the arrogance of this government and because of the way you have used your position in that chair to prevent questions from being asked.

This is an issue that goes to the heart of the character of the people who sit opposite. It goes to the heart of the character of the Minister for Agriculture. I agree, if we were asking whether the Prime Minister sanctions what was done in the past, prior to his being a minister—if that was what was being asked, it would have been out of order. But you ruled before the question got to the part about it being about future conduct as a minister, which undoubtedly was within standing orders—entirely within standing orders. And so in that context, Madam Speaker, we had no choice. We either accept a situation where this parliament becomes a joke, a situation where this parliament becomes a place where this government can cover up and be answerable to no-one, or we move dissent in a ruling that could not possibly have been accurate, for one very simple reason, Madam Speaker: how can you rule a question that you have not heard is out of order?

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

Is the motion seconded?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Motions of dissent on the Speaker's ruling are not motions to be taken lightly. This opposition does not take them lightly. Dissent motions are so rare in this place because oppositions use them guardedly. It does not matter whether we like or dislike the Speaker. It does not matter whether the Speaker has a reputation for fairness or otherwise; oppositions are generally reluctant to move dissent. But we had no choice today, Madam Speaker—clearly no choice. For a start, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, you did not even let me complete my question, Madam Speaker, and if you had you would have come to the conclusion, surely, despite the pressure from those who sit opposite, that the question was entirely in order. There are a number of principles here. For a start, Madam Speaker, the opposition, under the Westminster system, has limited opportunity to hold the government to account—or, more particularly, to hold government ministers to account. Question time is one of our few opportunities, and when you prevent us from exercising that right, Madam Speaker, you not only undermine our cause but you undermine the very nature of the Westminster system.

The question today, Madam Speaker, was a very serious one. It was one which picked up on the very serious reflections of Justice Brennan of the High Court, who himself expressed grave concern, about the actions of the now minister, back in 2011.

If you had allowed me to complete my question, Madam Speaker, you would have found that I was most interested that the Prime Minister has by now reassured himself, felt confident, that all the minister's actions between 2011 up until this date, including his 20 months or so as a minister, have been appropriate and within the standards of his own ministerial code of conduct. That is what we would like to know. I am hoping that the Prime Minister is now reflecting on that question I belatedly put and will come back to the House and give us a reassurance at some future time—hopefully sooner rather than later—that he has reassured himself that this minister has not operated outside his own ministerial code of conduct.

I said question time is a time to hold ministers to account, and this is a minister who certainly needs a lot of supervision and needs to be held to account. This has been a chaotic minister. This has been an incompetent minister. This is a minister who is prepared to come into this place, provide an answer which is a total embellishment of the effectiveness of his drought policy and then go back and change the Hansard, change what he said in this place. He denied ever knowing about the Hansard changes until I raised them in this place. We know, thanks to a Senate estimates process, that this was not the case.

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time you have denied me an opportunity to ask the Minister for Agriculture a question. On both occasions, I would put it to you, there was nothing extraordinary about those questions. They were questions that were entirely consistent with questions asked in this place on a daily basis, questions which you regularly allow to go through on the basis of the standing orders. There was nothing special here. It was a simple question to the Prime Minister: is he confident that his minister has been compliant with the ministerial code of conduct?

This is a minister who promised the agricultural sector a white paper by Christmas. We are now 20 months into the term of this government and we have not had any agriculture policy in this country. Policy inertia writ large. Those on the other side do not want us to ask a question of the Minister for Agriculture, because they know he is a person who is running a chaotic operation, has backflipped on all his pre-election promises and is constantly in the media for all the wrong reasons. They know on that basis that this is a minister in need of protection.

I said to you before I sat down, Madam Speaker, 'We shall return.' We will be back. There will be plenty more question times and there is a limit to the extent that the Leader of the House can give you the nudge and the wink whenever he believes one of his ministers is in need of protection. This is not a protection racket, this place, Madam Speaker. This is the national parliament of this country, and we are entitled to ask ministers questions when we believe they have misled the Australian people or acted in a way that is contrary to the national interest. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary performance by the member for Watson. The member for Watson has obviously been taking acting lessons over the summer break, because his performance in this extraordinary debate today would make Laurence Olivier blush; it was so over the top. I think most people have not seen a performance like that since Theda Bara in the silent movies. I was embarrassed that the member for Watson could get himself so worked up about a matter that is so vitally important to the nation—so vitally important to the nation that it took until question 20 to be asked about it in question time today.

Listening to the member for Watson, you would think the most heinous crime in the history of federation had been perpetrated by the Minister for Agriculture on the Australian polity. Yet it took until 3.05 pm in question time for the first question to be asked. When the opposition wants to build up momentum or they want to get to a crescendo—bring the House to boiling point—that would require a descent in the speaker's ruling or a motion of censure against the Prime Minister or government, usually there is a bit of spade work that goes into it. It usually starts at about two o'clock and by about a quarter to three the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition are talking about whether now is the time: 'Do we do it now? Do we bring the trap shut, right now, while we are still on television, or do we wait and keep building the momentum for the great crescendo, the great performance, the magic trick, the smoke and mirrors that will bring the House down?' That is what usually happens.

I know a bit about that because I have done it a bit myself over the years—with a bit of success—and the member for Grayndler has done it a bit over the years too. He was blushing with shame, dare I say it, during the member for Watson's performance, because he knows it was all very half cocked. It all went off very half cocked. At five past three, the opposition rose to its feet to bring the Minister for Agriculture down, to get his scalp.

Sadly, the opposition has been desperately floundering since the budget. That is what is absolutely apparent. The opposition have run up the white flag on the budget and they are looking for any distraction they can find. They have spent 18 months basking, relaxing, lying on a banana lounge sucking on a vanilla milkshake, thinking this is all very easy: 'We'll all be back in government.' All these lovely frontbenchers think they are all going to be ministers in 18 months. They have done none of the hard work necessary in opposition to convince the Australian public to change the government. They thought it was all going to be plain sailing. The member for Watson is a great downhill snow skier, as we know. He thought all he had to do was bend ze knees and he would get into government at the next election.

Sadly for them, the budget has been very well received. The government is getting on with the job of doing what small business need and require to create jobs, of doing what families want, in terms of child care and support for them to get back into the workplace. The government are focusing on productivity and participation and population. The government have switched the agenda to the things that the Australian public want to talk about. The Australian public want to know what the government are going to do about jobs, and they got the answer in the budget. They want to know what we are going to do about productivity, and they got the answer in the budget. They know that we are bringing fairness into the workplace through the changes to the paid parental leave scheme. They know that we want to reduce the tax burden, we want to cut spending and we want to achieve savings and, in this way, make the country prosper and the economy grow.

But when they look on the other side of the House they see a blank page. They say, 'The future is now.' They say, 'We are us.' They say, 'Them are you,' or whatever the latest expression is. They say, 'I don't know what she said, but I agree with it anyway.' They say, 'It doesn't matter where you start as long as you get somewhere in the end.' The member for Jagajaga says that the money has to be paid for by somewhere. Someone has got a pay for it. They have got to find the money somewhere. The problem is the Australian taxpayers are looking at the opposition and saying, 'What would they do if they were elected?' What they know is that they would increase spending. They would cut the savings of the government. They would increase spending by $16 billion in foreign aid alone. They know that they are going to increase taxes. They would introduce a super tax of 15 per cent on self-funded retirees. They know that the opposition is utterly unreconstructed since the chaos and circus-like atmosphere of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government.

Instead, led by this very weak Leader of the Opposition, they are looking for distractions. The distraction, I think, quite wrongly, has been marriage equality.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

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

The member for Hunter!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very wrong on an issue that is extremely important to a lot of Australians—and extremely important to members in this House—and needs to be handled deftly and successfully.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

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

The member for Grayndler!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Instead, the Leader of the Opposition is playing politics with marriage equality as a distraction from the budget. He must be surprised that the Greens do not support his push, that the marriage equality lobby has been lukewarm in their support for the Leader of the Opposition's bill and that the government has not rushed to support it, because marriage equality was supposed to distract people from the budget.

The next thing to distract people from the budget was to not keep up with the bipartisan position on national security.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

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

The member for Grayndler will listen to the Leader of the House!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most appallingly, the government has put on the agenda taking away the citizenship of dual citizens as our latest measure to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism, and yet the opposition is playing politics with the national security in order to try and distract people from the budget.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. There is absolutely no relevance on the part of the—

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

The member will resume her seat. The member for Hunter!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Perth would know, a dissent motion from the Speaker is a very wide-ranging debate, and I am taking the opportunity to be wide ranging, because the sadness for the opposition is that national security was supposed to be the distraction and now they have fallen upon this as the distraction. It is things that the Minister for Agriculture is accused of doing in a private capacity well before he was a minister of the Crown. The opposition has waited until five past three today to ask a question and now move a motion of dissent in the Speaker.

The reality is that the opposition is now trying to find a new weapon of mass distraction from the budget. This government has absolute confidence in the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture is doing an outstanding job. He has recovered the live cattle trade. He is increasing the agricultural exports from this country. Agricultural prices are increasing. States like mine in South Australia are benefiting from increased sheepmeat prices and increased wheat prices. The Minister for Agriculture is doing a fantastic job. He and the Minister for Industry are reforming country of origin labelling laws in this country. He is not overreacting to television reports and closing down whole industries. He is building the country, and the Prime Minister and the government have absolute confidence in the member for New England to continue as the Minister for Agriculture.

It is quite possible that this is the worst opposition ever in Australia's history. It is quite likely that the Leader of the Opposition is the weakest and laziest Leader of the Opposition in Australia's history. The reality is that they would have been better off having a proper, drawn out brawl for the Labor leadership and fought over what they believed in rather than all forming a circle after the trauma of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and saying, 'Let's all pretend there are no dysfunctional elements of our party.' They have not cleansed themselves. The public knows it, and on that note I move:

That the motion be put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question is now that the motion of dissent be carried.