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

I move:

That standing orders 2, 131, 132, 198, 204, 205, 206, 215, 217, 220 and 222 be amended, and new standing order 205a be inserted, as follows:

2    Definitions

The following meanings apply throughout these standing orders.

…

petition is a formal request (in paper or electronic form) to the House to take action that is within its power to take. A petition for presentation to the House must comply with the standing orders. An electronic petition (e-petition) is a petition that persons may sign through the House of Representatives e-petition website (House website). A paper petition includes any petition that is not an electronic petition.

…

present a document means table a document. A document presented to the Federation Chamber is taken to have been presented to the House.

…

visitor means a person other than a Member or parliamentary official or an infant being cared for by a Member (standing order 257(d)).

131        Successive divisions

(a) If a division is called following a division and there is no intervening debate, the Speaker shall appoint tellers immediately and the bells shall be rung for one minute.

(b) If there is a successive division, Members who wish to vote in the same way as in the previous division must remain seated until the result of the division is announced. The tellers may record each Member’s vote as being the same as it was in the previous division unless a Member reports to them. A Member must report to the tellers if he or she:

  (i) wishes to vote differently to his or her vote in the previous division; or

  (ii) voted in the previous division and does not wish to vote in the current division; or

  (iii) did not vote in the previous division and wishes to vote in the current division.

(c) The vote shall be counted as in standing order 130 if:

  (i) in the Speaker’s opinion most Members wish to vote differently to their votes in the previous division; or

  (ii) any confusion or error occurs in the count by the tellers.

132        New division in case of confusion, error or misadventure

(a) If confusion, or error concerning the numbers reported by the tellers, occurs and cannot be corrected, the House shall divide again.

(b) If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move on the same sitting day, without notice and without the need for a seconder—

That the House divide again.

If this motion is agreed to the question shall be put again and the result of the subsequent division shall be the decision of the House.

198        Report to the House

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

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

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

204        Rules for the form and content of petitions

(a) A petition must:

  (i) be addressed to the House of Representatives;

  (ii) refer to a matter on which the House has the power to act;

  (iii) state the reasons for petitioning the House; and

  (iv) contain a request for action by the House.

(b) The terms of the petition must not contain any alterations and must not exceed 250 words. The terms must be placed at the top of the first page of the petition and the request of the petition must be at the top of every other page. The terms of an e-petition must be available through the House website.

(c) The terms of the petition must not be illegal or promote illegal acts. The language used must be moderate.

(d) An e-petition must be in English. A paper petition must be in English or be accompanied by a translation certified to be correct. The person certifying the translation must place his or her name and address on the translation.

(e) No letters, affidavits or other documents should be attached to the petition. Any such attachments will be removed before presentation to the House.

(f) A petition from a corporation must be made under its common seal. Otherwise it will be received as the petition of the individuals who signed it.

205        Rules for signatures—paper petitions

(a) Every petition must contain the signature and full name and address of a principal petitioner on the first page of the petition.

(b) All the signatures on a paper petition must meet the following requirements:

  (i) Each signature must be made by the person signing in his or her own handwriting. Only a petitioner incapable of signing may ask another person to sign on his or her behalf.

  (ii) Signatures must not be copied, pasted or transferred on to the petition or placed on a blank page on the reverse of a sheet containing the terms of the petition.

(c) A Member must not be a principal petitioner or signatory to a paper petition.

205a        Rules for e-petitions

(a) A principal petitioner for an e-petition must provide the petitioner’s full name and address.

(b) The posted period for an e-petition is to be four weeks from the date of publication on the House website.

(c) Once published on the House website the terms of an e-petition cannot be altered.

(d) Once the posted period for an e-petition has elapsed, the petition shall be presented to the House in accordance with standing order 207.

(e) Names must not be copied, pasted or transferred on to an e-petition.

(f) A Member must not be a principal petitioner or signatory to an e-petition.

206        Submitting a petition for presentation

(a) Petitions may be submitted:

  (i) on paper, directly to the Standing Committee on Petitions or via a Member; or

  (ii) electronically, through the House website.

(b) The Standing Committee on Petitions must check that each petition submitted for presentation complies with the standing orders, and if the petition complies it shall be approved for presentation to the House.

215        General purpose standing committees

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

  (i) Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources;

  (ii) Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts;

  (iii) Standing Committee on Economics;

  (iv) Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training;

  (v) Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy;

  (vi) Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport;

  (vii) Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs;

  (viii) Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources;

  (ix) Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities;

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

  (xi) Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of eight members: five government Members and three non-government Members, except for the Standing Committee on Economics, the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, which shall consist of ten members: six government Members, three opposition Members and one non-aligned Member. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.

217        Library Committee (To be omitted)

220        Standing Committee on Petitions

(a) A Standing Committee on Petitions shall be appointed to receive and process petitions, and to inquire into and report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petitions system.

(b) The committee shall consist of eight members: five government and three non-government members.

222        Selection Committee

(a) A Selection Committee shall be appointed to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not my intention to delay the House unnecessarily by debating this first tranche of standing order changes. I have, for the benefit of the House, put two notices of motion to change the standing orders. The first, which we are dealing with now, is the standing order reforms suggested by the procedure committee and the petitions committee from the 44th Parliament. The second group is the suggestions to change the way we schedule the parliament, and we will deal with those separately. It is my understanding that the opposition is opposed to some of these changes in both of these different notices of motion, and it is not my intention to truncate constructive debate. However, if the debate becomes not constructive, then I reserve the right to do so.

The first tranche of reforms to the standing orders has been proposed by the Clerk and, in some instances, by the petitions committee or by the procedure committee, to make clear certain practices that the House has adopted over recent years, particularly because of technological changes—for example, in the way that we operate in our daily working lives—which have not been reflected in the standing orders. These are particularly around things like e-petitions, to make it easier for committees and for the parliament to operate and to put some of those conventions, if you like, in the standing orders. This makes it easier for the person occupying the chair to be able to interpret what the House wants and how we want our arrangements to be managed by the chair, and it makes changes to the standing orders that allow the Federation Chamber and this chamber itself to operate more effectively and efficiently. The changes will establish the general purpose standing committees in the way that we have outlined previously and, as the member for Grayndler has correctly pointed out, will not continue with the Library Committee, which has been omitted from this 45th Parliament. The changes will also continue the arrangements around the Selection Committee that were in place in the 44th Parliament.

I would have thought most of these matters were entirely non-controversial, and I would be very surprised if they were opposed by the opposition or, for that matter, the crossbenchers. We have, as they say these days, socialised these changes with the crossbenchers, and I am hoping that we will garner support for the changes that are proposed by the Clerk, the petitions committee and the procedure committee. That is the first motion.

I should point out to the crossbenchers that I have been studying their letter to me about other changes to the standing orders. That remains a live prospect for us in the future, but we want to get these machinery changes to the standing orders done first. We then of course want to change the sitting pattern of the House. I understand the Manager of Opposition Business does not want to finish at 8 pm as a hard finish, which I think will come as a surprise to many people on both sides of the House, particularly those with young families. But, nevertheless, we will deal with that matter next.

I hope that we will garner the support of the crossbenchers for these machinery changes. With regard to the further changes that they propose, I am happy to keep talking about those within the government and to the crossbenchers, because I think there is merit in some of them. There are some where I do not believe there is merit to them, but I do believe there is merit in others, and I will continue to talk to the crossbenchers about those matters.

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

The Leader of the House is nearly accurate. When he says that there are some aspects of his amendment to standing orders that are not controversial, that is true—for example, changes to petitions. Allowing e-petitions is something that has been sought in the House for a long time, and it is good to see a first step happening with that in standing orders. But it is quite disingenuous to claim that what was put in a joint letter from the crossbenchers and I to the government some time ago now is something that they still need to spend time reflecting on and considering, when they have been able to rush through changes that deal with what happens when you want to conduct a vote for a second time. I move opposition amendment No. 1:

(1)    Omit proposed standing order 132.

(2)    Omit proposed standing order 215(d), substitute:

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

(3)    Omit proposed standing order 222, substitute:

222 Selection Committee

(a)   A Selection Committee shall be appointed to:

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

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

     (iii) recommend items of private Members’ business to be voted on. Three members of the committee are sufficient to recommend an item to be voted on;

     (iv) select bills that the committee regards as controversial or as requiring further consultation or debate for referral to the relevant standing or joint committee in accordance with standing order 143. One member of the committee is sufficient to select a bill for referral; and

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

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

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

(d)   Any non-aligned Member who has a notice of motion or order of the day on the Notice Paper may attend a meeting of the committee to advocate for its selection.

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

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

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

This amendment omits the change which is proposed by the Leader of the House to standing order 132. He says, 'You only told me 10 days ago.' How long do we think they have been considering a need to change this standing order? The proposed change to 132 deals with this:

(b) If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move on the same sitting day, without notice and without the need for a seconder—

That the House divide again.

At the moment, a suspension of standing orders is required to do that. At the moment what happens is that both sides have to agree to have the absolute majority required for the suspension of standing orders that it is reasonable to have the vote a second time.

The Leader of the House wants to push through a change that is all about his humiliation last Thursday. That is what this is about. There is one reason that this has been brought forward and the issues that were contained in the letter have not been brought forward, and that is that there is a special urgency for the Leader of the House to change the rules when people do not turn up for a vote.

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

This has got nothing to do with that.

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

This is great. I will take that interjection. The Leader of the House says that it has nothing to do with when people do not turn up.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has had a speaking opportunity.

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

Let me read the proposed amendment to standing order 132. It says:

(a) If confusion, or error concerning the numbers reported by the tellers, occurs and cannot be corrected, the House shall divide again.

(b) If a division has miscarried through misadventure caused by a Member being accidentally absent or some similar incident, any Member may move on the same sitting day, without notice—

The reason that this is being pushed forward today without agreement, when he is unwilling to deal with the issues that were put forward in the joint letter from the opposition and the crossbench, is simple: the Leader of the House had a humiliation last Thursday and he is determined to be able to promise the Prime Minister that it will never happen again. What he is trying to do in this motion and the motion we will deal with next is change the rules to cover the fact that the members of his own side cannot be guaranteed to be here when votes are taking place.

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

That's not true.

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

I do admire that the Leader of the House will claim that they have a working majority, when the problem is they have a majority who will not work. I admire the gall of the Leader of the House in claiming that rushing this one forward today has nothing to do with the fact that it is about trying to make up the numbers after the event when a government has lost a vote on the floor of the parliament. I admire the fact that the Leader of the House is willing to come in here and argue black is white in such a good mood. In fact, I admire that he is able to smile at all when there has never been a Leader of the House more humiliated in the last 50 years than happened to that man the last Thursday that this parliament sat.

I commend the opposition's amendment to the House. The amendment also deals with issues relating to the Selection Committee, and the member for Grayndler will go through those. The reason the government originally gave for not allowing the Selection Committee to have the same formation it had from 2010 to 2013 was on the basis that they had a working majority. Well, they do not. If you have a working majority it means that, when the votes happen, you persistently have a majority. That has not been the experience of this parliament. That has not been the experience under the leadership of the Leader of the House that we currently have.

The amendment that I have put forward deals with making sure both sides have to agree if we are going to conduct a division a second time round. It also deals with the fact that the Selection Committee should take the same form as the parliament had from 2010 to 2013. If it were ever going to be argued that that should not happen because the government had a working majority, that argument absolutely collapsed the last time the parliament sat on that Thursday afternoon. Those opposite remember the date. Those opposite remember their moment in history. Those opposite remember their humiliation. But the answer is not to change the rules; the answer is to turn up for a vote. The answer is to turn up to work. You do not try to change the rules to manufacture a victory when you have not had one. What you do is you get your members of parliament to bother to turn up to work. The government has not been able to deliver that.

Today is simply a shallow attempt to try to change the rules so that, if it goes wrong again for them, he can come through with his feather duster and try to clean up everything after the event. The Australian people see these changes for exactly what they are: a government in chaos with a Leader of the House and a Prime Minister who do not have a working majority in the House of Representatives or their cabinet or their party room.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I do indeed second the amendment. I do so with some level of surprise that the Leader of the House has brought forward such retrograde changes to the standing orders. I remember well, after the 2010 election, the group hug when Christopher Pyne, on behalf of the coalition, signed the document, Agreement for a better parliament: parliamentary reform, on 6 September 2010. That is what our amendments go to with regard to the selection committee.

During the period 2010 to 2013 we had literally hundreds of debates and votes—determinations—by this parliament about what the members of the House of Representatives thought of issues that were relevant to their electorates and issues that were relevant to the nation. At the time, the Leader of the House said this in a media release the day after the event:

The 'Agreement For A Better Parliament' negotiated between the Coalition, Labor and the Independents will amend parliamentary standing orders to establish a more independent Speaker, limit the power of the executive, increase the ability of parliament to scrutinise legislation, enhance the role of private member's business and the committee system and make question time more useful and relevant.

Now, which of those positive enhancements has the Leader of the House decided is not convenient?

As a result of the changes that occurred through the selection committee and through private members business—I quote from the preamble, which was signed by Christopher Pyne, the Leader of the House, on behalf of the then opposition—

… there will be a need for recognition by all to allow more MP's to be involved in various roles and debates, to allow more community issues to be tested through private members voting …

These were indeed very positive amendments.

They were also amendments that gave respect and standing to the crossbenchers to more fully participate in the activities of the parliament. In my view, that resulted in very good legislation, because you had consultation and you had engagement. As a result of that, we were able to pass some 595 pieces of legislation through this House without losing a single piece of legislation during that period. It was a result of a cooperative approach that respected the fact that each member of this House is representative of their electorate, has a mandate to carry out those duties as the representative of their constituency and should be treated with some respect.

When I was leader of the government in the House of Representatives, with 70 votes on my side on the floor of the House of Representatives, we did not lose a vote. In three years we did not lose a vote. This mob with 76 could not survive three days without losing a vote. That is what this shabby rort of changes to standing orders are designed to do. It is a shabby manipulation of the standing orders, so that, as the Manager of Opposition Business indicated, even if they do lose a vote, they will come back to it at another time. We know, in terms of the wording of that particular standing order, that it refers to a new division in the case of confusion, error or misadventure. We know they are confused about their policy approach; we know that they are committing errors and we know that it is a misadventure when you leave the parliament while parliament is still conducting its business. We saw that on the last sitting Thursday.

I can understand that the Leader of the House, the whip and others who missed out on voting in those procedures on that Thursday are embarrassed and humiliated. I feel their pain. I went through three years being concerned. I needn't have bothered, because we on this side were organised about how we ran the parliament. People were happy to turn up to work and turn up to vote. We consulted and we organised legislation, but those on the other side have proven themselves to be incapable of doing so.

I do think that the Leader of the House should perhaps reconsider some of the more draconian measures that are being put forward in these standing order propositions. After all, given the Senate performance yesterday, his performance on that Thursday looks good. I am sure he has sent a card and a note to Senator McKenzie, thanking her for taking some of the pressure off him about his performance of his duties.

So I say to the Leader of the House, if you think it is smart to get a political outcome through a manipulation of rules, you should think back to the geniuses who came up with the Senate reform proposals that resulted in there being fewer coalition senators, fewer Greens senators and more crossbench senators and that reinvigorated the One Nation party in the other chamber. Think about what happens when you think you can put in a political fix rather than engage in issues of substance and negotiate your position. You should have the confidence in your position to be able to argue things on their merits; you should have confidence in your own party room, that your members will actually turn up to votes; and you should have confidence in the power of your arguments not to be frightened of having a Selection Committee that operates properly, that chooses private members' business in an appropriate way, chooses motions to have votes on and allows for a determination in this parliament of issues that have been brought by honourable members. You should not be frightened of being able to test the power of your case, if you actually have an agenda.

For a government that had no business in the Senate and has no sense of purpose—that does not have an agenda—I would have thought that voting on private members motions and bills through a Selection Committee process might help you out. It might give you something to do. You might get that sense of purpose from non-government members. If you do not proceed like this, what people will do, what you will find, very simply—it is not up to me to give advice to the crossbenchers or other members, but I have had a bit to do with them over the years—is that private members' motions get converted into private members' bills, and they will end up being just a lot of bills before the parliament. That is what will happen. Whenever you try to do a manipulation and a fix you find that there is always a way around them. I note that my friend the member for Kennedy had two private member's bills before the parliament this week. He has worked it out—he has been around this place for a while—and other people will work it out too. There are ways of getting the same outcome.

I will conclude with this: so opposed are the government to ideas that they have even knocked off the library committee. I await the reason for knocking off the library committee, but that just shows that this is an attack on the independence of this parliament, because the Library plays a very important role. (Time expired)

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

I wish to speak briefly to the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to the motion moved by me in relation to the standing orders. He has created a great canard which needs to be dealt with, that the idea that the change to standing order 132 was conceived because of the events of September the first, as we call them on this side of the House. The events of 1 September had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the changes to standing order 132.

I proposed on 30 and 31 August to change standing order 132. I sent the proposed changes to the standing orders to the office of the Manager of Opposition Business. My office was in communication with his office about these machinery provision changes, the vast majority of which were proposed by the Petitions Committee and by the Procedure Committee. The Manager of Opposition Business responded on several of the changes—things that he regarded as noncontroversial—which we implemented. He has not responded to the rest of the changes since that time, giving the lie to the idea that the opposition wishes to cooperate in this parliament. For the first time ever, the opposition is not even giving leave for the third reading of bills that they support.

Clearly, the opposition's claim that they want to cooperate is simply mealy mouthed words, because if they did want to cooperate they would continue to do what they have always done and what we did when we were in opposition, blessedly for only six years, and give leave for third reading debates. They are not doing so, because they are not trying to cooperate. That is relevant because they are not cooperating. I see that the member for McEwen, who is in the chamber, is looking for the connection. It is relevant to this debate because, similarly, the Manager of Opposition Business has not cooperated in relation to talking to me about the machinery provisions—changes to petitions and to procedures—proposed by the Procedure Committee, which are quite clearly noncontroversial. In fact, as a mark of my good faith, I said to the Manager of Opposition Business and to the crossbenchers in the first sitting week that, even if the government did not want to propose any more changes to standing orders, we would still allow a debate on standing order reforms so that the opposition and the crossbenchers could move amendments to the standing orders, and we would facilitate that debate. So all the way along I have tried to show my cooperation with the five crossbenchers and with the opposition

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

You're a saint!

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

The member for Grayndler says I am a saint. It is not often that I am called a saint, particularly by the member for Grayndler, but the truth is that we are trying to cooperate with the opposition because we want the 45th Parliament to be a constructive parliament that is good for Australia and makes the changes that Australians need, to ensure they have jobs, to ensure growth in our economy and to do the social reforms that are necessary in our society, including marriage equality through a plebiscite, which is our policy.

I have dealt with the canard of the Manager for Opposition Business that this has been as a result of 1 September. Some of the crossbenchers believe that the definition that I am seeking to reform in the standing orders would allow the government to recommit motions in the event that people miss divisions—for example, because they have left the building. The truth is that misadventure is well understood as a convention in this building. If somebody misses a division here or in the Senate because of misadventure, like, for example, being stuck in the facilities in the building, which has occurred in the past—on that occasion, unfortunately, because the member thought a door was a push-pull door when it was a sliding door—that is clearly a misadventure. The person will remain nameless. They are no longer with us, happily. They are still alive, I should say, but they are not with us in the chamber any more.

The SPEAKER interjecting—

I digress, Mr Speaker—I find the member for Grayndler distracts me from the task. But misadventure is clearly when a member of parliament, through some error or misjudgement, misses the division. It is not because they did not have a pair and left the building. That has been very clear as a convention of this place and of the Senate for a very long time, and the government is not proposing to change that convention.

I would also remind the member for Grayndler, who seems to have forgotten this particular important vignette, that the change I am trying to bring to section 132 of the standing orders is exactly the same way that the standing orders were before the 43rd Parliament. And for three years, as Leader of the House, he thought that was perfectly appropriate. He never made any attempt to change the standing orders in the 42nd Parliament to reflect his new-found love of democracy in the House of Representatives. He was forced, kicking and screaming, by the crossbenchers at the time to change standing order 132 in the 43rd Parliament.

Now, of course, we face different circumstances, and it is very important for the management of the democracy in which we live, and the House of Representatives, that the will of the people be reflected in votes. That is the purpose of standing order 132—that the will of the people at the election be reflected in the votes in the parliament. Therefore, if a member, through misadventure, fails to attend the chamber but would otherwise have been here to vote either aye or nay, that vote should be recommitted, and the government should have that capacity in the standing orders, under section 132, to do so on a simple majority. That is the purpose of it.

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

Under standing order 66—

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

You haven't got the call; I have the call. Let's turn to the library committee—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler has the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 66, I would ask for an intervention to ask a question of the Leader of the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. This is not an order of the day; it is a notice. The Leader of the House has the call.

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

He was on board!

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

I was on board!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not letting him accept it.

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

Of course, I introduced interventions in the House of Representatives, so I believe in them firmly.

The library committee has been a very important part of the furniture of the parliament for a very long time, but the view has been formed by the officers of the building that the usefulness of the library committee is no longer such that it should be accorded priority as a committee of the parliament. The committees of the parliament, as outlined by the motion that I have moved, deal with the key issues that Australia expects us to be getting on with—agriculture, communications, economics et cetera. And there is, of course, the selection committee, the petitions committee and so on. So there is absolutely no purpose for the library committee to continue and, as a consequence, we are pruning the library committee from the list.

I have now spoken to the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment, and I obviously do not support it. I would encourage my members to continue to support the government's agenda in terms of the standing orders, and I hope that the crossbenchers now have an explanation for what the government is proposing.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to. I call the member for Kennedy.

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

I would like to move an amendment to the motion before the House, to allow 45 seconds for crossbencher questions during question time.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for the brevity of his speech. The motion needs to be in writing.

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

I may have to stand corrected but I have been informed that the motion has been put in writing to the parliament. I move the amendment as follows:

(1)Insert proposed amendments to standing order 1:

1 Maximum speaking times (amendments to existing subjects, as follows)

(2)Insert proposed standing order 100 (f), as follows:

100Rules for questions

(f) The duration of each question asked by a government Member or an opposition Member is limited to 30 seconds. The duration of each question asked by a non-aligned Member is limited to 45 seconds.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here, Bob, I've got a Post-it note if you want it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker will cease interjecting. I call the member for Denison.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Kennedy wish to speak to the motion?

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

Yes, I do, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy has the call.

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

Mr Speaker, before I came to this place I thought that galahs had to have feathers but I have established today that obviously they do not.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will speak to his amendment.

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

In all seriousness, in 42 years in parliament it has only been for the last few years that the government majority has been cut down to that very small margin. What are we talking about here? What is the government scared of: giving us an extra 15 seconds a day? We crossbenchers must be terrifying.

Government members interjecting—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're voting for it.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're supporting you, Bob.

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

I would like to be able to hear myself speak, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sympathise with the member for Kennedy. He has the call.

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

It would be admirable to hear something intelligent coming from them, but I am not hearing anything to that effect.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Speaker, truly, I would like to have a chance to speak. If you want the call, you stand up and ask the Speaker if you can speak, right? Otherwise you should sit there and shut up.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the House on a point of order.

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

In order to assist the member for Kennedy—and I am happy to hear his speech—who might not have heard because of the hubbub, the government and opposition are both going to support his amendment.

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

I will speak exceptionally briefly. There is a hell of a difference between a question such as 'We are having flooding; could the minister please assist us over flooding in the Gulf of Carpentaria?' and saying: 'We have 60 kilometres of water where the three rivers have joined. Karumba is now an island. It needs to be evacuated, and your government is doing nothing about evacuating the population.' That is a question I actually asked in this place and I was cut down before I could give the detail which could have embarrassed the government into action. It was also asked in the Queensland parliament, except that the state member had the chance to get the full question out and get the helicopters in. I use that as an example, but I could use a hundred others.

Mr Speaker, I am greatly flattered by the resistance—which has now crumbled—of the government to giving me and my fellow crossbenchers an extra 15 seconds.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Denison wish to speak?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then the question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House, as amended, be agreed to.

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

I move:

That standing orders 29, 31, 34, 55, 133, 192 and 192 (b) be amended in the terms as registered on the Notice Paper:

29    Set meeting and adjournment times

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

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

31    Automatic adjournment of the House

(a) At the time set for the adjournment to be proposed in standing order 29, column 3 (set meeting and adjournment times) the Speaker shall propose the question—

That the House do now adjourn.

This question shall be open to debate and no amendment may be moved.

(b) If this question is before the House at the time set for adjournment in standing order 29, column 4 (set meeting and adjournment times), or if the debate concludes prior to this time, the Speaker shall immediately adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.

(c) The following qualifications apply:

Division is completed

  (i) If there is a division at the time set for the adjournment to be proposed in standing order 31(a), that division, and any consequent division, shall be completed.

Minister may require question to be put immediately

  (ii) If a Minister requires the question to be put immediately it is proposed under paragraph (a), the Speaker must put the question immediately and without debate.

Only a Minister may move closure of question

  (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 81, only a Minister may move during the adjournment debate—

        That the question be now put.

        The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

Minister may extend debate

  (iv) Before the Speaker adjourns the House under paragraph (b), a Minister may ask for the debate to be extended by 10 minutes to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised during the debate. After 10 minutes, or if debate concludes earlier, the Speaker shall immediately adjourn the House until the time set for its next meeting.

Question negatived

  (v) If the question is negatived, the House shall resume proceedings from the point of interruption.

Unfinished business

  (vi) If the business being debated is not disposed of when the adjournment of the House is proposed, the business shall be listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.

34    Order of business

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

Figure 2. House order of business

55    Lack of quorum

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

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

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

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

133        Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays

(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

(b) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

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

192        Federation Chamber’s indicative order of business

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

Figure 4. Federation Chamber indicative order of business

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

192b    Grievance debate

(a) The order of the day for the grievance debate stands referred to the Federation Chamber and shall be taken as the final item of business each Tuesday.

(b) After the Deputy Speaker proposes the question—

That grievances be noted—

any Member may address the Federation Chamber or move any amendment to the question. When debate is interrupted after one hour or if it concludes earlier, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the debate on the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

I am assuming this will be extremely popular with the members because it will move the dinner break from 6.30 pm to 8 pm to 8 pm to 9.30 pm. This is a very important and significant change. It means 8 pm will be a hard finish—the House will rise at 8 pm. But it does not mean that the government or the House loses any time for government business or private members' business, because in fact we are increasing the hours in the Federation Chamber for private members' business.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

David Feeney is very pleased about that, the member for Batman is particularly delighted. He is not only relegated to the backbench, he is now relegated to the Federation Chamber.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

In fact, I spoke in the Federation Chamber yesterday, member for Grayndler, on the passing of Eoin Cameron. Many parliaments around the world are moving to second chambers and copying the Australian example. It is a very good way. In fact, Labor initiated this change. It is a very good idea to be able to have non-controversial legislation, committee reports, delegation reports, condolence motions et cetera in the second chamber. And the second chamber has been used very effectively, over a lengthy period of time, for members' 90-second statements, the grievance debate and adjournment debates. By having a hard finish at 8 pm—which is simply moving the dinner break to 8pm to 9.30 pm, which is obviously 1½ hours—and by extending the hours in the Federation Chamber for committee business, government business and private members' business, we will actually be adding an extra 1½ hours of sitting time a week across the two chambers. But the timing of 8 pm is much more sensible management of the parliament.

When I first came to this place, we used to rise at 11 pm, which was never sensible. It was bad for our health. But now, in a much more modern era, people now care about their health, which they should, and they care about their families, which they should. We have many more younger families in this building represented in the parliament. Our own Minister for Revenue and Financial Services has a young family of her own. There are members on both sides of the House who have babies. I think the member for Adelaide missed one of the divisions earlier because she was tending to her young child. So these hours are much more family-friendly and sensible.

We already work a very long day. But what this means is that members will be able to stay in the building and keep working past 8 o'clock. Certainly the cabinet usually sits past 8 o'clock. Committee meetings can still be held at any time. In fact, we had backbench committee meetings on our side of the House at 9 o'clock last night in relation to the plebiscite bill. The parliamentary joint standing committees can meet after 8 o'clock. Nobody would ever accuse MPs in this buildings who come to Canberra for our sitting weeks of slackening off during the week. Our members work very hard on committee work, whether they are on the frontbench or the backbench, and this will ensure that those hours are reflected in the standing orders. As I said, we will be sitting an extra 1½ hours during the week, but we will be better managing our time. This is a very significant change that should be welcome on all sides of the House. I will be very surprised if the Manager of Opposition Business opposes it. I am sure every one of his colleagues, either backbenchers or frontbenchers, would be surprised to be dragged into that particular 'Hellfire Pass' of voting against this 8 pm hard finish.

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

I move opposition amendment No. 1:

(1)Insert proposed amendments to standing order 1:

(2)Amend standing order 34 as follows:

34 Order of business

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

Figure 2. House order of business

(3)Insert proposed standing order 104(d):

104 Answers

(d) After Question Time, and after any questions to the Speaker, the Speaker shall ask if there are any responses to Ministers’ answers. Each Member may speak for no longer than 90 seconds. The duration of the whole period for responses shall not exceed 10 minutes.

Everything that the Leader of the House just put is inaccurate for this simple reason: we changed the sitting hours last week. What the Leader of the House just implied is that what was there beforehand, in the previous parliament, is still in the standing orders. That is not true. Last week we changed the standing orders so that on Monday and Tuesday nights the dinner break begins not at 6.30, as the Leader of the House just said, but at 7.30. The Leader of the House is trying to appeal to his backbench by saying this means you can go home at 8 o'clock. Under the current rules, if you are not speaking in a debate, you can leave for the dinner break and not have to return at 7.30. It is not about what time people leave. We dealt with that last week in a change to standing orders that the Leader of the House just completely ignored when he misled us with information about what time the dinner break currently occurs. What he has just told the House is factually wrong because he moved the change the last time the parliament sat.

So why would he actually want this change? There are two things in front of us. One of them is that the adjournment question will never be put to a vote. Why do you reckon the Leader of the House might want to make sure that the adjournment question is never put to the vote?

I do not think it is to do with the good health of members opposite. I think it is to do with the health of the Leader of the House, because he has had an absolute shocker ever since he became the first Leader of the House in half a century to lose votes on the floor with a majority government. That is what he has had, and now, instead of saying to the Prime Minister, 'It won't happen again, because I can make sure our members turn up for work,' or, 'It won't happen again, because we've got some party discipline back,' he is saying: 'It won't happen again, because I'll change the rules so that nothing gets put to a vote. I'll change the rules so that the parliament shuts down.'

If a school has a problem with truancy, it does not decide to fix it by just shutting the school down. They have a problem with truancy on the other side, a huge problem which caused humiliation for those opposite, and they have decided to try to deal with it not by fixing the actual problem but instead by providing false information to the House—pretending that it is something to do with the good health of members opposite and that the changes that passed through this House unanimously in the previous sitting week never actually occurred—and putting to the House a position which is about making sure that the adjournment is never voted on and that we lose another three hours a week of parliamentary time.

This parliament does not sit very often, but this is a government whose members do not like the concept that, when the parliament sits, they hear different voices. When the parliament sits, they do not like the fact that different points of view are put. What they really do not like is that, wherever they go, they hear an attack on the government. They come into the parliament; there is an attack on the government. They go to their party room; there is an attack on the government. They go to a cabinet meeting, and the government is being attacked as well. Everywhere they go it is the exact same situation. That is why we have a government that does not want the parliament to meet. It does not want to schedule weeks for the parliament to meet, and when we are here those opposite want to make sure that they can take off out of here as soon as they possibly can. That is not a new principle. Those opposite decided to not even wait for the end of parliament when we were last here on the Thursday. But I love that the Leader of the House presents this to the House as though nothing happened—as though that Thursday afternoon is just so yesterday.

What the Leader of the House needs to acknowledge, and what he will refuse repeatedly to deal with, is that this government, as I have said before, does not have a working majority. All it has is a majority that refuses to work, and that is what those opposite are delivering to this parliament. The Leader of the House should know this: every time you change the rules, every time you use that bare majority that you have to try to crunch through a change, do not think it will not come back another way. Last night—the spectacle of it! For more than an hour at the end of the day yesterday, the Leader of the House and the Chief Government Whip came into the House and just sat here watching in case something happened. They just sat here. They did not make contributions but just watched in case there was something that they had not quite thought of that suddenly took off in the parliament so that they were here on the spot, on the site. This was the same day that the Leader of the House had already briefed government staffers to let them know to cover all eight exits of Parliament House, to be there making sure that members of parliament could not escape the building.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the Pyne Border Force!

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

That is right.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've got uniforms!

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

People at all eight exits getting their uniforms from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, making sure that they will decide—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will address the motion before the House.

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

which members of the parliament will leave this building and the circumstances under which they leave.

Mr Dutton interjecting—

I also have an amendment which I move. There is a boom mike over there, mate. Just calm down. I also move an amendment, which is seconded by the member for Grayndler, to establish a 'take note' debate at the end of question time. The Senate has a 'take note' debate. This amendment allows members of the opposition, sometimes government backbenchers when they have asked questions about their electorate, and certainly members of the crossbench to make 90-second statements in response to what has been said in question time. How many times have we seen answers given in this place that involve complete misrepresentation of the facts? But, because they do not involve a personal misrepresentation, there is no form of the House currently to be able to set the record straight.

The Leader of the House should support this amendment. Why? Because previously he advocated for it. When the Leader of the House held this job, when he made his speech at the National Press Club and he went through the different changes that should happen to standing orders, one of the changes that those opposite promised to bring to the House on coming to government at the 2013 election was to establish a 'take note' debate at the end of question time. So I put it to the government. We are asking no more than for the government to support a change that they previously have advocated. We expect that the government will look at this. There is no shortage of issues where we have dealt with the government coming up with a position that is the opposite of what they previously argued, but this is one where the Leader of the House has something in the exact form that he personally had previously proposed, and not only proposed but put forward as an election commitment at the 2013 election. So I urge the government members to support the Leader of the House as he was in 2013. The incarnation of what he has become in 2016 is something that only he can answer for. There is no doubt that he is a diminished figure since what happened that Thursday afternoon, but at the very least, on this amendment, we are asking the government to support no more than what they have previously advocated.

Our objection to the substantive change being put forward by the government is very simple. People, when they come to Canberra, should be able to debate legislation. There is nothing about members being able to leave the chamber or leave the building that is in any way threatened by the current standing orders, because that issue was fixed last week. The only reason for the substantive amendment that has been put by the Leader of the House is this: the government is in chaos, its backbench is a shambles, and those opposite would rather abolish votes than risk having to rely on their own members to turn up for them.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I do indeed second the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. We have had barely a week of sittings, and the parliament has been reduced to a shambles by this mob opposite. We had three years of minority government; it functioned well. We were in control not just every day, not just every hour and not just every minute but every second—every second of every sitting day we controlled the agenda in this House. The other mob: three days and it fell apart.

So upset were they with each other, they were running for the doors just to get away from each other. I thought to myself, 'What is the precedent of people running from parliament?' I say this in the hope that those brilliant producers at Insiders will be listening and will get out the footage of the gazelle who ran away from a division to try to avoid voting during that parliament. They ran away from the parliament.

Yesterday we had scenes in the Senate where people were not running anywhere, but perhaps they should have been. I think Senator McKenzie regrets not running from the parliament. That embarrassing performance—the depiction of a government without an agenda and whose senior members were incapable of giving a stump speech about their achievements one year into the government—said it all.

The real problem here is that the Leader of the House and the Government Whip and the people who missed the vote missed the vote. They missed a vote. What should have happened then? Should there have been some punishment for the Leader of the House? Perhaps. Should there have been some punishment or penalty against the Chief Government Whip? That has happened. That is a rotating door. She is the third one they have had during their first term of office, so we know there are lots of precedents for that. No, they have not done that. There was no action against the Leader of the House, no action against the Chief Government Whip, no action against the ministers who missed the vote and no action against the backbenchers who missed the vote. The action is against the parliament itself. They come in here and they say, 'We know the way to avoid missing a vote in parliament: we will stop the parliament sitting!'

This year we will sit for 51 days in total. We sat for three days—one day of which was ceremonial, and the second day of the actual sittings did not work out too well. So we are back here this week and then we are off again for another three weeks. This is a government in search of an agenda and in search of a reason for existence. 'What is the purpose of Malcolm Turnbull?' is what people are asking.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will refer to members by their correct titles.

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

The current Prime Minister. They are asking: what is the purpose of a change in prime ministers if the agenda is exactly the same as the former Prime Minister's and if there is nothing new coming through?

During the last parliament we sat here and had debate after debate about the unprecedented, so-called proroguing of the parliament. We came in here and we had speeches, just to fill time, about the Governor-General's speech in this chamber. The Federation Chamber, which is usually used for such purposes, was not even used. We have this pretence of a new government, to the extent of having had that proroguing of the parliament. But the Leader of the House has had very different views. This is what he used to say:

The people of Australia expect us to serve our electorates and legislate, not to spend 18 weeks here when we should be spending 20 or 21 or 22 weeks.

That was the Leader of the House, the member for Sturt. There are too many things he said, really, to go through. One of them was:

… the first point to be made is that, yet again, this government is squibbing on transparency and accountability and trying to avoid the parliament.

Well, it is all coming back now, just like, in the past, when he said:

Why doesn't it have to sit? There are two reasons. Firstly, it does not have a plan for the future for the Australian people. Secondly, it cannot rely on its numbers in the House.

That was the member for Sturt. Well, we did all right starting at 70. They start at 76. Imagine how bad it would be—just imagine it! They would struggle to get through prayers in the morning.

The Leader of the House is a big supporter of reform when he does not have to do anything about it. This is what he said to that esteemed institution, the Institute of Public Affairs. Now, you would not say something that was untrue to the Institute of Public Affairs, because they would pick you up on it. On 30 January 2013, he said:

I have long articulated the need for the creation of a 'take note' session to follow Question Time. The session would consist of a thirty minute period following Question Time which would allow a number of Members to speak on the significant matter of the day.

That is what he had to say at that time. He made it very clear, and he spoke about it complementing the matter of public importance.

So, I say: today is an opportunity to make that vision of the member for Sturt a reality. He can do it. He can do it by voting for it—voting for what he said very clearly on the record. He, of course, has also backed other reforms such as supplementary questions. He has backed a range of reforms. We are not putting them all forward here, but we are putting forward the best ones. He should take up this opportunity.

What is good about it is that he can even claim credit for it. He can say, 'I thought of it first.' This is an opportunity, member for Sturt, to be in the vanguard of reform because the truth is that this is a parliament that is in need of some proper reform. We have got the Seinfeld Senate over there—a Senate about nothing, meeting about nothing, with no business. We have got an agenda here one sitting week after we dealt with standing orders to change the sitting times and introduce reforms so that people could essentially leave and there would not be votes, divisions or quorums called after 7.30 on Mondays and Tuesdays—something that was not controversial and something that has been welcomed. Probably government members are not aware that that change actually took place.

If you are going to fix the problem, the position of the Leader of the House does not really fix it, because it is 8 o'clock and the problem you have got is that you cannot keep people till 5 o'clock. So, if you are going to solve the problem, we really should be knocking off straight after question time! I have got a bit of Italian heritage and the concept of a nap in the afternoon in Mediterranean countries is very civilised. La dolce vita. Get on board, member for Sturt. I challenge him to actually go the full hog—do what is necessary. You then will not lose a vote. But your heart is not in this half-hearted measure. Be a reformer. Be a visionary. Have some ticker and vote for the Pyne vision.

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

We have now seen why the member for Grayndler, not the member for Maribyrnong, should be the leader of the Labor Party. We have now seen why the member for Grayndler is the people's choice of the Labor Party membership. We have now seen why the member for Grayndler is staying in the parliament. He is staying in the parliament because he wants to be the leader of the Labor Party. We have just seen a 10-minute audition by the member for Grayndler for the leadership of the Labor Party. We know that after the last election in 2013 the member for Grayndler contested the leadership of the Labor Party against the member for Maribyrnong and won the vote. He actually won the vote of the Labor Party membership and he was done in by Senator 'Kim Il' Carr. He was done in by his own faction, by the Left. But the people wanted him and that is why I dubbed him the people's choice. He still carries a candle for the Labor Party leadership. I think a lot of people on this side of the House would think he would be a much more entertaining leader than grumpy Bill.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will refer to members by their correct titles.

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

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

Opposition members interjecting—

Well, you are all here. You are all stupid enough to still be here. Good luck to you. Good on you. Stay here and listen to my speech. The member for Grayndler left out some key facts in his lovely reminiscing through the past glories when he was the Leader of the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the Leader of the House is coming to the amendment now?

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

I am talking to the amendment, Mr Speaker.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening to the preamble, but you are coming to the amendment?

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

As relevantly as the member for Grayndler, who ranged very widely over my so-called history as the Leader of the House and Manager of Opposition Business and what I apparently said in the past in various speeches. I am now returning to the subject of the member for Grayndler's reminiscing—how the standing orders apparently used to be in his period of greatness.

I have in my hand not a list; I have in my hand the 61 votes that the member for Grayndler lost when he was the Leader of the House in the 43rd Parliament. In fact, he lost a further 13 when they did not reach the required 76 to be passed. In fact, in that period of time he lost 74 votes on the floor of the House, where the government was outvoted by the opposition and the crossbenchers, or just the opposition. Seventy-four votes in the 43rd Parliament were lost by the member for Grayndler as the Leader of the House, so it is rewriting of the history. All the new members of the parliament who are here listening at the feet of the member for Grayndler—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Orwellian.

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

He actually lost 74 votes. It is Orwellian, as the Minister for Urban Infrastructure says. If you keep repeating a lie over and over again, people will believe it. The member for Grayndler would have you believe that he never lost a vote on the floor of this parliament. He lost 74 votes on the floor of the parliament—61 outright and a further 13 that did not reach the required 76. The member for Grayndler had a little trip down memory lane, reminiscing about the period when he was the Leader of the House. It reminded me very much of Pa Kettle. Pa Kettle used to stand on his veranda and ruminate. Do you have a point of order, member for Indi?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Indi on a point of order?

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, actually I would like to move:

That the question be now put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Opposition members interjecting—

Members on my left will contain themselves. The question is that the question be now put.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a list of votes lost by the government in the House in the 43rd Parliament, on behalf of the Leader of the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

(1) Insert proposed amendments to standing order 1:

1 Maximum speaking times (amendments to existing subjects, as follows)

(2) Omit proposed standing order 29, substitute:

29 Set meeting and adjournment times

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

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

(3) Omit proposed standing order 31.

(4) Omit proposed standing order 34, substitute:

34 Order of business

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

Figure 2. House order of business

(5) Insert proposed standing order 35:

35 Priority of business

Government business shall have priority over committee and delegation business and private Members' business except on Mondays as provided by standing orders 34 (order of business) and 192 (Federation Chamber's order of business) and on Thursdays as provided by standing order 34 (order of business).

(6) Insert proposed standing order 41:

41 Private Members ' business

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

Private Members ' bills—priority

(b) The Selection Committee, in making determinations:

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

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

First and second reading

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

Priority following second reading

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

Alternation of notices

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

Participation of Speaker and Deputy Speaker

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

Voting on items of private Members ' business

(g) In the period set for voting on items of private Members' business under standing orders 34 and 35, private Members' orders of the day, having been recommended by the Selection Committee to be voted on, shall have priority and be called on immediately for passage through all stages, unless the Member with carriage of the item, or another Member at his or her request, sets a future Thursday for the item to be voted on.

(7) Omit proposed standing order 55, substitute:

55 Lack of quorum

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

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

(c) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between the hours of 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon on Tuesday, if the Member then so desires, notwithstanding that quorums called between 12 noon and 2.00 pm on Tuesdays are deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

(d) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between the hours of 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 9.30 am on Wednesday, if the Member then so desires.

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

(8) Insert proposed standing orders 100, 101, and 104:

101 Speaker ' s discretion about questions

The Speaker may:

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

(b) allow supplementary questions to be asked to clarify an answer to a question asked during Question Time; and

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

(9) Omit proposed standing order 133, substitute:

133 Deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays

(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

(b) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance on Tuesday, unless leave has been granted for the division to take place immediately.

(c) On Tuesdays, any division called for between the hours of 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm shall be deferred until 9.30 am on Wednesday, unless leave has been granted for the division to take place immediately.

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

(10) Omit proposed standing order 192, substitute:

192 Federation Chamber ' s indicative order of business

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

Figure 4. Federation Chamber indicative order of business

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

(11) Omit proposed standing order 192B

(12) Insert proposed standing order 197:

197 Return of matters to the House

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

(a) A matter may be returned to the House on a motion moved without notice at any time by any Member, no seconder required —

That further proceedings be conducted in the House .

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

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

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

Earlier in the debate today, the Leader of the House referred to a letter that had been sent to him containing a number of proposed amendments to the standing orders that have the support of the crossbench and, indeed, the opposition. He said that some of those were under consideration and might be considered further in the future. We have had a number of opportunities to debate standing orders, so I say to the minister for innovation: the future is now. Now we have the opportunity to pass some of these amendments that will make this parliament work better.

In the previous minority parliament, the 43rd parliament, there were a number of amendments that had been agreed to by the now Leader of the House. Those amendments included the prospect of private members having greater opportunity to not only bring their motions and bills on for debate but also have them voted on. That was signed up to by the Leader of the House at the time. They were referred to as being excellent reforms. Excellent reforms they were, because they allowed issues that might otherwise not get ventilated to be brought to the fore, debated and voted on.

I can give you an example of the kind of things that happened only because we had those standing orders in place. We found out during the last parliament that there were firefighters who were dying of cancer and they were not getting access to compensation. When they were turning up to WorkCover, or the like, to ask for compensation they were told: 'No. Unless you can tell us which particular fire you contracted your particular cancer at when you inhaled those toxic chemicals and toxic smoke we're not going to give you compensation.' So you had firefighters on shifts filling in for other firefighters while they went off and got chemo and radiotherapy. It was an appalling state of affairs.

I introduced a bill that was co-sponsored by the member for Kennedy, and other members of the House, that said we will change that. We will change that so that firefighters who get cancer are presumed to have contracted it from their work, because that is what the science said would be the case. We had the capacity to bring that on for a debate, so, when it was brought on for a debate, the government at the time—the Labor Party—thought that was a good idea, and they signed up to it as co-sponsors. Even more so, the opposition—the Liberal-National coalition—also looked at it and said, 'What a good idea. Let's sign up.' We ended up with a co-sponsored bill that had the support across the parliament, and that passed the parliament with the unanimous support of everyone—no-one dissented. Everyone supported it saying, 'This is a sensible change.' It was something that, despite the years of government work on both sides and years of committee work, had been overlooked. It took a private member to bring it here and say, 'Let's have a debate about it.'

Why were we able to have that important reform that has made a massive difference to the lives of many firefighters and their families? There were two reasons: one is that we had the time to debate it. We had the time to debate it because a selection committee said, 'We want crossbenchers' bills to be debated in this parliament as well as opposition bills and government bills.' But, crucially, we had the opportunity to have it voted on. In this parliament you have 150 members who each represent their electorate—a point that the member for Sturt, the Leader of the House, made in that very same speech to the IPA that the member for Grayndler was referring to. Mr Pyne said, 'Every individual member who is here has a job to do to represent their electorate.' We had the capacity to vote on it, so we were able to achieve meaningful reform. But it would be very gravely disappointing if we lost that in this parliament.

What this amendment proposes is that there is greater time to debate private members' bills—not at the expense of government business, but in addition to government business. We have greater time to debate those private members' bills. That means the crossbenchers in this parliament can have more time to have their bills debated. On a Thursday morning—here is a very simple amendment that should be supported by the government—we will have a short period, as we did in the last parliament, where votes on private members' matters can take place.

On the Thursday morning, we can move very quickly through a series of issues that have been debated elsewhere and then vote on them. If they go down they go down. But what you might find is that some of them get up, just as they did in the last parliament.

I do not understand what the opposition would be to doing this, because government business would still continue to be the majority of what takes place not only on a Thursday but, indeed, during the whole course of the parliament.

We have not had a response yet from the Leader of the House to this proposal that was put to him some time ago. I hope that what he is going to suggest now is that the answer is: yes. In the same way that he agreed with that very sensible amendment moved by the member for Kennedy, we have the chance now to say, 'yes' to that as well.

There are a number of other amendments that are included in this bundle. If the Leader of the House wants to segment those out, I am open to that discussion. I move them all as a bundle, because this will take us back to the procedures that were in operation in the minority parliament. What is becoming crystal clear after a fortnight is that the minority parliament worked better than this parliament. It would be a very good idea if we adopted the standing orders with respect to the last parliament.

I would hope that the government would consider the bundle of amendments, but, in particular, that one that will allow private members' business to be voted on—hopefully in conjunction with a selection committee—that will allow private members' bills, and especially those of the crossbenchers, to be debated and then brought on for a vote. In this parliament, the number of seats in this chamber are a reflection of the fact that a record number of the Australian population chose not to vote for one of the major parties. There is a great desire in the Australian population to have third-party voices heard. When we come here we want to not only move bills and move motions but also have them voted on, because sometimes those motions and those bills will be so good that they will succeed. I commend the amendments to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.