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

I thank the honourable member, and the honourable member will have the opportunity to continue her remarks at a later hour.

Earlier today, the question on a second reading amendment moved by the member for Fenner on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 was put to the House and, as I understand it, called for the Ayes.

As the question on the amendment was called for the ‘Ayes’ and not contested, the amendment was validly passed and proceedings on the bill should have ceased at that point. I understand that questions on the second and third readings of the bill were then put. This should not have happened and those proceedings were not valid. The Votes and Proceedings record will be corrected to show the second reading amendment being agreed to and proceedings on the bill ceasing at that point.

House of Representatives Practice discusses the possibility of a second reading amendment being agreed to and states:

… if a reasoned amendment were carried…it could be argued that the amendment would not necessarily arrest the progress of the bill, as procedural actions could be taken to restore the bill to the notice paper and have the second reading moved on another occasion.

As the Member for Fenner’s amendment was in the form ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading…’ I consider this is a reasonable course of action and I will permit that to occur.

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

An earlier part of that same section of Practice says:

As the House has never agreed to a reasoned amendment, it has no precedent of its own to follow in such circumstances.

There has never been a more chaotic government, there has never been a more chaotic parliament and there has never been a Leader of the House who has had to endure humiliation from his colleagues on such a regular basis.

Let us make clear what it is that was carried unanimously in this room today. Every member of the House a bit earlier resolved the following: that the House calls on the government to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia. Well done to the member for Fenner for being the first member of parliament in the history of our Federation to have a second reading amendment carried.

Mr Speaker, on your own part, you have now made it into Practice, without any doubt. There is no way of having a new edition of that book without involving the new Smith ruling, which is a very reasonable way of approaching the situation that we are in. The situation that we are in is not the fault of the Speaker and it is not the fault of the clerks or the administration. It is entirely due to one of two reasons, and I do not know which: either the government had a moment of truth, realised how bad they were and felt compelled to vote with us, or they are as incompetent as they have looked every day that this parliament has met.

Let us not forget that we have only had our first 10 days of the House of Representatives sitting. In those 10 days, the government have lost control of the floor of the House of Representatives through some of them going home, and then today they lost control of the floor of the House of Representatives when they all stayed! We have also had a Treasurer who has introduced legislation containing a $107 million black hole, which was discovered by the shadow minister for finance, and we have had a Senate that ran out of legislation to debate. When they voted about how bad they were on tax avoidance and international multinational tax avoidance, who were the two ministers at the table? The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, who is in charge of tax, and the Minister for Justice, who is in charge of international crime! The two people who would know! There is a reason why the member for Warringah stood up today and said, 'It's good to be popular' and there is a reason why the stocks of this government have been tanking as quickly as they have.

Mr Speaker, in your ruling, you have put a way forward. It is sorely tempting to make the government remain in its humiliation—sorely tempting. But someone has to save this mob from themselves. So, if the Leader of the House chooses to follow the course of action that has been proposed by the Speaker, I will grant leave; I am not responsible for the member for Grayndler, but I think we will be able to find a sensible way of proceeding tonight. But be in no doubt: we have only been sitting 10 days and this is not a one-off mistake. This is an incompetent government that reckons it has a working majority. I make clear to the House that, if the first 10 days are any guide at all, then this is a government that is not counting up its days—this is a government in countdown.

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

Mr Speaker, I appreciate your statement to the House about the inadvertent error made earlier in the day. I also appreciate that the Manager of Opposition in the House is allowed to have his moment in the sun, gloating about an inadvertent error. I make the point that there are several owners of this error, and I am not going to criticise them individually, because it is wrong to criticise the people who work for us and the people who were sitting in the chair. I am not going to do that.

There were a series of events that led to this outcome, and it is a pity. I do appreciate the way that the Speaker has handled it from the chair. I also appreciate the Manager of Opposition Business's good grace in dealing with what is clearly human error—something that I would have done when I was the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, as I often did. The member for Grayndler lost 73 votes when he was in this parliament. But this is not the case that happened here.

Unfortunately, there was an inadvertent error. There is a mechanism to fix that, and that mechanism has been agreed by me and the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. I appreciate that. Since both sides are supporting this bill and, therefore, we are really arguing the toss over something that is not very important—we all support the bill—in order to be able to advance the matter further, I will seek leave to move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 being restored immediately and proceedings being resumed with the second reading to be moved.