|
representatives vote 2014-03-27#5
Edited by
caseybriggs
on
2015-04-15 00:12:09
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion which has not been moved in this form in the House since 1949:</p><p class="italic">That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:</p>- A motion of no confidence in the speaker:
- "That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:
- (a) that in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;
- (b) that she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;
- (c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and
- (d) of gross incompetency in her administration of Parliamentary procedure."
<p class="italic">(a) that in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;</p><p class="italic">(b) that she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;</p><p class="italic">(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and</p><p class="italic">(d) of gross incompetency in her administration of Parliamentary procedure.</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>Before I call the Leader of the House, I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business that earlier today the opposition was unable to call a division on a second reading motion because they had one member only in the House. Subsequent to that, they called a division on the question that the bill be agreed to and then called the division off. Then, when we had a division on the third reading and all the members were present, they failed to provide a speaker on the next piece of business. I suggest they get their own house in order. I now call the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>Leave is not granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson moving immediately—That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:</p><p class="italic">(a) that in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;</p><p class="italic">(b) that she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;</p><p class="italic">(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and</p><p class="italic">(d) of gross incompetency in her administration of Parliamentary procedure.</p><p>Madam Speaker, I note that this is an example of all the noise being on this side of the chamber. The reason these standing orders need to be suspended, Madam Speaker, is in the first instance—</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>Order! There will be silence on my right so that the speaker may be heard.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Madam Speaker, what has just happened in this House is worthy of suspending standing orders. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia has someone been named for calling out 'Madam Speaker'. That is what just happened in this House. Under no definition of what is within House <i>Practice</i> or of history or of anything that has happened in this parliament since 1901 has anyone claimed that the words 'Madam Speaker' or 'Mr Speaker' were unparliamentary. And yet the member for Isaacs did not just get warned or thrown out; he got named for calling you 'Madam Speaker'. Yesterday, we had a member of parliament thrown out for laughing. Madam Speaker, we have spent months watching you laugh at every joke from the ministers at the expense of members of the opposition. But, somehow, that is an appropriate way to conduct the role.</p><p>Madam Speaker, I do not dispute what you said before that there are times in this chamber when things are cooperative. The example you gave this morning you articulated in a way that I would not disagree with one bit. But I do disagree with your decision to make that argument from the chair before the Leader of the House decides whether or not to grant leave. The comments you made, Madam Speaker, were reasonable comments for someone on either side of the chamber to make but not reasonable if you are meant to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.</p><p>Madam Speaker, it is acknowledged on both sides of this House and throughout the country that you are a formidable parliamentarian. That is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that, for your entire time in opposition and when you have sat on those benches opposite, you have been one of the people who have been able to come to the dispatch box and launch scathing and effective attacks on us as the Labor Party. You are respected as a member of parliament for that. But we cannot support you continuing to behave that way when you want to sit in the Speaker's chair.</p><p>In response to the claim of 'stunt' that I heard from the front bench, Madam Speaker, we have not rushed to this. We raised concern on the day that you were elected as Speaker. The tradition referred to in <i>Practice</i>and this is why we should be suspending standing orders—that non-executive members nominate and second the election of Speaker, and then bring the Speaker to the chair, is one of the powers of the backbench and the non-executive members of this House. That tradition was broken the moment you became Speaker. We then found on 13 November last year that, despite the Prime Minister claiming that certain words specifically were sure to be considered unparliamentary, you decided that name-calling was going to be considered legitimate in this parliament. On 19 November last year, on issues relating—</p><p>A government member: Have you got a speech ready?</p><p>We prepare a sheet most days, I am afraid. Today is the day when, considering that for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth someone was thrown out for saying 'Madam Speaker', everybody has to acknowledge that this farce has gone on for far too long. Madam Speaker, on 19 November last year, you reinterpreted a question asked by the member for Herbert, who had made no mention of numbers in the question. I raised a point of order, saying that there was an issue of direct relevance, and your response was:</p><p class="italic">The question was one that was pertaining to numbers, as clearly was indicated by the questioner.</p><p>Notwithstanding that there was no reference to that in the question at all, you came up with a new question to get around standing order 104.</p><p>When we debated the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill, you waited until the moment when the opposition were moving amendments and then decided that amendments which had been flagged and had gone through the appropriate processes of checking would be disallowed by you, denying the opposition the capacity to put our amendments. We were not expecting to win the vote, but we were expecting to have our right to make our case.</p><p>Madam Speaker, on 2 December last year, we had a circumstance where the Leader of the Opposition after he was given the call for one purpose went on to seek leave for another. You claimed that you had called on him to resume his seat prior to him saying, 'I seek leave,' and we asked you to check the tapes. You came back, allegedly having checked the tapes, Madam Speaker, and what you told the House was not true. You told the House that he, the Leader of the Opposition, again sought the call. The tapes do not reflect that. The tapes show the exact opposite. But, once again, the information provided to this parliament was changed so that you could pretend to be acting within the standing orders.</p><p>Madam Speaker, the issue of time limits has been one where time and again we have seen ministers in this House be allowed to continue their comments for quite a period after their speaking time has elapsed. But, when an opposition member asks a question, suddenly the 30-second rule is enforced—and enforced completely strictly. If you want to provide a level of lenience for government members, that is fine; it is the impartiality of the way you do this job that is at issue, Madam Speaker. To have a circumstance where leave is not granted for this motion is extraordinary. As to the action that you took today, 98 people have now been thrown out of the House by you—every one of them from the opposition. So it is 98-love. No Speaker in the history of Federation has a record like that.</p><p>We have had situations with amendments. I remember we had an amendment that I moved to a motion from the member for Denison, where you ruled, in answer to a point of order from the Leader of the House, that the amendment was too far away from the original motion—notwithstanding that on 2 December last year you allowed the Leader of the House to move an amendment to a motion from the Leader of the Opposition that completely reversed everything that was in the first motion. Madam Speaker, if I stand to raise a point of order, you wait until the minister has completed before you hear the point of order. At each issue, at each part of this, the practice that is followed is the same on every occasion. The Prime Minister is now laughing, but he will not be thrown out—nor should he be. But I can tell you that when he defends knights and dames it is really funny and we will laugh.</p><p>This motion today is not one that people rush to move. On every occasion that a motion of this nature is moved—whether it is a suspension of standing orders or whether leave is not granted—it is carried forever in practice. When opposition members get to this point they do not expect to win the vote, but they do expect to have a situation where everyone in Australia knows bias when they see it. Madam Speaker, we do not doubt for one minute your effectiveness as a warrior for the Liberal Party, but that is not the job you chose to take on. Yet in the Speaker's chair you have continued to act as though enjoying the victory for your own side is your job. Madam Speaker, the parliament deserves more than that. The parliament cannot have confidence in a Speaker who refuses to be impartial.</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|