|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#3
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 09:02:34
|
Title
Business — Sessional Orders- Business - Standing orders - Don't let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I seek leave to move the following motion immediately:</p><p class="italic">That standing order 97 be amended by the addition of a new paragraph, standing order 97(c), to read as follows:</p><p class="italic">  Question time must not be concluded before 3.30 pm each day.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:</p><p class="italic">That standing order 97 be amended by the addition of a new paragraph, standing order 97(c), to read as follows:</p><p class="italic">  Question time must not be concluded before 3.30 pm each day.</p><p>This is demonstrably a matter of urgency. We have just had a change to the standing orders made on the basis of a series of arguments put by the Leader of the House and, indeed, by the crossbench, which argued that it's been the conduct of the opposition—it was said—which meant there had been a reduction in the effective number of questions that members of the crossbench were able to ask. I make the point, and I do this without any criticism of the crossbench, that the first time this was put to the opposition was at approximately 2.15 this afternoon. There was no consultation with the opposition from the crossbench. More seriously, there was no consultation with the opposition from the government. The Leader of the House made no attempt to raise this matter with me.</p><p>As I have explained to the House, the practical consequence of the change which has just been made is that there will be a reduction in the effective number of questions which are open to the opposition to ask every day. Standing order 65(a) is predicated on the assumption that there will be 22 questions. But the fact is that the conduct we've seen from the government and from the Prime Minister is, typically, that question time is being brought to an end after 20 questions or after 18 questions. Indeed, today, question time was brought to an end after 18 questions.</p><p>I emphasise that the opposition and the crossbench have a shared interest in scrutiny. We have a shared interest in accountability. The crossbench are here to represent the interests of their constituents. The opposition are here to represent the interests of our constituents. Indeed, in a Westminster system there is a very strong interest in the government being subject to the day-to-day scrutiny of an informed opposition and of an informed crossbench. I think we have a shared interest in as much practical and effective scrutiny as there can be of the government of the day. If we look at what has been one of the direct causes of the concern that the crossbench has raised, and I acknowledge the concern, it is that standing order 65(a) drafted by the government—drafted by the Leader of the House—is premised on the expectation that there will be 22 questions in question time. What we have in fact seen in practice is that question time is being brought to an end by the Prime Minister after 20 questions or after 18 questions. As has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Petrie, who is a student of these matters—all on this side of the House are students of these matters—we have seen from the behaviour of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, a very strong commitment to question time going for a period that, in practical terms, has been considerably longer than has been the regrettable practice of the current Prime Minister.</p><p>Mr Speaker, I say to you, but more importantly I say to every member of this House: on the opposition side and on the crossbench side we have a shared interest in scrutiny. We have a shared interest in holding this government to account. Our constituents ask us to do that. As to the solution that has been put forward and the change to the standing orders that has just been made by the House—and, again, I must express my regret that there was not a proper opportunity for consultation with the opposition—I say particularly to the crossbench: my door is always open. Our doors are open and we welcome every opportunity to sit down with you, brainstorm these issues and find a way to make our parliament work more effectively in seeking answers to questions from government. We seek to do that on behalf of the Australian people and consistent with what has been the historical role of opposition throughout the Westminster system, referred to for centuries as 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'. That is an important role. It's an important role in our system and, regrettably, it can sometimes be the case that prime ministers—perhaps new prime ministers—can find that scrutiny a little unappealing and a little unattractive. But it's not about how people feel, whether people like it or not, it's about its importance to the system.</p><p>There is an urgency to this matter. The reason that standing orders should be suspended is that we have just made a change to the standing orders which bears quite significantly on the operation of question time and on how effective it will be as a means of holding the government to account. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the crossbench but I also welcome comments including from, for example, the member for Warringah, who, in her observations, noted she felt that some of what the opposition had said had substance. So we have, in effect, before us a partial solution to a clear problem.</p><p>The problem we have is that the government said there would be 22 questions, and the government said that there would be an allocation of those questions under a certain ratio, under a certain formula, as between the opposition and the crossbench. We made arguments vigorously as to whether we thought that formula or that allocation was right, but in good faith. We've worked under that allocation once it has come into effect.</p><p>It is unfortunate, I think, that this government's attempt to deal with this issue—and it is a novel issue; I and the opposition acknowledge that it is a novel issue—have proved to be wanting so early in the life of this parliament. It's particularly unfortunate that a key trigger of the reason why the government's attempts to deal with this issue, a key trigger for the problem here, the reason that the government's attempted solution has not worked, has been the conduct of the Prime Minister himself.</p><p>What we have put, and we say this as a matter of urgency that the House needs to consider now, is effectively the second half of the solution. Let's put two halves together and make a whole. What we're proposing is that if one part of the solution has been a change in the respective sequencing of questions being asked by the opposition and by the crossbench, another part of the holistic solution here needs to be that we look at the total length of question time. We've been pretty reasonable in what we've proposed. We could have proposed that question time go, for example, to four o'clock or even to five o'clock, but we've proposed, quite reasonably, 3.30. That is not without precedent at all, that question time go to 3.30.</p><p>Mr Speaker, I say to you and I say to the House, this matter is urgent because of the changes that have just been made to the standing orders. It is unfortunate that the opposition was notified of those extremely late, but we've put on our thinking caps. We've thought with alacrity and good heart about how we can come up with a holistic solution to the issue that the parliament presently faces.</p><p>That holistic solution is the one embodied in the motion that I am now proposing, that standing orders ought be suspended so I am able to move the motion that standing order 97 would be amended by the addition of a standing order 97(c), which would say as follows: 'Question time must not be concluded before 3.30 pm each day.' What that would do is allow a satisfactory minimum period of time for question time to occur. We would be very open to it continuing later, should that be the government's judgement. I suspect it won't, but we'd be very open to it.</p><p>This is a practical solution, which addresses both the legitimate concerns that the crossbench have raised and the legitimate concerns that the opposition have raised. It's unfortunate that we've seen a little bit of game playing from the government, some of those experiences from backroom Labor politics on display today. But we're saying let's join together for a kinder, gentler parliament where we can work together to achieve outcomes for our constituents.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Is the motion seconded? I call the Leader of the Opposition.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I second the motion and I'll make a brief contribution because we've got very important business to deal with in the House—two speeches that we're all sitting here very anxious to listen to. But this is an important issue that needs to be resolved before the House can move on.</p><p>I want to deal with a couple of points. Firstly, the arrangement that the honourable member spoke of, the amendment to the standing orders, essentially, in this parliament reduced the numbers from 10 to eight for questions that the opposition could put to the government. That was quite a departure from practice over many, many parliaments. It was driven by the inclusion of the crossbench members, and I acknowledge that; that's fine. But there is nothing to this argument about the proportionality, though—that's the first point. The member for Petrie rightly pointed out that the numbers here in the opposition are 58, and that is roughly five times the numbers on the crossbench. So there's nothing to that argument. It's a facilitation of the crossbench. The government came to an agreement—at about the same time they cut all their staff, of course—that they would have an arrangement in place where the crossbenchers could ask questions. We're in support of that, and we have made that point clear today. But the reality is that we are now moving beyond that to a point that wasn't contemplated initially, and that is to reduce, in effect, from eight to seven questions the number that the opposition can put to the government of the day.</p><p>If this were an aboveboard action, if this were something that the government were proud of, if this were something that, in concert with the crossbenchers, was done transparently, if we had have been advised of this cosy arrangement before question time, not during question time, that would have been a different scenario. There may have been some legitimacy to what is being argued here. But that's not what's being argued. The argument around there somehow being a conspiracy by the opposition to pad out question time so that those members on the crossbench couldn't achieve their third question I will just deal with as it is complete nonsense.</p><p>I have met in good faith with each of the members of the crossbench. I extended to them an opportunity to speak with me on issues that are important to them. Not one of them has taken up the opportunity to raise this issue with me. That's because it is not a legitimate criticism. We haven't raised points of order here to try and exclude their opportunity to ask another question of the government. What interest would we have in that? We're happy for questions to be asked of the government. We think they're a bad government. Whether it is us, the Greens or the Independents asking questions of the government, I am fine with all of that. So to suggest, which is the point that the member for Goldstein made, that somehow the legitimacy of her point here and her secret agreement with the government is to try and deal with an issue of our making is a complete nonsense. I am not going to stand for it. I am not going to be besmirched in that way. It is not genuine. If it were a genuine concern that the member for Goldstein or, indeed, the member for Kooyong had, they would have come to see me and raised it. I have said to them that I have an open door in relation to any issues that they have. There's been not a peep.</p><p>When we hear about transparency and we hear about new conduct, a new parliament and a new way of behaving and conducting ourselves, that's not been on display here today. We have seen a government that saw this coming. The manager of government business is an experienced hand. He saw them coming a mile away. What did they come with? They came with an argument that we, as an opposition, would be able to ask one less question of the government. Why wouldn't they take it up? What happens in the circumstance where, as today, there was a condolence motion at the beginning of question time? To the government's credit, today it extended beyond 3 pm to accommodate the time that was taken for the condolence motion in relation to Mikhail Gorbachev. That was an appropriate extension today, but that is not anything other than a discretion exercised or not by the government of the day. That hasn't been accommodated for in the proposition from the honourable members of the crossbench today. There's nothing in the standing orders that says that the government must extend, when a proper condolence motion is considered by this House, question time beyond 3.10, which would be the appropriate way to do it.</p><p>So I think there is a lot of reflection to take place here. The government are not going to allow this motion to get up. They will seek to close it down. But I think it is a very poor reflection on those members who have contributed in a way that misrepresents what this is really about today.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The Leader of the Opposition has accurately predicted what I am about to say. Let me first of all, though, deal with some of the comments that have been made on the way through. Firstly, there was the comment about us not allowing debate. The former coalition government, during its time in office, gagged debate 654 times. In this exact sort of motion, the two speeches that have just been heard never would have been heard. Never—not a chance. It would not have happened 654 times. But allow me—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Are you taking a point of order, Member for Dickson? The Leader of the House will resume his seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I rise to make the point of order that the statement made by the minister is completely inaccurate. It is false. He has misled the parliament and he should correct the record now, at the first available opportunity.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an Opposition [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2#g114.1) introduced by Bradfield MP [Paul Fletcher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bradfield/paul_fletcher) (Liberal) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow another motion to amend the standing orders to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. The result of the vote means that the House will not proceed to debate and vote on that subsequent motion.
- In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Paul Fletcher [argued](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2#g114.1):
- > *This is demonstrably a matter of urgency. We have just had a [change to the standing orders](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) made on the basis of a series of arguments put by the [Leader of the House](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/watson/tony_burke) and, indeed, by the crossbench, which argued that it's been the conduct of the opposition—it was said—which meant there had been a reduction in the effective number of questions that members of the crossbench were able to ask.* […]
- > *As I have explained to the House, the practical consequence of the change which has just been made is that there will be a reduction in the effective number of questions which are open to the opposition to ask every day. Standing order 65(a) is predicated on the assumption that there will be 22 questions. But the fact is that the conduct we've seen from the government and from the Prime Minister is, typically, that question time is being brought to an end after 20 questions or after 18 questions. Indeed, today, question time was brought to an end after 18 questions.*
- > *I emphasise that the opposition and the crossbench have a shared interest in scrutiny. We have a shared interest in accountability. The crossbench are here to represent the interests of their constituents. The opposition are here to represent the interests of our constituents. Indeed, in a Westminster system there is a very strong interest in the government being subject to the day-to-day scrutiny of an informed opposition and of an informed crossbench. I think we have a shared interest in as much practical and effective scrutiny as there can be of the government of the day.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:*
- >> *That standing order 97 be amended by the addition of a new paragraph, standing order 97(c), to read as follows:*
- >> *Question time must not be concluded before 3.30 pm each day.*
-
-
|