Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the member who nominated the member for Fisher firstly as Deputy Speaker of this House and then as Speaker of this House, it is appropriate that I contribute to this debate. I accept that. I have gone back over the words that I used, both when I nominated the member for Fisher as Deputy Speaker and then as Speaker, and I do not resile from anything that I said then. Indeed, the member for Fisher was so successful in his job at question time that, for the first time in over 20 years, he managed to silence me for fear of being thrown out of the parliament. That has never happened to me in 22½ years.

The debate before the House today is a very serious debate because precedents will be forged as a result of it. It has to be taken seriously. This is not student politics, which is where I first observed the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, at Sydney University. This is the real show, the alternative government, the alternative Prime Minister. Student politics stunts are not enough to remove a Speaker, to cripple a House because people are upset that they are not on this side of the House. Let us have a look at the issues. Let us have a look at the principles. I was trained as a lawyer, a criminal defence lawyer, so cases I did involved people going to jail if they were found guilty. That was the penalty. The Leader of the Opposition knows about being in court, about having false accusations made against you and what that can do, and allowing the process to go the full length.

In relation to the Speaker, there are no criminal charges that we know of. There is an investigation into Cabcharge documents—allegations that were withdrawn by the civil complainant, Mr Ashby, and were not pursued. So that is not before us. There is not a scintilla of evidence of abuse of Cabcharge documents—a criminal charge, not a civil charge, which is the more serious. I say to members of the opposition: where is the evidence of criminal involvement of the Speaker? There is none. Indeed, the presiding judge in the Federal Court made a number of statements last week which brought into question the filing of that affidavit in court in those terms and its subsequent withdrawal. What we are dealing with is a civil charge where the Speaker is contesting it as an abuse of process and the judge has reserved. The opposition want us to come in and adjudicate. I say to the crossbenchers—because I think they are the ones who will determine this debate—that that is a very dangerous precedent. The member for New England has previously cited the case of Nick Greiner, who was found by ICAC to be corrupt and was dumped as Premier. But subsequently a court of appeal acquitted him and found that ICAC had got it wrong. In the first instance, we should be waiting for the real court, not the kangaroo court.

The thing that is most disturbing is the other procedures. I used to be on the Privileges Committee and I have been on the Procedure Committee; I understand some of the history of this case. I remember the case of Fitzpatrick and Browne, who this parliament put in jail for three months in 1955. At least Fitzpatrick and Browne addressed the bar of the House. Where is the procedural fairness in this shonky motion? This is a Speaker who is absent, who does not have the opportunity to have someone address on his behalf, in a situation where the numbers are depleted because he has voluntarily not taken his place in the House, which was his decision alone. So he does not come in and vote, he does not come in and participate in debate and he does not preside in any way. What is the urgency of this?

I am not here to endorse private text messages. A judge of the Federal Court will adjudicate on what they constitute. I say: what if it were me? How would I want it adjudicated? Is this the way we are going to administer justice—hang, draw and quarter someone? It is not because we are impartial. Let's be very clear, the vote will be a partisan vote as far as the opposition is concerned. As far as the government is concerned it is not on independent grounds—we do not know what the Speaker's answers to some of these allegations are. We do not get, 'We're going to put this on the table to give an opportunity for this matter to be considered and dealt with later on,' but rather it gets brought on for debate. This is a very dangerous precedent.

I can understand some members having particular concerns, but this is not about Mr Slipper. This is about principles. I am not going to sit here and try to say that I am better than you or whatever. My record speaks for itself. I have been in this place for 22½ years. The Privileges Committee, of which I have been a member, which operates impeccably towards all sides of the parliament has always operated unanimously. These are grave issues, but we are not prepared to give the Speaker of this House an opportunity to present a case—to have a case pleaded on his behalf. He is going to be one vote down. Where is the pair for him? If he sat in the chamber, the government is one vote down. These are things that need to be thought of. Why do I say that? Gee whiz, I remember 1975 and the appointment of replacement senators. We changed the Constitution.

See this speech in context