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

While those around him may say how unfair that is, if you look at his face, you can see that he thinks it is a fair call. But it is true that he has been somebody who has been more than willing to take advantage of every standing order that is there. Standing orders that were significant to them in opposition they want gone now they are in government.

The culture of secrecy that has been there from day one in this government is something that today enters the Australian parliament. Today, the culture of secrecy and the silencing of public discussion reaches the floor of the House of Representatives with the culling of speaking times, with the abolition of supplementary questions and—most disturbingly—with the change to the role of the Speaker to make the Speaker the chief censor in the Australian parliament. I find it absolutely extraordinary that anybody who believes in having a robust chamber could think that it was fair and reasonable for the Speaker to adjudicate on whether or not a political argument is accurate simply because someone on the government side has stood up and said that they feel that they were misrepresented.

After what we saw this morning with the interpretation that was litigated in the way that it was—and 'interpretation' is a very generous way of describing the farce of this morning—I think we have a pretty good idea that the government intend for this censorship power to be used absolutely by the Speaker. While they intend to engage in childish name-calling and in the teasing of a school playground, they also intend to make sure that political argument is shut down. This House should not let them get away with this today. This House should not stand idly by while the executive is again allowed to silence debate in this chamber.

Not only are the principles that are being undone principles that have been longstanding practice within this parliament; they are also the opposite of what this government told us it was going to do. In January of this year, the current Leader of the House made a speech explaining what changes he would bring to the new parliament if he became Leader of the House. Those election commitments, one by one, have been abrogated. We and the Australian people are discovering that those opposite are not being who they told the Australian people that they would be. Backbench question time is gone. We even had the quip from the Leader of the House earlier, saying, 'Every question time is backbench question time!' He was not saying that in January; he was not using that argument then. The Leader of the House said then that there would be an independent Speaker who would not attend party room meetings. That died yesterday. And it will be a very sad day on Tuesday of next week when, once again, the exact opposite of something that the government said they would do will happen now that they occupy the government benches.

We had from the Leader of the House example after example of reforms that he would make to the parliament. Another one, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, was about your own position. There was going to be a guarantee in writing signed by the Leader of the House that that position would go to the opposition party. That was abrogated yesterday. Deputy Speaker, we have great respect for you in this job. We have a view about a particular promotion that may have been warranted. But there is no doubt that the litany of examples of this government doing something very different to what it told the Australia people it would do has now reached the floor of the parliament.

It is bad enough that the government are not doing the things they told us they would do. What is worse is that they are now going in the exact opposite direction. They are carving up speaking times and making sure that the opportunities for dissent within this parliament are taken away. They are turning the role of the Speaker from that of an arbiter and adjudicator to that of a censorship board. That is not what the Speaker is meant to be about. I am not sure what recommendation has caused this rush of blood to the head of the Leader of the House—that somehow he thinks that the role of the Speaker should be fundamentally changed so that, instead of being the person who manages and adjudicates the debate and who looks after the House, they become the person to stifle debate and to prevent members of parliament being able to put a counterview to the executive.

If you wanted to put a counterview in speeches, those speeches have now been cut. If you wanted to put a counterview in the MPI debate, that debate is about to be curtailed. If you wanted to pursue a minister through a supplementary question, the supplementary questions are now gone. And if you thought the Speaker had any chance of being impartial, unfortunately, what is proposed here puts the Speaker in an impossible position. It puts the Speaker right in the middle of making a judgment call that is not procedural but political. The House should recognise exactly what the Leader of the House is putting forward here and should reject it.

See this speech in context