Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

This procedure is in two parts. First of all, this is a procedure I hadn't expected to have to come back here and update. I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving the following motion immediately—That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows:

65A Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192B).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

I'll save the arguments for after the suspension, when we get to the second motion.

Question agreed to, with an absolute majority.

I move:

That sessional order 65A be amended to read as follows:

65A Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the third, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, fifth, ninth, thirteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-seventh and thirty-first questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least seven crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During each one hour period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least five crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192B).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the House, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(h) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(i) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

For the information of members, the reason we have to do this is significantly changed seating arrangements on the other side of the House. Effectively, when the member for New England moved to the crossbench, it had not occurred to us at the time that the entire National Party was going to move to the crossbench with him, and, while he's not their leader, they appear to be his followers in the pathway over there. We end up with a new seating arrangement here. We still have the traditional crossbench over in the corner there, but we now have the cross, the very cross and the apoplectic all in front of us here.

An honourable member interjecting—

How long did it take you to come up with this arrangement? Seriously! The one who just interjected was one of the people who, over summer, were saying: 'Gotta get the parliament here quickly. Gotta legislate straightaway. Gotta implement the whole of the antisemitism report straightaway.' The moment he gets here—the exact person interjecting now—it's: 'Oh, it's all too fast. Can you slow down, and these bits from the antisemitism report—can you just not go ahead with that, please? Can you not implement those?' Those at the back were saying, 'Can you please split the bill so we can vote against it twice?' That's the position they ended up with, effectively opposing any measures of change as a result of the horrors that happened with the antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi.

We end up with a situation now where we go back to Billy Hughes with, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere.' He would join every party except the predecessor of the National Party. But where did the National Party decide to draw the line? On the bit of the legislation that would ban the Nazis. Of all the hills to die on, that's the one that made them decide they couldn't possibly remain part of the coalition anymore. They couldn't possibly stay there, because of the part of the legislation that would ban the Nazi Party. Effectively, the Nazis saw it coming, and we had two strong reactions to that part of the legislation: the Nazis disassembled themselves, and the Nationals disassembled the coalition. Those were the reactions that we had from both.

There are a number of things that change as a result. While the Speaker wasn't willing to oblige in terms of reading out the names of the committees, there are a whole series of committees where you have opposition members defined as members. Anyone who was a Nat in any of those committees has now been forced to leave immediately. They're no longer eligible, because they're not members of the coalition.

Now, we could restructure the committees this week; I just have no idea what the arrangements on that side will be in seven days time, and I don't want to be in a situation where the committee process of this House is completely left hostage to the chaos and the indulgence of the coalition—well, the former coalition. In fact, I might remind you, Speaker, now that there is no longer a coalition, the term 'no-alition' should be completely in order because it is not the official name of any of them in any permutation whatsoever. So we're not changing the committees today. At some point we might have to, because the number of people on the crossbench is now 28 and the number of people in the opposition is 28. It has happened before. It happened in the early 1930s, but it has not happened since then that we've had a situation where the crossbench has managed to rival the opposition in this House.

What we will change today is the order of questions for question time. Effectively, we can't have a situation where we only have—while the sessional order covers a much longer period of time, very often we end up with nine or 10 questions a side, and that would mean, at the moment, under the sessional order, that the crossbench—which occupies half of the non-government benches—would in fact only get three of the questions. We need to be able to change the sessional orders as a result of that.

The change that we're doing is that, while the first question will still be from the opposition, it will then alternate from this part of the non-government benches to that part, and it'll go back and forth for the first eight non-government questions. Then we have the second set of eight, under the sessional order, where it will alternate but start with the crossbench, going back and forth.

How long this will last I don't know. Watching the media, I don't know if we're moving to a situation where the crossbench in fact starts to become larger than the opposition. I see members of the crossbench nodding, but you might not want the ones you get. Be careful what you wish for! When we talked about the growth of the crossbench last time, you never expected this one was going to happen.

This is the only practical way to be able to deal with the chaos that we have from those opposite. As I say, maybe I have to come back in a week's time and do another sessional order—maybe not. Maybe we end up with a situation where—there's a tradition that the opposition always get the first question. We've kept that here, but no-one who watches Australian politics closely and is still alive has seen this before. The concept that two parties who are unable to govern their relationship with each other in any sort of adult way could be credibly considered to govern an entire nation just beggars belief.

When I first arrived here, it was the Howard government. We disagreed with a lot of what they were doing, but they were formidable and they were unified. To see the disaster that is before us now is something which is extraordinary and, I will say, unexpected. We will continue to update the procedures as the mayhem from those opposite demands.

See this speech in context