Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion moved by the minister:

(1) After "sessional order 65a", insert "and standing order 97".

(2) At the end of the motion, insert:

97 Daily Question Time

(a) Question Time shall begin at 2 pm on each sitting day, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt any business before the House and call on questions without notice.

(b) The business interrupted shall be dealt with in the following manner:

(i) if a division is in progress at the time, the division shall be completed and the result announced; or

(ii) the Speaker shall set the time for resumption of debate.

(c) Question Time shall not conclude until at least eight questions have been asked by opposition Members.

We were subjected to that unedifying display from the government, who have a right to change the sessional orders and the standing orders of this parliament—the right given to them by the Australian people to have 93 seats and do what they like. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I say to the government the following about these standing and sessional orders: it's reasonable for them to propose them under the circumstances, but the National Party is a defined political party under this parliament's rules and is sitting proudly as its own individual party separate from the Liberal Party—and the government knows that. It's purely a government trick to define them as crossbenchers. It's purely a government decision to say that the Nationals aren't sitting as their own party room. They are their own party and they sit together as their own political party. We don't accept the government's definition that they're part of the crossbench; the crossbench includes people elected as Independents and individuals to this place and people who have decided to sit independently. They meet the definition of 'party' in this House, by this House's rules, and they have an elected leader, by this House's rules; those are the facts. Regardless of any disagreement we have with them, or decision to sit separately as Liberal and National parties, they have the right to be treated as their own political party. They have the right to be given their own respect. They are not the crossbench. We reject that definition, absolutely.

The government has done that because, in its hubris and arrogance, it's decided to weaken the transparency of this House over time by various measures. We have seen the time allowed for the actual asking of a question reduced to a very simple 30 seconds, in a desperate, long-term measure to say, 'You have less and less time to get a question out to a minister.' We've seen a prime minister who, over time, has let fewer and fewer questions be asked each question time the longer he has been in office. Why do we think that is? Regardless of who's asking them, the Prime Minister has been cutting question time shorter and shorter.

If the Leader of the House admires the Howard government, he'll note that the Howard government—

Well, I think you said you're a big fan of the Howard government; I think that's what you were trying to say. 'In retrospect, it was a brilliant government' is what you were saying to us. At the time you didn't realise it, but now you see how good it was. One day you will see that about other governments. The Howard government allowed more questions in question time than you're allowing, more than the Prime Minister is allowing—and he's deliberately doing so.

These changes mean less scrutiny over the executive of the government—a vital function of this parliament, regardless of what side you sit on. Therefore, we don't agree with the ongoing process of the Albanese government to reduce transparency. When you couple this with the freedom-of-information changes the government is proposing that are friendless in our polity, friendless amongst the media, friendless amongst the crossbench, the National Party, the Liberal Party and anybody elected to this parliament, friendless in academia—they are friendless because they reduce transparency and scrutiny over government. This agenda the Albanese government are pursuing is deliberately against what they told the Australian people to get this supermajority they have got. Every opportunity they get, regardless of what it is, they will reduce transparency and reduce scrutiny. Over time, this erodes the whole parliament's ability to do its job.

So, while the manager of government business laughs and enjoys his political day, he is actually, under the cover of the problems we are having, reducing the parliament's ability to do its job. The truth of it is that the crossbench, the National Party and the Liberal Party agreed on a different order of business for question time, and the government rejected the fact that we could agree. That's the revealing truth about this situation. The government will not allow the parliament to agree if it isn't in the government's interests. We cannot decide the non-government order of questions, and the Leader of the House knows this. He's going to try and make sure that we fight amongst ourselves. This is deliberate. It's the agenda.

Government members interjecting—

It is. No, no, it is!

See this speech in context