Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Selection Committee; Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the Member for Cook to move the following motion:
That the House not consider Government Business order of the day No.1, the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013, until such time as a:
(1) full research report is completed on the true incidence and nature of abuses and non-compliance within the 457 visas programme, in comparison to other programmes, by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to substantiate the requirement for the measures proposed in the bill;
(2) full consultation programme with industry and other stakeholders has been conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the impacts of the measures contained in the bill; and
(3) regulatory impact statement has been completed by the Government in relation to Schedule 2 of the bill relating to the proposed labour market testing regime as required by the Office of Best Practice Regulation and submitted to the Parliament.
The government is seeking to ram through this Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 for the unions before the election.
Thank you, Speaker. This is the second attempted suspension of standing orders in a row. In the past it has been ruled by previous Speakers that where there are—
An honourable member interjecting—
consecutive—thank you—suspensions of standing orders in order to disrupt the parliament, it has been regarded as disorderly conduct. Given the state of the parliament in our last sitting days and the amount of business that is before the parliament, I fail to understand what is motivating the member for Cook in moving this motion. The fact is this legislation was introduced in the normal way and is being dealt with in the normal way.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point of this motion is to suspend sessional and standing orders to prevent this bill being debated in this parliament because the government has not consulted, it has not done its homework. It is making up claims about abuses in the system: 10,000 abuses, the minister has said, and he has had to openly admit that he just completely made it up. That is the basis for the bill that is coming before this parliament at the behest of the unions. Just how much more union business do you want to get into this parliament?
Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Cook is casting aspersions on the minister. He is not allowed. During a suspension of standing orders, he must discuss why standing orders should be suspended. He has not mentioned one word about that, and he is out of order.
Standing and sessional orders should be suspended because the government is seeking to ram a union driven bill through this parliament in the last days of the 43rd Parliament. This bill has not been subject to the proper consultation and processes necessary for this House to consider it, and the government is seeking to ram through things on behalf of the unions.
Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 90, Reflections on Members, indicates:
All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
The member for Cook has reflected on the motivations of the minister who has brought this legislation before the parliament.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business has just indicated, again, that the member for Cook is being disorderly—
by pointing out that he is putting forward the argument. He must stick to why standing orders should be suspended, and he must withdraw the reflection on the minister. He should withdraw.
Let me table, for the benefit of the House, the open letter to members of this parliament from the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Migration Council of Australia, which have refuted the claim made up by the minister about 10,000 abuses of the system. It says:
We are greatly concerned by the lack of supporting evidence, damaging rhetoric and poor process …
This is why standing orders need to be suspended—because process and consultation have not been followed.
There is some element of irony in those opposite objecting to points of order being made, but nonetheless this is a motion to suspend standing orders and the member for Cook—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Further to my point of order, under standing order 65, Deputy Speaker, while I have been giving my point of order, the member for Mackellar has continued to interject and throw slurs across the chamber, as has the Manager of Opposition Business. Both of them clearly want to be Speaker—and there have been opportunities to put themselves forward before now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying: standing and sessional orders should be suspended because this government is seeking to ram a bill through this parliament without following proper process and without doing the proper consultation and homework on the bill that is required. Again, I seek further to read from the letter:
… damaging rhetoric, poor process—
Standing order 90 indicates that you cannot make imputations against members. As Leader of the House, I have strong objections to the imputation that a bill is being 'rammed through' this parliament when there is no bill even being discussed in this parliament. No-one on this side of the House has moved that any questions be put. What we seek to facilitate is discussion—
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would refer you to page 189 of Practice. I would refer you to the paragraph that says that members have been disciplined by the chair for raising spurious or frivolous points of order or introducing debate when rising on a point of order and for persisting with a matter. As chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is incumbent upon you to rule him out of order and not take any more points of order, as the chair has often done when she sees that it is to put another spurious point of order.
I second this motion. This bill is based on a false premise. It is based on the fact that the minister has made up the number of rorts in order to run down the 457 program.
Speaker, this is a suspension of standing orders. The member must address why—
The SPEAKER: Leader of the House will resume his seat—and the individuals around will desist from assisting the chair! The Leader of the House.
The member must address why standing orders should be suspended and not address the substance of the motion.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
I ask that that be withdrawn by the member for Mackellar.
Standing and sessional orders should be suspended because the premise on which the bill is brought into the House is that no research has been done on the particular incidences and nature of abuses. A full consultation with industry and other stakeholders has not occurred by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and a regulatory impact statement has not been brought into the House—
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
Mr Albanese interjecting —
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the House! People should be aware that in the middle of a division making comments is even more dubious than when we are actually in the normal process. The Leader of the House.
Order! The member for Mackellar! I did not hear the comment. I am not going to ask the member for Mackellar to withdraw, but I will remind people that reflections on members are highly inappropriate. The question is that the member be no longer heard.