Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to 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.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to 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!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, members on my right!

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

It is. It is you, and of course you'll exploit and wedge this. I understand that, but you're doing it openly, brazenly, in the full light of day. I'd invite Australians not to forget that this government, from the moment it was elected until this moment, has reduced—at every juncture it can—scrutiny and transparency. It seeks to cut off the freedom of information rights of Australians, even as we speak.

I move my amendment because this will actually force the hand of the Prime Minister, and it will reveal the government's true agenda. My amendment says—and I say to every member here—that the Prime Minister may not cut off question time until eight opposition questions have been asked. That means that the non-government side will get its chance every day to have a minimum number of questions, stopping this slide that the Albanese government has started of the fewest questions asked per parliament of any parliament in our history. The manager of government business is right; he hasn't seen some things here, but we haven't seen a prime minister with fewer questions asked per question time either, and that is a problem for our democracy. That's why we move these amendments. That's why I believe all of the crossbench and the National Party and the Liberal Party and the opposition are all united in saying that we should have more scrutiny, more transparency and more opportunity for questions in question time in parliament.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I tell you what—there is a lot of hubris in the House on that side. There is a lot of hubris within the Canberra bubble. Yesterday, while the government got together and the Prime Minister was making jokes about the Australian people, talking about MAFS and other things, I was out in my community talking to community members. Someone said to me yesterday that they are shocked and scared. They are shocked and scared about 2.30 this afternoon. They are shocked and scared about what the RBA is going to do. And there is a reason they are scared. They are struggling to put food on the table.

The reason this government continues to fail is because it has no scrutiny. This prime minister has no scrutiny within his caucus. The backbench of the Labor Party know very clearly that they cannot follow their own conscience. The backbench of the government know that, if they go against the Prime Minister, what happens to them is that they're out. They get kicked out of the government. They get kicked out of the ALP.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister for aged care asks me: who's been kicked out of the ALP? A lady called Senator Payman. Did you forget about Senator Payman, who had the temerity to talk in caucus with a different opinion to the Prime Minister and had the temerity to vote with her conscience in the Senate? How dare a member of the government have a conscience and choose what they would like to do, Minister for Aged Care! What happened when Senator Payman exercised her conscience? She did not leave; she was kicked out. She was told, 'You cannot sit with the ALP anymore because you do not follow orders.' So it is crucial that the opposition be able to hold this bad government to account because there is no-one within that caucus that will hold the government to account.

Let's use another example: gambling reform. Let's talk about the Murphy report. The member for Bennelong is prepared to put a few statements out there publicly about the importance of gambling reform. The member for Macarthur has said—and I want to commend the member for Macarthur; he's had the courage repeatedly, last term and this term, to speak out about this government without voting against them—that if the Murphy report and gambling reform went to a conscience vote it would pass this House. They are the words of the member for Macarthur. Do you need better evidence and proof of why you need an opposition with the ability to hold the government to account? This caucus does not have the courage of their convictions to vote on a private member's bill about gambling reform to honour Peta Murphy and to honour the Murphy report. They know that if they do, they will follow Senator Payman out of the ALP and out of the government. This is the challenge that we have here, being able to hold this government to account.

At 2.30 today, they know that the Australian people are going to be let down again. What has happened with this Treasurer is he has continued to pour fuel on the economic fire of inflation and he has made it worse. He promised the Australian people that he had slayed the inflation dragon. There is one country in the world where inflation and interest rates are going up, and that's Australia. These are the examples of why the coalition needs these questions, why the Liberal Party and why the non-opposition members need these questions to hold this government to account. I support the motion moved by the member for Mitchell.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, the issue we have is that there is no coalition. Just looking at it, if the Liberal Party have eight then obviously the crossbench will have to get eight, which means that the government will have to get 16. That's 32 questions. So what are we looking at? About 112 minutes. And with the condolence motions and everything else, that means question time is going for around two hours every day. And then, after that, you're going to have the MPI. You're starting to tie things up quite considerably.

The one thing you don't want to draw attention to is exactly what's happening. Staying here for two hours with the cameras focusing on what inevitably will be sorted out, but currently is a total fiasco, is probably not the best thing for the Australian people. It's a little bit of an indictment. I ask the coalition to just get it together and get us back to a normal parliament.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.