Showing posts with label Federal Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Parliament. Show all posts

Thursday 19 February 2015

David Hicks' conviction vacated: Every member of the former Howard Government, including the current Australian Prime Minister, now have egg on their faces


Every Australian Senator and Member of Parliament should take note of this monumental error by the former Howard Government, its prime minister, ministers and backbenchers – which included Prime Minister Tony Abbott - and the failure of domestic national security agencies to offer advice based on law and fact.

What this clearly demonstrates is that an Australian Parliament when passing anti-terrorism/national security legislation and, a Federal Government when creating policy in relation to terrorism/national security or responding to citizens held by foreign powers, need to eschew any tendency to hysteria and block their ears to dog whistling in the media when considering legislation before the House of Representatives and/or the Senate or the circumstances of individual citizens.

Governments make mistakes and giving them the additional powers will not eliminate the potential for error. Instead it may perversely increase this risk.

ABC News 19 February 2015:

Australia's David Hicks, a former prisoner at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, has won a legal challenge to his terrorism conviction before a military court in Cuba….
Last year, an appeals court ruled material support was not a legally viable war crime but prosecutors argued the conviction should stand because Mr Hicks agreed not to appeal as part of the plea deal, an argument that has now been rejected by the US Court of Military Commission Review….
Stephen Kenny, Mr Hick's lawyer in Australia, said the decision confirmed his client's innocence.
"Well it means David Hicks' conviction has been set aside and he's been declared an innocent man so it confirms what we knew all along," he said.
"David Hicks was innocent and that has formally been recorded by the military commission itself."….

BACKGROUND


David Hicks, an Australian citizen, was ‘captured' in Afghanistan in December 2001. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was detained by the US Military on the basis that he was an enemy combatant.
                         
After almost three years in isolated detention, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy and was committed to face trial before a Military Commission established pursuant to Presidential Order. However, before the trial could proceed, the US Supreme Court found that the military commission system was unlawful.

David Hicks was once more left in detention without charge and with no prospect of release in the short or long term.

In late 2006, the military commission system was re-established by an Act of the United States Congress and in early 2007 David Hicks was again charged and committed to face trial before a newly constituted Commission.

In March 2007, over five years after his initial capture, David Hicks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

In April 2007, Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine months of his suspended seven-year sentence.

Hicks was released on 29 December 2007, but was placed under a 12 month control order.

The Law Council took a close interest in David Hicks' case and played a prominent role in bringing his plight to the attention of Australian public. Throughout his period of detention, the Law Council was highly critical of:

* The inability of Hicks to effectively challenge the legality of his detention;
*  Hicks' treatment in detention;
* The flawed and inherently unjust rules of procedure and evidence of the military commissions;
* The lack of any legal foundation for the charges initially pursued against Hicks;
* The retrospective nature of the charge eventually pursued against Hicks;
* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' detention without charge;
* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' trial before a military commission;
* The terms of Hicks' plea agreement; and 
* The unnecessary imposition of a control order on Hicks upon his release.

Over this period the Law Council issued more than twenty press releases, public letters to Parliament and reports, including three reports from the Law Council's Independent Observer at Hicks' trial. These materials are available below.

Monday 8 December 2014

In which the Speaker in the House of Representatives looks to Prime Minister Abbott before deciding her course of action


At between 9-11 secs this YouTube video shows The Speaker looking directly at Prime Minister Tony Abbott, he signals her with a slight shake of the head and immediately Bronwyn Bishop states she personally finds the Leader of the Opposition's question offensive……


Sunday 7 December 2014

In which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop indicates that she considers being asked to leave the Chamber under standing order 94(a) on the last sitting day of the parliamentary week to be a form of early mark excusing an MP from further attendance


Excerpts from House of Representatives Hansard for Thursday 27 November 2014, in which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop (left) first indicates that she considers being asked to leave the Chamber under standing order 94(a) on the last sitting day of the parliamentary week to be a form of "early mark" excusing an MP from further attendance and, then barely an hour later complains that those so ejected were possibly conspiring to get that early mark she had freely offered:

The SPEAKER: [approximately 14:02] Order! When questions are asked, I am not going to have this perpetual wall of noise and interjection going on while an answer is being given. If it is to continue, many people will leave the chamber. Those who want early marks can have them.

The SPEAKER (15:13): I would simply say to the Manager of Opposition Business that the behaviour today was an absolute disgrace. Looking at the list, I can see that quite a few of them are indeed Victorian members, who perhaps wish to go back and campaign. Others may wish to have early planes, but there was a deliberate campaign of noise and disruption, and I am fortunate in having standing order 94(a) with which to deal with it, otherwise it means naming people and taking up the time of the House. Simply to stand there and try to say that you all behaved like little angels and that you were picked on is pathetic.

It is worth noting that when Ms. Bishop assigned an ulterior motive to the Victorian MPs she chose to ignore two facts:

1. Victorian MPs were not the most prominent group of members she ejected - that honour went to New South Wales.

2. At the time she was speaking, only one of the 18 MPs had completed the one hour exclusion period under 94(a). Therefore she had no proof and no basis for implying the five Victorian MPs were absent because they; perhaps wish to go back and campaign.

According to the Hansard record the 18 Labor MPs (7 from NSW, 5 from Victoria, 2 from Queensland, 2 from WA and 1 each from SA & Tasmania) ejected during Question Time on that day, left in this order commencing at approximately 14:04 pm and finishing at approximately 15:01pm:

The member for Chifley (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Greenway (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The members for Batman and Corio (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not these MPs returned to the Chamber
The member for Franklin (Tas) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Wakefield (SA) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber   
The member for Hotham (Vic) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Hunter (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Griffith (Qld) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Grayndler (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Melbourne Ports (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Shortland (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Wills (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Fremantle (WA) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Kingsford Smith (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Charlton (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Moreton (Qld) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Perth (WA) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned

* Photograph form The Canberra Times

Thursday 4 December 2014

Which NSW federal electorate will disappear in the electoral boundary redistribution currently underway?


The are 48 federal electorates within New South Wales with 48 sitting Members of Parliament.

As part of the current Australian Electoral Commission boundary redistribution process begun this month, one of these electorates will be removed from the map below before the 2016 federal general election.

Which one will it be?

ABC election commentator Antony Green suggests that it may be the Riverina electorate which will disappear completely.

However, a number of boundaries will have to be adjusted and The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 1 December 2014 :

Political pundits believe the biggest effects will be felt in the upper Hunter Valley and lower North Coast of NSW where enrolments have fallen the most dramatically.

This redistribution in NSW, WA and the ACT would not favour either an early federal election as Green points out or an unexpected by-election and, for the NSW North Coast would be particularly complicated:

The redistribution process will then take about nine months for NSW, possibly shorter for Western Australia. This will be an annoying complication for the Abbott government if it chooses to use any available trigger to request a double dissolution in 2015.
An early election in a state with an unchanged seat entitlement has no complications. The existing electoral boundaries would be used.
But under a High Court ruling from the 1970s, if a state's entitlement to seats in the House changes, then the changed number of members must be elected for the state at the next election.
This means that if an election is called mid-way through a redistribution in a state with changed entitlement to seats, then a method needs to be used to create or abolish a seat while leaving other boundaries in place.
The mechanism that has been in the Commonwealth Electoral Act since 1984, but to date never used, is a 'mini-redistribution'.
In a state set to lose a seat, the two adjacent electorates with the lowest enrolment would be amalgamated into a single electorate.
In a state set to gain an electorate, the two neighbouring electorates with the highest enrolment would be quickly divided into three electorates.
How would this operate in New South Wales ......based on enrolments at the end of June 2014?
On current enrolments, the National held seats of Page and Cowper on the north coast of NSW would be amalgamated into a single seat called Cowper-Page. On June statistics this joined seat would have an enrolment of 192,530.
The next four possible amalgamations would be Page-Richmond (192,839), Newcastle-Shortland (193,795), Farrer-Riverina (193,929) and Lyne-Paterson (194,377). Only one pairing of electorates would be merged, but which two will depend on enrolments when the election is called.
Cowper-Page combines two National held seats, Newcastle-Shortland combines two Labor held seats, Page-Richmond combines a Labor and National seat, while Farrer-Riverina and Lyne-Paterson combine a Liberal held and National held seat.....
and     
A double dissolution after the determination date but before the boundaries were finalised would require a mini-redistribution. That means this messy process would be used for a double dissolution between the end of 2014 and the last quarter of 2015.


Sunday 30 November 2014

Speaker Bronwyn Bishop's head count grows



The Sydney Morning Herald noted on 27 November 2014 that:

The total number of MPs removed by Ms Bishop in the life of the current Parliament is 285 – 280 of them Labor.
Ed Husic, Nick Champion, and Melissa Parke – who had never before been sent out – were among the MPs to be removed from question time on Thursday.

Excerpt from House of Representatives Hansard of 27 November clearly demonstrates that it takes little to be ejected from the Chamber these days:

The SPEAKER: The member for Freemantle on a point of order.
Ms Parke: Government members have been asking and answering questions all week about the China free trade agreement—
The SPEAKER: You are to speak to the standing order. What standing order are you referring to?
Ms Parke: Standing order 100(d)(i): 'Questions must not contain statements of fact unless they can be authenticated.'
The SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. Indeed, having sat down she too will leave under 94(a) sequentially.
The member for Fremantle then left the chamber.

Friday 11 July 2014

Abbott Government's conniving falls apart in the Senate


The Abbott Government’s attempts to take advantage of the inexperience of newly-elected senators saw its bills repealing the carbon price mechanism and associated measures rejected by the Senate on 10 July 2014, culminating in this vote:

The PRESIDENT (12:21): The committee has considered the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and has disagreed to the bills. The question now is that the report of the committee be adopted…..
The question is that the report of the committee, disagreeing to all of the bills, be adopted.
Senate divided. [12:23]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Ayes ...................... 37
Noes ...................... 35
Majority ................. 2

Not ten minutes later, this came to pass……


The Coalition is reaping what it sowed. It has repeatedly treated the Parliament with contempt in its effort to neuter parts of Labor's financial advice laws before they had full force on July 1.

Rather than put changes before the Parliament as an amendment to Labor's act, it introduced them by regulation when the Parliament wasn't sitting. It was aware of legal advice from Arnold Bloch Leibler that they would not survive a challenge in the High Court. Regulations are meant to assist the implementation of acts, not to nullify them.

Labor alleges that Treasury sent a copy of the regulations to the Senate tabling office on July 1 and then attempted to withdraw them, saying it didn't want them tabled until the last possible date, next Tuesday, July 15. What is not tabled cannot be disallowed.

Directed by a vote of the Senate to table the regulations immediately, the Minister, Mathias Cormann, refused. Cynics suggest he was trying to delay the process long enough to get through to the five-week parliamentary break and then accuse the Senate of creating uncertainty when it tried to exercise its rights.

Then Labor's Senator Sam Dastyari pulled a stunt, one worthy of Cormann himself.

He read from the regulations and had a Labor senator demand that he table the document he was reading from.

In the confusion the motion passed with the help of the Greens and a handful of independents. On Monday Labor will give notice of a motion to strike the regulations down. If it succeeds, consumers will be protected in the way Parliament originally intended. It will have got around the workaround.

Twitter: @1petermartin

Monday 16 June 2014

Memo to those new Australian senators due to take their seats on 1 July 2014


Memo to senators-elect Joe Bullock, Matthew Carnavan, Bob Day, Chris Ketter, Jacqui Lambie, Glenn Lazarus, David Leyonhjelm, James McGrath, Ricky Muir, Linda Reynolds, Janet Rice and Zhenya Wang,

A national price on carbon pollution came into effect on 1 July 2012.

The Australian economy did not subsequently crash and burn, as then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had predicted.

In fact the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased in the 2012-13 financial year by 2.6 per cent, labour productivity rose by 2.2 per cent over the same period, the number of employed persons grew by over 122,000 nationally and, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) stood at 2.4 per cent which was the sixth lowest cost of living figure in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 12 nation international comparison table.

Likewise, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the electricity production/consumption fell by 5 per cent between January 2012 and December 2013 according to the December 2013 quarterly update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory released in April 2014, with a national fall across all industry sectors of 0.8 per cent.

Emissions from waste and industrial processes also began to fall.
What this all means is that the so-called Carbon Tax is working efficiently and effectively in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

To repeal the Clean Energy Act 2011 and associated legislation and regulations would be a wanton act of ideology-driven vandalism.

Wednesday 4 June 2014

Anthony Albanese: "Abuse of power continued over and over again" in the Australian Parliament since Abbott Government sworn in


The fight continues across the Dispatch Box over the contention that the present Speaker in the Australian House of Representatives, Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, is biased and abuses privilege.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 27 May 2014:

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): Madam Speaker, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:
That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests…..

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Albanese: Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Yes, I have.
Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.
The SPEAKER: And I have a copy of it.
Mr PYNE: The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee
to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Correct…..
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:01): Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.
They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.
Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not!
That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!
Tony Abbott:
… I've always supported an independent speakership …
Press comments from him:
I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …
Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.
This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.
Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:
… the Leader of the Opposition—
Tony Abbott—
… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.
They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.
But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:
We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …
This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.
What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.
The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold
that job!

The exchanges recorded in Hansard a day earlier which lead to Anthony Albanese speaking against Leader of the House Christopher Pyne’s motion …….

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): Madam Speaker, under standing order 103 I have a question for you in your role as the administrator of parliament. How many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?
The SPEAKER : I know the member for Watson was late into the parliament at nine o'clock this morning so he probably did not hear the statement I read on that occasion, so I will read it again.
On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take the posters down at my request and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. That is the answer to your question.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 179 of House of Representatives Practice, where it states:
For many purposes the Speaker is in effect 'Minister' for the Department of the House of Representatives and jointly with the President of the Senate is 'Minister' for the Department of Parliamentary Services.
As you would appreciate, ministers are not able to hold political functions in departmental resources. I ask again: how many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?
The SPEAKER:  I refer the member also to the Practice, which refers quite clearly that the Speaker is in charge of the domain of Parliament House, which was made quite clear from the original time of the Speaker holder back in 1901. I have said that members may use their suites for whatever purposes they see fit, and that includes you, but they may not use them for an illegal purpose. Therefore, it is not the business of either executive government or others to ask members the purposes for which they use their offices. That is the rule.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, in your role as administrator of that department, which then goes to the finances of that department, I ask: how much has the Liberal Party paid on each occasion for the use of the Speaker's dining room for fundraisers and has the ordinary $600 venue hire fee, which applies to all private dining rooms, been among the payments made?
The SPEAKER : I will not engage in debate on the question. I have made the ruling. I have said that members may use their offices for their own purposes.
Mr BURKE (WatsonManager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, the Sunday Canberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report.
The SPEAKER: I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, House of Representatives Practice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose?
The SPEAKER: I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I seek the call.
The SPEAKER: You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said.
Mr Burke: I seek the call.
The SPEAKER: You have the call.
Mr BURKE (WatsonManager of Opposition Business): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:
Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives.

It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party…..
The SPEAKER interjecting—…..

The SPEAKER (15.35): Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House….
The SPEAKER (15:36): What is the point of order?
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about—
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call.
Ms Plibersek: You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not.
The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PYNE: You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Bowen: Madam speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: If this is meant to disrupt debate—
Mr Bowen: No it is not.
The SPEAKER: Then I will accept the point of order.
Mr Bowen: I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, by the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment.
The SPEAKER: Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call…..

Monday 2 June 2014

There's the "we" again from one of that co-joined pair in the House of Representatives



The Federal Liberal Minister for Education and Leader of the House Christopher Pyne has now taken to answering on behalf of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, and apparently including her in his use of the term “we”.

House of Representatives Hansard 26 May 2014:

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Albanese: the Leader of the House is about to breach privilege against a member. I do not know how he has that letter. The letter is not the same letter. That is correspondence between a member of parliament and a minister. That is quite clearly subject to privilege.
Mr Pyne: Rubbish!
Mr Albanese: That is quite clearly subject to privilege, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on what basis?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I think we know the point of order that is being made by the member for Grayndler.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: On what basis?
Mr Pyne: Because we understand the point you are making.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.
[my red bolding]

* Photographs found at Google Images

Tuesday 27 May 2014

Once more Speaker Bishop demonstrates her lack of boundaries



Bronwyn Bishop has been hosting Liberal Party fundraisers in her Parliament House Speaker’s suite, a move that has raised further questions about her role as an impartial adjudicator.
A spokesman for Ms Bishop said there was nothing illegal or improper about the practice, and no official rules appear to exist. But no recent Speakers interviewed by Fairfax Media had used their office for party fundraising.
Asked about a recent fundraising event held in the Speaker's Parliament House suite, Ms Bishop’s spokesman said: "From time to time the Speaker holds private functions in Parliament House as does a large number of members and senators... the cost is charged to her private account.”
"There is nothing illegal about it, there is nothing improper about it,” he added.
"It’s the use of a room that every other Member of Parliament does often. Are you chasing up all the other people that held fundraisers at Parliament House?”
Recent Labor Speakers Anna Burke and Harry Jenkins said they had never used their Parliament House office for party fundraising events.
“The Speaker’s office is representative of the Parliament,” Ms Burke said.
“The Parliament is not owned by the government of the day, it’s owned by the people. And it would be highly inappropriate for the people’s house to be used as a fundraising arm of a political party.”
The House of Representatives clerk would not comment on whether it was proper for the Speaker to be using her office for fundraising. He referred questions to Ms Bishop’s office.....

The Daily Telegraph 23 May 2014:

About 20 Liberal donors were charged $2,500 a plate at the intimate dinner, which was briefly attended by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, The Sunday Telegraph understands.
Mrs Bishop’s office said it had not breached any electoral laws and all food and drink consumed was charged to her private account to be paid for by the Liberal Party.
Her large parliamentary suite includes a formal dining room that opens on to a parliamentary courtyard. As Speaker, she also collects a taxpayer funded salary of $341,477 a year…..
Mrs Bishop’s fundraiser was one of many events held on budget night by the Coalition and Labor, including a $500-a-head function for hundreds of Liberal donors in the Great Hall.....

Tuesday 20 May 2014

Puppet On A String: Bronwyn Bishop, Liberal MP for Mackellar and Speaker in the House of Representatives



The independence of the Speaker has again been compromised after the government was caught directing her to bring applause for Bill Shorten's budget reply speech to an end.

As it happened.....


How the world found out about it.....

Friday 4 April 2014

Insults hurled in the 44th Australian Parliament


There are only two procedural digests published to date which cover the 44th Australian Parliament, however recorded offensive words uttered by government, opposition and independent members of the House of Representatives are beginning to mount.

Perhaps it is time to consider a parliamentary version of the swear jar - $1,000 deducted from annual salary packages for each insult thrown across the chamber. 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Procedural Digest No. 111, 12-21 November 2013


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Procedural Digest No. 112, 2-12 December 2013

Wednesday 2 April 2014

On 27 March 2014 Federal Labor laid out its grievances with regard to the behaviour of Speaker of the House of Representatives Bronwyn Bishop


Excerpts from Federal House of Representatives Hansard, 27 March 2014:

Honours and Awards
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister.
Why is the government's priority a plan to bring back knights and dames, but there is no plan for Alcoa workers, for car workers, or for Qantas workers? Prime Minister, why are your Liberal government's twisted priorities so out of touch with the needs of ordinary Australians?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister I simply want to note that there was silence on my left, as there should be, for the asking of the question. I expect the same silence for the answer. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker!
The SPEAKER: I name the member for Isaacs!
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Burke: For saying 'Madam Speaker'?
The SPEAKER: I name the member for Isaacs!
Mr Burke: For saying 'Madam Speaker'?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:13): I move:
That the Member for Isaacs be suspended from the service of the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Isaacs be suspended from the service of the House.
The House divided. [14:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Ayes ...................... 82
Noes ...................... 54
Majority ................. 28
…….
Question agreed to.
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.

MOTIONS
Speaker
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:21): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion which has not been moved in this form in the House since 1949:
That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker on the grounds:
(a) that in the discharge of her duties she has revealed serious partiality in favour of Government Members;
(b) that she regards herself merely as the instrument of the Liberal Party and not as the custodian of the rights and privileges of elected Members of the Parliament;
(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the Standing Orders of the House; and
(d) of gross incompetency in her administration of Parliamentary procedure.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the House, I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business that earlier today the opposition was unable to call a division on a second reading motion because they had one member only in the House. Subsequent to that, they called a division on the question that the bill be agreed to and then called the division off. Then, when we had a division on the third reading and all the members were present, they failed to provide a speaker on the next piece of business. I suggest they get their own house in order. I now call the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Leave is not granted.

BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:23): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker, on the grounds:
(a) that, in the discharge of her duties, she has revealed serious partiality in favour of government members;
(b) that she regards herself merely as an instrument of the Liberal Party and not as a custodian of the rights and privileges of elected members of the parliament;
(c) that she constantly fails to interpret correctly the standing orders of the House; and
(d) of gross incompetency in the administration of parliamentary procedure.
Madam Speaker, I note that this is an example of all the noise being on this side of the chamber. The reason these standing orders need to be suspended, Madam Speaker, is in the first instance—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my right so that the speaker may be heard.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, what has just happened in this House is worthy of suspending standing orders.
Never before in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia has someone been named for calling out 'Madam Speaker'. That is what just happened in this House. Under no definition of what is within House Practice or of history or of anything that has happened in this parliament since 1901 has anyone claimed that the words 'Madam Speaker' or 'Mr Speaker' were unparliamentary. And, yet, the member for Isaacs did not just get warned or thrown out; he got named for calling you 'Madam Speaker'. Yesterday, we had a member of parliament thrown out for laughing. Madam Speaker, we have spent months watching you laugh at every joke from the ministers at the expense of members of the opposition. But, somehow, that is an appropriate way to conduct the role.
Madam Speaker, I do not dispute what you said before that there are times in this chamber when things are cooperative. The example you gave this morning you articulated in a way that I would not disagree with one bit.
But I do disagree with your decision to make that argument from the chair before the Leader of the House decides whether or not to grant leave. The comments you made, Madam Speaker, were reasonable comments for someone on either side of the chamber to make but not reasonable if you are meant to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, it is acknowledged on both sides of this House and throughout the country that you are a formidable parliamentarian. That is acknowledged. It is acknowledged that, for your entire time in opposition and when you have sat on those benches opposite, you have been one of the people who have been able to come to the dispatch box and launch scathing and effective attacks on us as the Labor Party. You are respected as a member of
parliament for that. But we cannot support you continuing to behave that way when you want to sit in the Speaker's chair.
In response to the claim of 'stunt' that I heard from the frontbench, Madam Speaker, we have not rushed to this.
We raised concern on the day that you were elected as Speaker. The tradition referred to in Practice—and this is why we should be suspending standing orders—that non-executive members nominate and second the election of Speaker, and then bring the Speaker to the chair, is one of the powers of the backbench and the non-executive members of this House. That tradition was broken the moment you became Speaker. We then found on 13
November last year that, despite the Prime Minister claiming that certain words specifically were sure to be considered unparliamentary, you decided that name-calling was going to be considered legitimate in this parliament. On 19 November last year, on issues relating—
A government member: Have you got a speech ready?
Mr BURKE: We prepare a sheet most days, I am afraid. Today is the day when, considering that for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth someone was thrown out for saying 'Madam Speaker', everybody has to acknowledge that this farce has gone on for far too long. Madam Speaker, on 19 November last year, you reinterpreted a question asked by the member for Herbert, who had made no mention of numbers in the question. I raised a point of order, saying that there was an issue of direct relevance, and your response was:
The question was one that was pertaining to numbers, as clearly was indicated by the questioner.
Notwithstanding that there was no reference to that in the question at all, you came up with a new question to get around standing order 104.
When we debated the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill, you waited until the moment when the opposition were moving amendments and then decided that amendments which had been flagged and had gone through the appropriate processes of checking would be disallowed by you, denying the opposition the capacity to put our amendments. We were not expecting to win the vote, but we were expecting to have our right to make our case.
Madam Speaker, on 2 December last year, we had a circumstance where the Leader of the Opposition after he was given the call for one purpose went on to seek leave for another. You claimed that you had called on him to resume his seat prior to him saying, 'I seek leave,' and we asked you to check the tapes. You came back, allegedly having checked the tapes, Madam Speaker, and what you told the House was not true. You told the House that he, the Leader of the Opposition, again sought the call. The tapes do not reflect that. The tapes show the exact opposite. But, once again, the information provided to this parliament was changed so that you could pretend to be acting within the standing orders.
Madam Speaker, the issue of time limits has been one where time and again we have seen ministers in this House be allowed to continue their comments for quite a period after their speaking time has elapsed. But, when an opposition member asks a question, suddenly the 30-second rule is enforced—and enforced completely strictly.
If you want to provide a level of lenience for government members, that is fine; it is the impartiality of the way you do this job that is at issue, Madam Speaker. To have a circumstance where leave is not granted for this motion is extraordinary. As to the action that you took today, 98 people have now been thrown out of the House by you—every one of them from the opposition. So it is 98-love. No Speaker in the history of Federation has a record like that.
We have had situations with amendments. I remember we had an amendment that I moved to a motion from the member for Denison, where you ruled, in answer to a point of order from the Leader of the House, that the amendment was too far away from the original motion—notwithstanding that on 2 December last year you allowed the Leader of the House to move an amendment to a motion from the Leader of the Opposition that completely reversed everything that was in the first motion. Madam Speaker, if I stand to raise a point of order, you wait until the minister has completed before you hear the point of order. At each issue, at each part of this, the practice that is followed is the same on every occasion. The Prime Minister is now laughing, but he will not be thrown out—nor should he be. But I can tell you that when he defends knights and dames it is really funny and we will laugh.
This motion today is not one that people rush to move. On every occasion that a motion of this nature is moved—whether it is a suspension of standing orders or whether leave is not granted—it is carried forever in practice. When opposition members get to this point they do not expect to win the vote, but they do expect to have a situation where everyone in Australia knows bias when they see it. Madam Speaker, we do not doubt for one minute your effectiveness as a warrior for the Liberal Party, but that is not the job you chose to take on. Yet in the Speaker's chair you have continued to act as though enjoying the victory for your own side is your job. Madam Speaker, the parliament deserves more than that. The parliament cannot have confidence in a Speaker who refuses to be impartial.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Albanese: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
………
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:43): I second the motion. We all know that this is a position that you coveted for years and years. How sad is it, having achieved his ambition, that you have chosen the low road of partisanship, rather than the high road of independence that this office demands. Madam Speaker, when you were the member for Mackellar you were very fond of the big book, House of Representatives Practice. I draw your attention to pages 163 and 164, which state a very simple principle:
The Speaker must show impartiality in the Chamber above all else.
That is the fundamental principle upon which the reliance and integrity of this parliament resides. Those opposite say, 'Oh, but we won the election.' That is absolutely true—there is a majority there. But there are millions of Australians voting for us on this side and they also deserve to be represented and not be treated with contempt from the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It is one thing for this Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition to want to trash the 43rd Parliament and come in here every day and move to suspend the standing orders and engage in disruptive conduct as a tactic, but it is another thing, having won the election and achieved the high office of Prime Minister, for him and his team to trash the 44th Parliament. So addicted are they to negative tactics, they engage in them. We see it every day. We saw the Prime Minister last week, while the sand was going through the hourglass for a division,
looking upwards and giving directions to you, Madam Speaker, saying: 'Close the door. Close the door. Close the door.' We see, time after time, the Leader of the House give instructions to you as the chair, including today. Madam Speaker, we have a penalty count at the moment. If this were a Souths-Manly game and the penalty count was 98 to nil in favour of the home team, they would be jumping the fence. What we have day after day in this parliament is partisanship from the chair, is abuse of standing orders and is treatment of those on this side of the House with contempt. We are seeing it by this very process. We are seeing it by the process whereby those opposite are not even allowing the motion to be debated. We are having to suspend the standing orders. What they should do is allow the motion, and then it will be a vote in the confidence of your speakership. As it is, it is left hanging as a result of them not even allowing the motion to proceed.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member that he must address the motion as he is drawing attention to it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I am, and that is why standing orders should be suspended! You have just given a cracker of an example, Madam Speaker, of your partisanship. Here I am saying why they should be suspended so that we can have the proper debate and have a vote in your speakership, as to whether you have the confidence of the House, and you interject from the chair in order to slap that down.
Today we had, in the naming of the member for Isaacs, unprecedented action taken for such a minimal statement. I checked, Madam Speaker, if he said 'ma Dame Speaker' because I thought maybe there was something that was a reflection, but there was not. What we see in this chamber every day is the born-to-rule mentality of those opposite. We saw it from this Prime Minister just two days ago with his reinstatement of imperial honours and we see it with your behaviour, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, each and every day in this chamber.
The SPEAKER: The question is that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson moving immediately that the House has no further confidence in Madam Speaker.
The House divided. [14:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Ayes ...................... 51
Noes ...................... 83
Majority ................. 32