Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I second the motion and in doing so I would like to echo the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business. This is in no way a reflection on you, but it is in fact a very important constitutional issue, an important question about whether or not this House is in charge of its own agenda. As the Leader of the House has refused to put forward any motion on this matter, the only mechanism we have for debating this issue is to move dissent from your ruling.

I want to make two points. Your ruling is saying that you are upholding standing orders which say that a bill may only be introduced by the government. The problem is, Mr Speaker, that the bill has already been introduced. The bill is alive and before this parliament. Indeed the Selection Committee which you chair and which was set up under the new paradigm—where all the crossbenchers said there must be a voice for private members' business; this was an important tenet that they agreed to support the government on—has recommended that the bill be listed for a vote on its second reading. The government acted in defiance of your recommendation last week by failing to list the bill. Instead, the bill was brought on by suspending standing orders, which we agreed to, and we had the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders rather than on the second reading. The bill was read a first time and the second reading commenced, so the bill is already here. The government had two speakers in the second reading debate on the bill, but not one of them raised the constitutional issue that this was an appropriation bill—not one. At no stage was this issue raised in this House. It was not raised from the chair, it was not raised by the government and the debate went on; we argued the merits of the bill. It was only when it came to the suspension vote that we were able to voice the fact that the government was now raising this question and wanted to somehow knock out the bill. It sent around a little cheat sheet for the Independents to use, and those Independents who spoke did not at all comment on the proposition that I made—which I believe is the only sensible way out of this dilemma—that the bill could proceed to a vote on the second reading and then the government during consideration in detail could move an amendment to say that the bill would not come into force until the government undertook to move an appropriation bill. That is a way around this dilemma, because the bill is already in this place. It has been debated, and it is awaiting a vote.

I turn now to section 56 of the Constitution. Mr McClelland in his advice to you dated February, when we were dealing with the Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010 [2011], pointed out that section 56 states that appropriation bills:

... shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

That is quite right, but that message does not come until after the second reading vote has been held, and I am putting to you, Mr Speaker, that by ruling on the two standing orders it is too late—it is post factum. The fact is that the bill is already in this place and it must proceed to a second reading. What happens after that is another matter. We would then move to consideration in detail. The question of section 56 of the Constitution could be raised. The government could accept my proposition.

I was very disappointed when those members of the crossbenches who did speak last week on the suspension motion did not address that point that I raised at all; they simply addressed the matters that the government had put in the little sheet that they sent around. I was most disappointed, because I like to think that the Independents do consider things in all seriousness, and it is not too late.

See this speech in context