Motions: Dissent from Ruling

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:25): I move:

That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Mr Bowen: I rise to defend the chair, and I rise to defend you and your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I rise to defend, Madam Deputy Speaker, your right to make rulings.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I need to check that the motion for dissent has been seconded. Who has seconded it? We need to follow the procedure correctly, and then we can deal with it.

Mr Hawke: The minister doesn't know what he's talking about.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No-one's got the call. You do not have the call, Manager of Opposition Business. You're moving a dissent. We need to follow the procedure, which means you need to have it in writing with a seconder. Have you got that? I haven't seen it.

Mr Hawke: Are you asking me? I have moved the motion. I have submitted the motion. It has a mover and a seconder.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now the debate can take place.

Mr HAWKE: We are in the incredible situation today where the minister at the table is defending his new role as president of COP31 and saying our attempt to say to the Australian people that he will be part time as he will be busy overseas, serving interests there rather than working on the power prices of Australians and Australian businesses, is unparliamentary. It is outrageous that, in this parliament, you can't make the case that members or ministers are not full time in the interests of the Australian people. Why not? Why can't that argument be made to the Australian parliament?

Let me remind the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who should remember this, that the Prime Minister who sat in this chamber and said that his ministers would be part time was his predecessor Paul Keating. He made that case. It was a serious topic of debate in this House—part-time and full-time ministers. There would be a rotation where ministers only turned up on the days that Prime Minister Keating said they would turn up. It was such a disgrace that Prime Minister Keating had to back down and, under pressure from the opposition, return ministers to being present every single question time.

Let's look at the record of the member for McMahon, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He missed one day of scrutiny from the opposition or the people of Australia in this parliament because of his new role. So we have the perfect right to mount a case to Australians—the perfect right in debate, in general debate, to use the term 'part time'. It's perfectly okay. It is not unprofessional. It is not unparliamentary. It has real meaning because he is part time. He wasn't here to face the questions of the opposition or the Australian people. The minister was in the job overseas that we have been complaining about, not focused on Australians' energy prices.

In question time today, we heard from so many people here in opposition about what they're hearing from their electorates, such as business owners whose power bills are up 70 per cent—if you're listening at the moment, Minister. We've heard from individuals whose power bills have gone up substantially since this government got elected. And, yes, we have made the case that the minister's new role will mean that he is not fully occupied with fixing a 70 per cent increase in the power bills of certain businesses. We are making the case that part time is absolutely legitimate in this case—that he won't be fully engaged in the interests of Australians whose power bills are going through the roof. In fact, it's not only fair debate; it's an essential provision of democracy that we be allowed to say: 'This minister wasn't present to answer questions. This minister wasn't available on a parliamentary sitting day—when we had these questions on Monday.' We had them today. We were not sure if he would be back here today, but he slipped back into the country. The president returned! We asked him questions. If we are to make the case that his full-time role at COP31—and it is a full-time role, let's be honest. It's a role that will require money from Australian taxpayers to fund the staff that he will need. It will require bureaucrats to give him advice. It has real public and finance issues, and it's for the minister to defend his position, not the Speaker. It's for the minister to defend his position, not the Deputy Speaker. It's for the minister to say, 'My role is full time; my role is part time. Here's why. When I'm missing from parliament, it's okay.'

Prime Minister Paul Keating made the case that his ministers didn't need to be here every single day in question time. That's the case he made, and it went very badly in front of the Australian people. Paul Keating stood here and said that it's okay to roster on a minister and roster them off. Now we have Prime Minister Albanese telling us that it's okay for Minister Bowen to not be here because he is the    President of Negotiations in COP. Minister, we say that it's not okay. We say it's okay to mount a case part time or full time. We say that it's okay to use the language 'part-time' or 'full-time'. There is a slippery slope that we are on, and I know that the Leader of the House knows this. If we start banning 'part-time' and 'full-time' from our lexicon, we will be banning a lot of words. There will be a slippery slope of speakers from this day until every day of this parliament banning a new term and banning a new procedure for debate.

Every instinct of parliamentary democracy since Athens says you can use language in debate. Free speech says it. We know where free speech doesn't occur, don't we? The Prime said it today. 'We've got one view,' said the Prime Minister. Of course, you've got one view. There's no point looking at me and laughing or pointing and carrying on. You're not allowed to have a view. None of you on the backbench is allowed to have a view; we know that. Free speech requires language. Language is important. 'Part-time' is not offensive. It isn't unparliamentary. We're not making the reference in reference to his title. The opposition is making—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I need to bring you back to your dissent from my ruling about holding the Speaker's ruling. So just come back to that, and I will ask all members opposite also to just calm this down a little bit while we discuss sensibly this ruling.

Mr HAWKE: We know this is a government with a 50 per cent majority. We understand that. That does not give them the right to be a dictatorship. That does not give them the right to trample on parliamentary democracy. It does not give this arrogant minister the right to say that, if we criticise him for being a part-time minister when he has been absent from this parliament, that he will be defended from the Speaker's chair—yes, I'm speaking to the dissent—because that should not be the case. The executive has enough protections. The minister has enough in place to protect his honour—the president's honour. The Speaker is not required to defend the minister's part-time or full-time nature. He should do it himself. So should members of the government. That's fair debate. It's fair debate in this place to use the term 'part-time'. It's fair to use 'full-time'. It's fair to say that a minister is part time or full time, and I think that will stand.

There can be no argument that you can make that says 'part-time' or 'full-time' is unparliamentary. There can be no argument that says this is an abuse of the standing orders. I regret that this has happened. I regret that we are here, but if we are here, we will not shirk from the debate every single day that, if you have a full-time role overseas serving other interests, you will not be in the service of Australians and their power bills. Households and businesses are struggling and require a minister who is full time. I think that if fair-minded members of this parliament, wherever they sit, were allowed to have a view, they would say, 'Maybe this shouldn't have happened.'

The rules for questions are not the rules for debate. The separation in the standing orders is very clear. Rules for questions do not include the standing orders that cover the general provisions for debate. It is an attempt by the Albanese Labor government to cover up the fact that they have a part-time minister. It is nothing else but that.

A government member: You are reflecting on him again!

Mr HAWKE: No; I am reflecting on the government. We do disagree with the Deputy Speaker. We do disagree with this ruling. We accepted the Speaker's ruling in relation to question time, but we will not accept a ruling that says it is unfair for a part-time member of the executive who turns up only when they get back from an overseas trip and who might be away 10 or 20 days next year—we don't know—from the parliamentary schedule. We want you to be here to face these questions. It's fair to say you're working part time if you're not here to answer questions, and it should be fair, in reasonable debate in this place, to be allowed to say that a member like the COP President of Negotiations is absent from question time when he should be here.