01 June 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — This has been an interesting debate. I also interested in what is the logical extension of the closing comment just made by the member for Oakleigh when she talked about arrogance.
What is under discussion here is essentially whether the house has the right to determine its own way forward. What is being suggested by the member for Oakleigh is that it is arrogance if the majority of members are determined that standing orders should be suspended.
Democracy as it works in this state means that those who have the most votes, however and under whatever system they are gathered, determine the way it goes.
What has been interesting about much of the debate and many of the contributions that have been made this afternoon is the view that has been expressed by many members on the other side that somehow the will of the house is something that was set in concrete at 4.03 p.m. or whatever the time was last Thursday. It seems to be that the will of the house was right at that time, in the view of members opposite, that is the way it should stay.
That is not the way parliaments have operated over the ages; that is not the way the system has evolved. If that were the case, if effectively nothing ever changed, which is the argument that is being put, then we would probably still be back in the days immediately following the English Civil War. We would be operating in a very archaic and, by 21st century standards, very undemocratic way.
I must say that I have been quite interested to hear most of the debate — and I have heard most of the debate both in the chamber and my office — and I could not help reflecting upon the contrast between the views of members of the now opposition and their views in government. When I expressed on many occasions my frustration that we were not able to debate things to the extent that we would have liked, we were told again and again, ‘Basically, you do not have the numbers; 4 o’clock comes on Thursday and that is the end of the parliamentary session’.
That is the way it operated, and that is the way it has operated for a very long time.
In contrast the attitude of this government has been to facilitate debate wherever possible. The argument is being put that a majority vote is undemocratic, but I suggest — as I said at the outset when I commented on the member for Oakleigh’s closing statement — that it is about whether the house has the right to determine its own future.
There has been much comment about whether there should be references to May or to the House of Representatives. There seems to be a preference amongst some members opposite to refer to May because they believe it bolsters their case more effectively. Others argue that House of Representatives Practice and the House of Representatives standing orders should not be referred to. If that is the case, I wonder why — back in 2003, I think — the standing orders were amended to allow reference to other commonwealth Parliaments, as standing order 1 allows. If those opposite are now arguing that we should not refer to House of Representatives Practice, to the House of Representatives standing orders, to May or to other parliaments — or even to our own upper house — one has to wonder why that reference was put there in the first place.
The fact is that, as a number of contributors have noted, it is clear in May that standing orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension, and that is the critical point. I participated in local government for many years, and it was common practice when necessary to suspend standing orders. It is a necessary tool in the procedural armoury of any democratic institution, and to argue that it should not be used is interesting. ‘Interesting’ is about the kindest construction that can be put on that.
I was also interested to hear a number of contributors on the other side — the member for Bendigo East, the member for Niddrie and I think the member for Altona — talking about the right of members to come into this place and make up their own minds on matters before the Chair. That is a right and a privilege that we on this side of the house guard jealously. As members of the Liberal Party we have the right to make up our own minds on these matters. We have that right on every matter before the Chair.
What I found a little disingenuous was the implicit assertion in arguments being put that that right extends to members of the Australian Labor Party as well. Everyone in this place knows that if members of the Australian Labor Party do not vote with the party, then they are out of the party. That is the way it is; it is chalk and cheese. To talk about democracy in the sense of individuals being able to make up their own minds is complete nonsense.
There is a significant difference between the two. At the heart of the subject is whether the house has the right to chart its own future. The notion that has been put, as has been demonstrated clearly by others, is not unknown in other parliaments around the world. It is not unknown in our own House of Representatives. It has now found its way into the standing orders of that place, and it is not unknown even in the upper house.
In the last minute or so of my contribution I will reflect on the contrast between the democratic resolution of this house, should it proceed, and the process employed by the former government with the Dispute Resolution Committee.
On a number of occasions the vote of a house, in this case the other place, which was not likely to change depending on when it was put but was a rock‑solid vote in each case — and there were a number of cases — was overturned by the casting vote of the chairman of the Dispute Resolution Committee. That is the antidemocratic structure that was put in place by the opposition when it was in government, and it is now crying crocodile tears because it will not get its own way on a motion.
It is important that the house continue to chart its own course, that we continue to evolve and that we continue to improve our practices. I commend the motion.
Legislative Assembly 1 June 2011
Printer Friendly Version...