Katharine Murphy deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Wednesday 13 November 2013
Tony Burke begs to differ, saying new rules ‘intend to make sure political argument is shut down’
Changes to standing orders increase the powers of the speaker to enable or restrict parliamentary debate. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAPIMAGE
A fiery debate erupted on Wednesday morning over changes to the parliamentary standing orders, with Labor declaring the Abbott government is moving with alacrity to shut down routine and legitimate political debate.
The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, introduced a number of changes to the rules governing parliamentary procedures which include reducing parliamentary sitting hours; axing the practice of supplementary questions – a practice he decried as a “pilot program” from the last parliament; and limiting scope for private members’ debate.
Pyne is also introducing a practice of “interventions”, where MPs will be given opportunities to interrupt and participate in parliamentary debates.
These interventions – which are commonplace in the British parliamentary system – would occur if both the speaker and the MP with the call agree to the contribution. Pyne said once parliamentarians got used to the new system, interventions would produce more “spontaneity in the chamber”.
The changes to the standing orders increase the powers of the speaker of the House of Representatives to either enable or restrict routine parliamentary debate in the 44th parliament.
Pyne said on Wednesday the changes would add “lustre” to the parliament.
The manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, begged to differ. He contended the changes would see the speaker of the House of Representatives conduct herself as a “censorship board”.
“They intend to make sure political argument is shut down,” Burke told parliament on Wednesday morning.
Earlier on Wednesday, Labor moved a motion of dissent against the new speaker after she ruled the term “Electricity Bill” – a nickname the Coalition has bestowed on the opposition leader, Bill Shorten – appropriate parliamentary language. The opposition argued that the ruling made a mockery of the Coalition’s commitment to higher parliamentary standards, and of Bishop’s own commitment to be impartial in the speaker’s chair.
The Greens and other cross-benchers objected to the changes to the standing orders, which draw a line over the more inclusive style of the previous minority 43rd parliament and restore majority government control of both the parliamentary agenda and tone of the chamber.
Queensland’s Bob Katter declared the restrictions would entrench the two-party system and the two-party view of the world in the practices and rules of the parliament.
This was an effort “to extinguish every voice but the executive voice”, Katter told parliament. “It’s not a mugging of us so much, it’s a mugging of you,” he said, pointing in the direction of government backbenchers in the chamber for the debate.
Amendments were proposed and debated in an effort to deal the crossbenchers back into the process – but the government has the numbers in the lower house.
