Transcript - Channel 9 Weekend Today - 26 Sep 2010

SUBJECTS: The new Parliament, Parliamentary reform, Deputy Speakership

LAURIE OAKES: Mr Pyne, welcome to the program, Mr Albanese you too.

ANTHONY ALBANESE: Morning Laurie, good to be here.

OAKES: I gather you Mr Albanese were at the MCG yesterday and saw that drawn AFL match, can't you get Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor down there to sort it out?

ALBANESE: Well that certainly is an option I put to the AFL commissioners yesterday and given we have some experience in sorting these things out, I offered my services but I think the AFL are pretty happy to get a hundred thousand people back at the MCG next week. It was a great day yesterday.

OAKES: Well Mr Pyne, Tony Abbot said on August 24th, I think we can have a kinder, gentler polity, I think we can be a more collegial polity than we've been, what went wrong?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well nothing has gone wrong, Laurie, and we certainly will be. I mean the numbers in the Parliament mean that we're going to be have to be much more collegial in how we come up with outcome, but that doesn't mean that Opposition lies down and doesn't do its job of holding the Government to account. There seems to be some confusion in the Labor Party that apparently, being more co-operative means that they have to get their own way all the time. Now, that doesn't surprise me coming from the people who executed Kevin Rudd three months ago, but let me say this - we will, as an Opposition, work constructively to have good outcomes for the Australian people, but we'll also hold the Government to account ferociously which is the job of the Opposition to do so.

OAKES: But you say you're still going to be kinder and gentler. And yet, two days after making that statement, Tony Abbott said, "The only constructive way to channel our frustration and disappointment is to re-double our attacks on the Labor Party." That doesn't sound kinder and gentler.

PYNE: Well, Laurie, we want to remove the Government. That's our job. We think that this is a bad Government, it's going from bad to worse. Before the election, there was going to be no carbon tax. The Government told a bald-faced lie to the Australian people. Now, apparently there is going to be a carbon tax, in their alliance with the Greens. We think this is a worse Government than it was even before election day, and it must be removed. Now, that's our job as the Opposition. That doesn't mean we have to be personal or unpleasant. There certainly will be a more co-operative atmosphere, because Anthony and I will have to make the Parliament work, and we will. But if you want to equate kinder and gentler politics with the Opposition agreeing with the Government, then I think you'll be whistling dixie.

OAKES: Well Mr Albanese, Christopher Pyne is right isn't he? There's no reason for the Opposition to make the Government's life easier?

ALBANESE: Well there's absolutely no reason for the Opposition to not engage in constructively putting forward its position. We would expect them to do that. But what we've seen since the Gillard Government was able to be reformed, is the Opposition walking away from commitments that they had made. What we've seen on parliamentary reform is Tony Abbott walk away from the commitments that were signed up to in writing, so that it is very clear. It makes it difficult to have agreements if you then are simply someone who will just walk away from them. But of course, Tony Abbott has form. He walked away from his position on the CPRS. He told Australians that you couldn't believe what he says, get it in writing. Well, we had the commitment in writing about pairing and he walked away from it. And when it comes to policy issues, we saw that when Tony Abbott made the announcement about Malcolm Turnbull being his communications spokes person, he didn't say to make national broadband work more effectively. He said that he wanted to wreck and destroy the National Broadband Network. It's quite clear that Tony Abbott is a wrecker, and I'd call upon him to engage constructively in the new Parliament that we've all been given by the Australian people on August 21.

OAKES: Well Mr Pyne, it's one of your dangers, isn't it, that you're going to be seen as wreckers in the new Parliament?

PYNE: Well, I think the Australian people know that we have an adversarial political system, and I don't think that they buy up to this new kumbaya politics of the Labor Party and the Greens. I think they expect the Opposition to be hard at the ball. What the Government and the Greens want is for there to be only one team on the paddock that's actually trying to win. They want the Opposition to acquiesce to broken promises like the promise that the Curtin Detention Centre wouldn't be expanded. It's now going to be doubled. Or that there be no detention centre on Cape York, which is now being built, and was in fact being built during the election. Or of course on the carbon tax, which they said they would never have, and they're now going to have. The Greens and the Labor Party would like nothing more than for the Opposition to disappear from the battlefield and not take the fight up to them. But we're going to do that, because that's what our supporters expect. 5.5 million people voted for the coalition Laurie, on August 21. We owe it to them, and to the rest of Australia, to hold this Government to account and to try and have it removed over the next three years because we think we would be a better Government, and that's the way the Australian politics works, and always has.

OAKES: Mr Albanese, just getting down to how the new Parliament will work. What will happen? The numbers are going to be 75/74. One vote the difference. What happens if one of your members is caught short and misses a vote?

ALBANESE: Well of course, as part of the better parliamentary reform proposals, it's been agreed that if there is an inadvertent absence from the Parliament, then that vote would be re-committed to the Parliament. That is my understanding is the coalition aren't walking away from that. So that's ...

OAKES: How would it be re-committed? Would it require a vote and what kind of vote?

ALBANESE: It will require a vote of the Parliament simply to do that, by a majority of the Parliament.

OAKES: Can I interrupt you there. The original agreement that you signed with the Independents and Mr Pyne, and I've got it here, specifically says in that situation, it would require a suspension of standing orders, which means an absolute majority, which means 75 votes. That's not in your draft that you circulated yesterday. Why have you reneged on this agreement?

ALBANESE: I haven't reneged on the agreement at all Laurie. The draft that I gave to Christopher Pyne is the draft given in advance by the clerks of the Parliament with advice from the clerks of the Parliament, given to him three days in advance, so that if there are any issues which he wishes to raise, he can raise them.

OAKES: So, it will require a suspension of standing orders? All 75 votes that you can muster?

ALBANESE: Well we've received advice from the clerks upon that basis. If people wanted to delay votes until such time as it was re-committed, until such time as there was 75 there, than that's something that people can talk about. But the advice that I gave to Christopher Pyne, in good faith, as I also gave to Adam Bant, and gave to Rob Oakeshott, is there so that well in advance, this is a part of our good faith Laurie. What's happened in the past, whoever has been in power, is that governments have gone to the floor on the House of Representatives, the move changes in standing orders. I haven't done that. I in good faith have given the document, untouched, from the clerks to Christopher Pyne, as manager of Opposition business, and we've agreed that we'll have a discussion tomorrow or Tuesday prior to the motions being put on notice on Wednesday on the floor of the Parliament. Because I don't think that the Australian public want to see the first debate of the Parliament be about the intricacies and details of standing orders. I think that we have an agreement, we'll put that agreement in place. I note that the Opposition has walked away from a key part of that agreement that Christopher Pyne signed up to with regard to having a pairing of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. That's their decision. They I think will be judged on that but I'm...

OAKES: Mr Pyne, I'd better let Mr Pyne reply to that I think.

PYNE: Well Laurie, the agreement very specifically said that for inadvertent absence of a member, that a vote would be re-committed in the House that day after a successful suspension of standing orders. Now, the draft standing orders, as circulated yesterday, don't include the requirement for a successful suspension of standing orders, because the Labor Party doesn't believe that it will have the votes to do that. That, of course, means that the Labor Party is walking away from that part of the agreement, which is very disappointing. And of course, the coalition has said that the reason they're not continuing with the pairing of the Speaker is because it is unconstitutional. But there's nothing unconstitutional about requiring a successful suspension of standing orders before a vote is re-committed. And unfortunately, the Government seems to be walking away from that part of the agreement this weekend.

ALBANESE: You know that that is not the case, Christopher. You know that you were provided yesterday, in good faith, something that I was never given the courtesy of, ever, and the Labor Party was never during your term in office. It is the clerk's draft and you know that I'll be sitting down with you either tomorrow or on Tuesday to finalise the draft standing orders. As well as...

PYNE: The clerks write the standing orders based on the advice that you give them.

ALBANESE: ...and we gave them the agreement...

PYNE: Based on your advice, and you've obviously given them advice.

ALBANESE: No, we gave them the agreement.

PYNE: And the successful suspension.

ALBANESE: We gave them the agreement and said, here, draft the standing orders based on it.

OAKES: Could I ask you both this question - why does that magic number 75 matter so much? Is it important that the Government is able to suspend standing orders? Mr Albanese.

ALBANESE: During the last Parliament, we suspended standing orders I think once. Only once, and that was to have a vote about the abolition of WorkChoices. So it is very irregular that standing orders are suspended. Standing orders, normally the attempt to suspend standing orders is actually done by the Opposition, which we saw on a pretty regular basis during the last Parliament. So we don't see that this presents a big issue for the Government. As I said, used once during the last term of office during three years.

OAKES: Mr Pyne?

PYNE: If it doesn't present any difficulty to the Government, then it should be put back in the draft standing orders, which is that a successful suspension of standing orders would be required in order to able to re-commit a motion, and if a member has inadvertently missed a vote, than you would think the Government would want to explain, during the suspension of standing orders, why that was inadvertent and therefore have that discipline of being required to get their numbers there. Now, what the Government is trying to do by a sleight of hand, is walk away from the agreement that we made with them, with respect to the recommittal of votes, because they are concerned that if a member misses a vote and they lose a vote on the floor of the house, they'll actually have to explain why and they might lose the suspension of standing orders. And that's quite perfectly clear to us. I means it is a bit of an arcane debate for the public but what it means is that far from the Opposition walking away from this agreement, the Labor Party has done so in that respect, and potentially other respects.

ALBANESE: Well this is another furphy...

OAKES: Before we finish...

ALBANESE: This is just another furphy from the Opposition. The fact is that of course, if a vote was missed, it would have to be explained on the floor of the House of Representatives why that had occurred. Of course that's the case.

PYNE: Not according to your draft. Of course that's the case.

OAKES: Before we finish, let me ask you about Alex Somlyay. Mr Albanese, Labor hates people who rat on the Labor Party. So why do you encourage people to rat on the Liberal Party?

ALBANESE: Well Alex Somlyay committed that he would vote for nothing more and nothing less than what had been agreed to by Christopher Pyne and by the coalition, that effectively the Speaker would be paired, in his case, he wound it back so it wasn't paired for every vote, but paired on matters of confidence and supply. He did that in good faith. What occurred was that the leader of the Opposition's office put out a statement on his letterhead, on his behalf, that he repudiated and said, didn't represent his position. He's now chosen to not contest the position of deputy speakership, because of the controversy that he saw himself in within his own party. But he indicated certainly to myself, as he has publicly, that he didn't see that commitment of supporting, providing support for the Government on those issues, as being betraying the Liberal Party, given that the Liberal Party had signed up to the agreement.

OAKES: Mr Pyne, do you agree with that? Or would you see a Liberal who signed up to the sort of deal that Mr Albanese is talking about as the equivalent of the late Senator Mal Colston who sold out for the deputy presidency of the Senate?

PYNE: Well Laurie, Anthony is trying to get spawn a member of the coalition to provide support on confidence matters to the Labor Party. And it would be like asking a Collingwood player from yesterday's Grand Final to play for St Kilda next week in the grand final on Saturday. So obviously, it's a very unusual course that he's tried to pursue. Alex Somlyay was never going to accept a position where he took the King's shilling from the Labor Party. And quite rightly he has said so. And I think Anthony might have been verballing Alex towards the end of last week. And I'm glad...

ALBANESE: He spoke to a number of journalists himself Christopher, which you know. He spoke to a number of journalists himself and made his position clear.

PYNE: Look Anthony, this isn't the ALP State conference. OK. Other people get to speak besides you. We will keep the part of the agreement that says that we will provide the deputy Speaker, assuming that Harry Jenkins is the Speaker, which we'll support on Tuesday. The agreement specifically provides the Deputy Speaker will come from the other political party. We will provide that deputy speaker, but of course we won't be pairing the speaker because we believe that it is unconstitutional. It is a very straight forward position, and the Government will obviously, I assume, keep their part of the bargain.

ALBANESE: Well of course, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The reason why the agreement said that there would be a speaker from one side and a deputy from the other...

PYNE: So you won't be supporting a coalition deputy speaker. That's interesting.

ALBANESE: ...was that they would be paired and that the coalition have walked away from the written agreement that they signed.

PYNE: So you're breaking your agreement on national television?

ALBANESE: The Coalition has walked away from that agreement.

PYNE: So you won't support a Coalition deputy speaker?

OAKES: I'm sorry, we're out of time.

ALBANESE: The Coalition has walked away from the agreement Christopher. The agreement that you signed...

PYNE: That's breaking news.

OAKES: Well, we're out of time. It is great to see the new gentler polity in action. We thank you both.

PYNE: Thank you Laurie. See you on Monday, Anthony.

ALBANESE: See you then.