Mr FILING(11.13 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I sometimes wonder what the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) means when he talks about these meetings, agreements or arrangements. He mentioned in his speech the word `trivia'. I have formulated the opinion that the Leader of the House probably considers most of the activities in this House are trivial because they get in the way of the orderly running of government business.

What we are about today is the fact that the Leader of the House has had six months—six long months—in order to resolve a matter that I, along with the other Independents, brought to the attention of the government immediately after the election. We knew this was going to happen because I, in my past service as a whip, understood the workings of the arrangements for speaking in this chamber. I knew that at some stage we were going to come to this point and, in effect, this point is merely the expression of members wanting to speak in this chamber.

I do not speak specifically about the standing orders. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you have long studied the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice. As you know, the speakers list is a convention that was arrived at in this place in the 1950s. Speaker Cameron, who was the Speaker at the time the speakers list became a convention, made a number of observations about the introduction of speakers lists. I refer you to page 475 of House of Representatives Practice, where he observed in the first instance that it was a perfectly logical and convenient method of conducting debate. But he added that, if they were not adhered to, or members objected to the practice, the House would revert to a system under which there was no list whatsoever and the chair would call the member he thought had first risen in his place.

That brings us then to standing order 61, the very standing order that gives any member of this chamber the right to move that he or she be now heard. It is quite clear in the standing orders, it is quite clear in House of Representatives Practice at page 474:

When two or more Members rise together to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the Member who, in the Speaker's opinion, first rose in his or her place. The decision of the Chair may be challenged by a motion that any Member who rose `be now heard' or `do now speak' and that question must be put forthwith and determined without amendment or debate.

It also goes on to say—and this is a critical point because it gives some guidance to an occupant of the chair in relation to the call:

Although the allocation of the call is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, it is usual, as a principle, to call Members from each side of the House, Government and Opposition, alternatively. Within this principle minor parties and any independents are given reasonable opportunities to express their views.

This is the nub of the problem which the Leader of the House has brought on the House himself. Time and time again we have endeavoured to reconcile this dilemma by arriving at some formula that would be accommodated within this convention; but, as such, none exists and none has been arrived at because we cannot get an agreement.

At the end of the day, the only guide that a member wanting to express the views of his constituents in this place has on when to speak or to obtain the call is from the standing orders. My colleague the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) exercised his rights.

The Leader of the House may as well do as Oliver Cromwell did and call for the removal of this bauble and close the place down. In fact, he displays some of the tendencies of that authoritarian period in Oliver Cromwell's administration of the then Commonwealth of Britain.

It is all very well for the government of the day to use its numbers to crush the expressions of opinion from individual members, in particular Independent members. But, at the end of the day, the community will view this place as becoming more and more irrelevant to their views and to the things they want to talk about.

It is quite clear that the now laughing Leader of the House views all of these activities within the chambers as merely some unnecessary inconvenience in the orderly conduct of government business. I can recall the very same person in this place on the opposition benches making similar observations to mine—similar in the sense that at times the previous Labor administration mercilessly used its numbers and the forms of the House to prevent expression by members on behalf of their constituents, and we are seeing the very same process occurring here.

The Leader of the House made the point that we have been disruptive in the processes and, in particular, he mentioned the Main Committee. I think two bills have been referred back to this chamber from the Main Committee—a right, I might say, that is inherent in the standing orders. It was quite clearly put in there, as you and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Main Committee evolved in the discussions within the Procedure Committee and then in the chamber.

In both of those cases, the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill, there were good grounds for bringing those bills back into this chamber because they were certainly controversial or would require amendment or divisions. In the first instance, the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) located $24 million of wool growers' non-wool assets being handed over for a particular project with only two lines in the explanatory—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Sullivan) —Order! The issue of relevance in this debate has been allowed to cross the issues which have led to the motion which are the arrangements for Independent members to speak. But when you start debating the merits of bills that have been previously dealt with by this House, you are out of order. I suggest you get back on track.

Mr FILING —Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect, I will. The matter was raised by the Leader of the House, quite clearly. In fact, I brought it to your attention at the beginning when he started to do that, when I said that I felt that the terms of the debate were being widened sufficiently to allow a wide-ranging debate on the nature of this particular technique of oppression being used by the government against Independent members.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —And I have allowed that. You were erring onto the substance of bills.

Mr FILING —I appreciate that greatly and show due deference to your ruling. But, at the end of the day, according to the standing orders, we have only one way of obtaining our rights in this place to speak. If we are considered disruptive in trying to obtain our rights under the standing orders, then there is, in my view, a very serious problem.

The serious problem is this: where do we go? We cannot make our representations in this chamber because—after the comments made by the Leader of the House—we are being forced to comply with a process that is not in the standing orders. Standing orders do not mention it at all. Speaker Cameron did not mention it when the list was introduced into the processes of the House.

Where is it written in standing orders? What does the Leader of the House use as a guide for this? Is it some sort of arrangement that he has concocted? That is not in the standing orders. The standing orders do not even mention the Chief Government Whip or Chief Opposition Whip in relation to the speaking rights of members.

So how could it be disruptive if a member tries to exercise his or her rights to speak in this place? If it is disruptive, you might as well close this place down because, in essence, any debate is a token debate; you can debate only as long as the government allows you to do so, throwing you crumbs of government time to put a point of view across. Mind you, even having made your point in this place, often it is ignored anyway.

At the end of the day, if this place is to be relevant to the operation of the business of government and relevant to the interests of the community at large, our interests must be taken seriously. We are not debating some trivial point here. If the Leader considers it to be trivial, in my view he deserves to be consigned to the ranks of those who have anti-parliamentarian sentiments—because this is an anti-parliamentarian act. This is not an act of parliamentary democracy; at the end of the day, this is an attempt to prevent us from exercising our rights.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you have chosen to make a ruling on this matter. Under the House of Representatives Practice a Speaker's ruling is not required. Obviously, since the debate has commenced, I have studied that point. In essence, we are objecting to a ruling which, in our view, regards any member's attempt to exercise their right to speak—having been made once and then a second time—as being disruptive.

But where does the disruption line end up being drawn? Is it at once, twice, three times? Is it at once a day, twice a day, three times a day, once a week, twice a week, once a month, once a sitting, once a parliament, twice a parliament? Where do you draw the line?

By what right does the chair of this place exercise that particular judgment? If that ruling were right, any member, whether Independent, Labor Party, National Party or Liberal Party, could be considered disruptive purely and simply because they wanted to exercise their rights.

I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that standing orders provide for the opportunity for members to rise in their places to seek the call of the Speaker. A member who has not obtained the call and who believes they were first on their feet is entitled, under standing orders, to move that they be now heard. That is entitled to be dealt with without debate or comment or amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in making your ruling that the member for Curtin was being disruptive under the provisions of standing order 86, in essence you have provided a greater opportunity for executive government to prevent the voice of the people being expressed in this chamber. In essence, you have contributed to the overweening, overbalanced power of the executive vis-a-vis the parliament. We all know that, because of the tyranny of numbers in this place, in essence the executive runs this chamber. It runs it mercilessly, as it did under the previous government.

We were told at the beginning of this parliament that we would see reforms that would raise the standing of this chamber and raise the standing of the contributions of individual members on behalf of their constituents. We were told that we would see reforms that would raise the independence of the Speaker. We all sat here and said that we would wait and see what happens, that we would wait and make our judgments based on our experience. Six months have passed and I cannot see any difference between this administration's conduct of the business of this House and the previous one's.

Mr Rocher —Hear, hear! It's worse.

Mr FILING —Yes, to some extent it is worse. As Independent members, we made efforts from the word go to arrive at a satisfactory and sensible arrangement that would accommodate our needs to represent our constituents' concerns. Six months down the track, we are no closer to that arrangement.

The only person who can accept responsibility for that is the Leader of the House. If he cannot make an arrangement, with all the numbers he has, with all the threats he has made about changing standing orders to prevent us from exercising our rights, surely to goodness somebody should look at the way in which the Leader of the House is acting in that capacity. After all, with the weight of numbers, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Leader of the House to come to some arrangement that could have prevented this occurrence where the member for Curtin has done what is within his perfect right to do, and that is to move that he be now heard under the standing orders of this House.