Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:47): I thank the House for agreeing to the suspension of standing orders and, as a consequence, I move: That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In the member for Watson's defence on the suspension of standing orders, he made the rather extraordinary claim that when it was discovered that the previous member for Watson had a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room the then opposition demanded his resignation and he resigned over that matter. Just to indicate how bad the Manager of Opposition Business's position has become, let me explain some of the facts and the timing of what actually occurred in that decade, because, as you know, Madam Speaker, you and I were both in the parliament. The member for Watson might like to check the record, because he has now made another false statement to the parliament. In fact, former Speaker Mr McLeay resigned as Speaker because he was accused in 1993 of falsely making a claim for $65,000 of benefits from the Commonwealth for falling off a bicycle. Subsequently it was found that his claim was within the guidelines, but by that stage he had resigned and was no longer in the Speaker's chair. In the year 2000, seven years later, this article appeared and that is when the then government—the Liberal Party—discovered that in fact the former member for Watson had held a fundraiser in his Speaker's dining room. So it is quite chronologically impossible for the member for Watson's previous claim, made only 30 minutes ago, to be true. How could the so-called then opposition, which was now in government, have demanded that the member for Watson resign over fundraising in the Speaker's dining room when we did not know about it until seven years after the former member for Watson had resigned from the Speakership? What this points to of course is that every day the Manager of Opposition Business comes into this place and seeks to find some fig leaf with which to attack the chair. This has been a pattern from day one. Today it is confusing the years in which Leo McLeay was Speaker and when the revelation was made about him fundraising in the Speaker's dining room, and I have made that very clear to the House. But every single day the member for Watson seeks to denigrate the chair, whether it is calling you a witch on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a dissent motion on the first day of your election, whether it is moving a no confidence motion within weeks of the parliament starting to sit in November last year. Every day the Manager of Opposition Business tries to distract the House by attacking the chair. Now, it is a fine Australian tradition, particularly in this House, that the chair is respected. All of this bullying, all of this dissent, all of this denigration, these no-confidence motions and these insults are usually reserved for the people who are sitting on the floor of the House, because they can ostensibly defend themselves against those charges or that bullying, those insults. The Speaker's position is raised above the House, and that is why the Speaker should not be attacked and certainly should not be accused of doing something based on a falsehood. We are asking the member for Watson to apologise for reflecting on the chair based on a falsehood— Mr Danby: According to you. Mr PYNE: the falsehood being that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was unprecedented and improper. The member for Melbourne Ports interjects, out of his seat, 'According to you.' No, it is not, Member for Melbourne Ports, according to me. In fact, it was the former member for Watson who, in the year 2000, admitted that he had held at least one fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room. So it is not me saying that it is a falsehood. The fact is that the former member for Watson made it perfectly clear that neither is it unprecedented or improper for fundraisers to be held in the Speaker's dining room. On that basis, the current member for Watson should apologise to you, Madam Speaker, in the House—because he made a false claim based on a falsehood, the falsehood being that fundraisers in the Speaker's dining room are unprecedented and improper. They are neither improper nor unprecedented. Mr Burke: I've apologised five times for that. The SPEAKER: No, he hasn't. Mr PYNE: The member for Watson has at no time found any rule in any of the standing orders or House of Representatives Practice that would indicate that holding a fundraiser in the Speaker's dining room was in any way improper. That is why he should apologise. The member for Watson keeps saying, 'I've apologised five times for a technical error.' He misses a vital point, and his colleagues should start thinking about whether he best represents them as Manager of Opposition Business or whether he might be better suited to another role in the parliament, perhaps on the front bench. This motion is not about him apologising for a technical breach, for making an inadvertent error; this motion is about requiring the Manager of Opposition Business to apologise for deliberately trying to cast an aspersion on the Speaker where that aspersion has been found to be based on a falsehood. A proper apology would be for the Manager of Opposition Business to stand up in the chamber and say: 'I was wrong to base my assertion on the false information that I had been provided. It is not improper for the Speaker to have acted in the way that she did, and it certainly is not unprecedented; and, if it suits the House, I apologise to the Speaker.' That would be an acceptable apology, to the government. He has an opportunity to do so now. He could do it at the end of my speech. He could stand up and make that apology to the government, to the House, but, most importantly, to the Speaker. In his defence to the suspension of standing orders— Mr Dreyfus: Why don't you jail him! The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist! Mr PYNE: The member for Isaacs loves to shout because he is not very good at argument. He is only really good at bellowing. He is not good at arguing; he is very good at shouting. The problem is: I have the microphone and I am not going to stop just because we have a loud member of the audience in the member for Isaacs. In the Manager of Opposition Business's defence, he tried to comment on every other subject because he knows how wrong he is. He tried to talk about the Racial Discrimination Act and the changes to section 18C; freedom of speech; South Australian politics; even student politics. He did everything other than talk about the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is that he should apologise to the Speaker for denigrating the Speaker's role, for attacking the chair based on a falsehood. So I would like to give him the opportunity to do the right thing. This motion will be carried because the government—and, I hope, the crossbenchers, but certainly the government—will support it and, if the crossbenchers support it, the government would be pleased. The Manager of Opposition Business should apologise in order to uphold the dignity of the chair. Whether he likes the occupant of the chair or he dislikes the occupant of the chair is not the issue that is at hand. It is upholding the dignity of the Speakership, which parliaments have done since 1901. It would also show that he is a true gentleman. Gentlemen, when they have been shown to be wrong about something, do the right thing and apologise for it. They are bigger people for doing so. They are limited, quite frankly, when they do not apologise. They show themselves to be bigger men if, when they have been proven to be wrong, they front up and they apologise. But I am also giving the member for Watson this opportunity because I believe he should try and repair his relationship with the chair. Since the day you became Speaker, Madam Speaker, he has tried to insult and denigrate you in this role. Partisan politics have replaced the dignity of the Speakership from the opposition's point of view. In my view, Madam Speaker, if he does not apologise to you as Speaker today, then his position as Manager of Opposition Business is untenable and he cannot go on in the role. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a very precarious hold on the leadership of the Labor Party and it is very hard for him to discipline his frontbenchers, to stand up to the factions; and I know the member for Watson is a factional warlord from New South Wales and has strong right-wing support, and the New South Wales right wing has strong support in the Labor caucus. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show that he has the bottle, that he has the character and the bottle, to be the leader of the Labor Party—a real leader of the Labor Party, a leader like Bob Hawke, a leader like Paul Keating: they would act against one of their frontbenchers who had shown such a deleterious hold on the position that they held. In fact, very early on in the Hawke government, Mick Young, a leader of the House, was asked to stand down from the front bench over a matter. He was very close to the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. He was asked to stand down because he had proven himself to be wrong about something. That is the kind of Labor Party that the Labor Party used to be, not the Labor Party of today. But I will give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity to apologise, to take back many of the remarks that he made in the House. He said things yesterday to you, Madam Speaker, in quite an unbridled attack on the Speakership. He said: … your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this. He said: I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair— 'cashed in on you being in that chair'. Madam Speaker, that one reflects personally on you. That one reflects personally on the judgement call that you made that previous Speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or were Speakers who had enough integrity to say no. I could go on, but the government has important business of the day that we want to get on with. I have made an arrangement with the opposition that the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, will apparently respond on behalf of the Manager of Opposition Business. Doesn't that speak volumes? Members of the government, the gallery and the press should take careful note. The former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, is going to deliver to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House. And do you know why, Madam Speaker? An opposition member interjecting— Mr PYNE: Of course he can speak twice—the other motion was for the suspension of standing orders, Michael, keep up. The point is that the member for Grayndler has to defend the current Manager of Opposition Business because he is just better at the job. The former Leader of the House is better at the job and the member for Watson, by allowing the former Leader of the House to respond on his behalf, is admitting what we all know already—that he is just not up to it. If he was really up to it, he would be standing up on his two hind legs and defending himself in the chamber. He is not doing that and I will tell you why: because his position is indefensible. The evidence for that is that the member for Grayndler is, admittedly, probably the opposition's best parliamentary performer—the one who should be the Manager of Opposition Business in the House but who gave it up to the member for Watson, probably as part of a cunning plan hatched when he first lost the leadership to the factional choice over the people's choice. But we will listen with interest to the defence of the should-be Manager of Opposition Business. We will listen with interest to his defence of the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House, who, quite frankly, if he had the bottle would be prepared to defend himself. More importantly, if he had the bottle, he would be prepared to apologise and move on.