It is Tuesday morning, 5:30 am. I’m reading the Sydney Morning Herald when I spot an article by the lawyer Tim Dick on seasoned Liberal Party member and Member for Mackellar (NSW), Bronwyn Bishop – Speaker of the House of Representatives. I thought it was a great piece. It crystalised some of my own views on the topic… but it ruined my morning.
The most cynical act towards Australians by the Abbott government was the appointment of Bronwyn Bishop as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Consider this: for an impartial parliamentary umpire she has ruled against Labor MPs 319 times in debates compared to just five negative rulings for government MPs (as counted by Sydney Morning Herald journalist, Stephanie Peatling).
Her specialty is ejections of MPs from question time, a notoriously rowdy affair at the best of times. But there was a widely reported bumper week for the Speaker back in late November 2014 when she broke all previous records.
“A record 47 were booted out this week, including the highest number ejected in one day – 18 on Thursday. That broke Wednesday’s record of 12 MPs ejected in one day. Before that, the highest number was in November 2005, when the then speaker David Hawker disciplined 11 MPs,” wrote Shalailah Medhora in the Guardian Australia at the time.
In broad terms, however, Labor is punished with 63 penalties for every one penalty the government receives. What’s wrong with this picture?
An appalling performance
Simply put, Bronwyn Bishop is single-handedly destroying any confidence in our Parliamentary system. The Parliamentary concept is that issues are debated so that we, the public, can understand each side of a policy argument and we the public can bring issues to the government’s attention through our local member.
To get a taste of Bishop’s performance check out this Fairfax media video accompanying lawyer and columnist, Tim Dick’s March 24 article on this topic.
He gives examples where Bishop not only overrules opposition questions, she answers them herself. Dick writes:
Last Tuesday, Labor’s Tanya Plibersek asked Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop a question about the previous night’s Four Corners program. The Bishop in the chair declared that Bishop the minister was “not responsible for the Four Corners program”.
On Thursday, Chris Bowen asked the Treasurer if he agreed with the description by the Prime Minister, whom he called Captain Chaos, that a debt-to-GDP ratio of 50 or 60 per cent was “a pretty good result.
“I do not know that it really is much of a question,” she said, effectively dismissing a legitimate query on whether government debt equal to half the entire nation’s annual income was a good thing.
She found it out of order but said Joe Hockey could answer it if he chose. He didn’t. Labor’s Tony Burke objected: “It is a brand new precedent if answering questions is now optional for ministers”. She sat him down”.
Why is she there? Tim Dick suggests that Tony Abbott awarded Bishop the role as a consolation prize, with its $341,000 a year salary, for being passed over as a minister and to reduce scrutiny of his government.
Bishop’s performance would indicate that Dick is right. That being the case, one can only conclude that we, the public, are being played for mugs.
I don’t like it. What about you?
Discussion5 Comments
Once you start becoming another Fairfax/ABC anti-Coalition outlet, you will lose half your potential subscribers, and will be competing in a very congested marketplace for the rest.
Hi John, thanks for taking the time to make this comment. As you may have read in response to Bryan’s comment above, we will definitely not be presenting a politically partisan agenda. Like all political discussion there will be inevitable questioning, criticism or praise concerning particular people, policies, events and activities – we are interested in those kinds of conversations as part of the mix. We hope this will become clear over time. Cheers,
Disappointing to get a political commentary when there are plenty of retirement village issues to talk about
Thanks for the feedback Bryan. Stories about political issues won’t ever be the mainstay of Frank & Earnest but we will discuss some political topics from time to time in the same way as we discuss other topics – because we think they are interesting, notable or deserving of discussion in one way or another. We definitely will not be presenting any particular partisan view, and this will be clear over time. We are glad you are interested in retirement village topics and issues and encourage you to send us your suggestions. Send an email to us at: editor@frankandearnest.net.au
I think both John and Bryan are being a bit precious. Does it matter where we read interesting and valid commentary which affects all of us. Even though I happen to be as left wing as they come ….. as well as “aged ….. should I happen to read a pro- coalition article on this site, I promise to be discerning enough to not chuck a wobbly and cancel my subscription. Congratulations Keryn and to all concerned on an excellent, interesting and informative forum.