Division Description Changes — Motions — Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011; Dissent from Ruling — 2nd Jun 2011

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:18	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. ) ~~Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.~~ One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. ) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].) ~~References~~ The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3) introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives). The motion was "_That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from._" The ruling referred to is that the [Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512) cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2). ) Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. One member, the Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ Section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). ) _Background to the bill_ The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee). ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [Bronwyn Bishop](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives). The [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22) explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512).) References
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:20	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. ) Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. ) ''Background to the bill'' The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4] The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].) References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. * [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. * [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 17:31:09	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. One member, the National MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] ''Background to the bill'' The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4] References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. * [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. * [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 17:30:56	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. One member, the National MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] ''Background to the bill'' The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[3] The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4] References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. * [3] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here]. * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. * [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. * [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 17:27:27	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. ''Background to the bill'' The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce." The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[3] References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here]. * [2] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. * [3] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 17:24:52	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. ''Background to the bill'' The bill abolishes the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce." The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce." References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here]. * [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
representatives vote 2011-06-02#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 17:24:25	Title ~~Motions — Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011; Dissent from Ruling~~ Motions - Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 - Dissent from Ruling Description ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>Mr Speaker, I note your statement to the House and I take it from your statement that your ruling is that the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, introduced by the member for Mackellar, cannot be proceeded with. I have ascertained from the Leader of the House that he does not intend to move a motion to that effect, as occurred on two previous occasions—on the regional students bill and on the bill to do with increasing the pension. Having ascertained that, I reluctantly, but I feel necessarily on behalf of the opposition, move:</p> ~~<p>That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Harry Jenkins</p>~~ <p>On this occasion—and you know I do not do this often—perhaps you would permit me to liaise with the Clerk. I have characterised that this may be described as an advisory ruling, which is something I have tried to avoid. The member for Mackellar can shake her head all she likes. I am trying to get through this with no trickery or hokery pokery. I have been asked whether I consider this to be a ruling or a statement, and I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.</p> <p>I thought I was making a statement, but I am happy for it to be looked upon as a ruling. I had expected it to become a ruling when there was something before us or there were other attempts to do something. If it assists the House, I am happy to put on the record that it is a ruling, and with its becoming a ruling the Manager of Opposition Business is open to do whatever he wishes to do.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. May I say at the beginning of my remarks on this dissent motion that usually dissent motions against a Speaker's ruling are moved in the heat of battle, in question time or at other times during the day, because emotions are running high and the opposition disagrees fundamentally with the Speaker's call on a particular matter. On this occasion I move dissent from your ruling not with any sense of anger or outrage but because it is the only mechanism available to the opposition to put on record its disagreement with the stance you, Mr Speaker, have taken on this occasion on an important bill before the House.</p> <p>As you alluded to in your statement, Mr Speaker, this is not the first time we have debated the issue of appropriation bills—or bills that are not appropriation bills, in the opposition's mind—being before the House and whether the House of Representatives can deal with those bills or is incapable of dealing with those bills. We had this debate over the youth allowance bill that I moved in this House and we had this debate over the bill on the increase in pension, which was moved when Brendan Nelson was the Leader of the Opposition.</p> <p>This is the first, most comprehensive treatment of this fundamental issue that we have had the opportunity to debate in a calm, considered way. I appreciate the note the clerks have produced. It is an excellent note. It is well researched and well written. I appreciate the spirit in which you have made your statement to the House. I also appreciate the fact that the statement was made in an entirely non-partisan way in an attempt to inform the House of what you, Mr Speaker, believe is in our power and within our capacity to deal with in the House of Representatives. However, we fundamentally disagree with the proposition that the Abolition of the Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 cannot be proceeded with in this House. We in the opposition believe that, while it is certainly the case that under the Constitution and the standing orders only the executive can present bills to the Governor-General for assent, that does not mean that the House of Representatives cannot deal with any matter it chooses to deal with that it seeks to put before itself. Our view is that the members of the House of Representatives are sovereign in their capacity to address and deal with any matter.</p> <p>This is a very important debate, because it deals with the relationship between the executive and the Crown, it deals with the relationship between the parliament and the executive and it deals with the relationship between the people and the parliament. It is the opposition's view that the people elect a parliament of 150 members of the House of Representatives and from amongst those members of the parliament an executive is appointed by the Governor-General to advise them on how to govern the nation. The executive has a relationship with the Crown that is quite separate and apart from the parliament. That is in our Constitution and is how our nation has been governed since 1901 and before that in the colonies. The Crown has a particular relationship with the executive which it does not have with the parliament. The opposition has never claimed, and does not claim today, that we as a parliament have the power to direct the Governor-General on how to act or to direct a member of the executive on how to advise the Governor-General. However, we as a parliament do have a right to address and deal with any matter we seek to put before ourselves: we have the capacity to pass it, to amend it, to defeat it or to decide to lay it on the table. But we in the opposition do not believe that the Speaker has the capacity to direct the parliament on whether it can or cannot proceed with a bill.</p> <p>I particularly appeal to the members of the crossbenches, who over the last nine months have made the capacity of private members in this House their cause celebre. The member for Lyne particularly has spoken on many occasions in this place about the sovereignty of private members and their capacity to represent their constituents. I am sure the member for New England would share those views, as would the member for Denison, the member for O'Connor, the member for Kennedy and the member for Melbourne. Our argument is very simple and our argument is this: that while the executive decides what to advise the Governor-General and which bills should be presented to the Governor-General for assent, it is the parliament which can decide any matter before it and dispose of it.</p> <p>So we do dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. We dissent from your ruling because it is the only mechanism we have before us to get a vote in this House on whether the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 can proceed. This is a very important debate for our parliament because it goes very much to the whole basis of the Westminster system over many hundreds of years. Our forebears, who established the traditions upon which our parliament is based, would have fought very strongly, very powerfully, for the right of the parliament to consider any matter we choose to put before us.</p> <p>This is not a light matter. An English civil war was fought over the relationship between the parliament and the people and the Crown and the executive. The English Civil War in the 17th century was not a light matter about a particular king who had a disagreement with a particular group of people led by Oliver Cromwell and many others. It was actually a war over whether the parliament had the capacity to act and its relationship with the Crown. The parliament won that civil war and the relationship between the Crown and the parliament and the executive was established at that time and reaffirmed—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Graham Perrett</p>~~ ~~<p>They cut his head off.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Harry Jenkins</p>~~ ~~<p>The member for Moreton will come to order.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>Do not be so pathetic. That relationship was reaffirmed in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution, as it was called, when James II was removed by the parliament and replaced with a different sovereign, because again the relationship—</p> ~~<p class="italic">Mr Perrett interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>If you do not understand the basis of the traditions of the Westminster system, it is not my job to tell you.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Harry Jenkins</p>~~ ~~<p>Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting and the member for Sturt will ignore him.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>In 1688, the parliament reaffirmed its power and the relationship between itself, the executive and the Crown. That relationship, set in Westminster in the 17th century, is the same relationship we have today in 2011. It has stood for hundreds of years and it is not a light matter for the parliament to decide that it cannot deal with a matter that we would like to put before it. For that reason, while some members of the Labor Party think these are trivial issues—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Graham Perrett</p>~~ ~~<p>That is not what I am saying at all.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Harry Jenkins</p>~~ ~~<p>Order! The member for Moreton is warned and the warning lasts all day.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>While some members of the Labor Party believe that the 24-hour news cycle, or even the 12-hour news cycle, should determine how we operate in this parliament and think that it is simply a game of sport—that it is about who is winning at any particular time—the truth is that these matters are of great import to the relationship this parliament has with the executive and to the relationship between the executive and the Crown. So these matters should be taken very seriously.</p> <p>The Speaker has taken these matters seriously. The Speaker has spent the last week deliberating on this matter. He did not rule last Thursday that the bill could not proceed. I think that the Leader of the House has also taken these matters seriously, because he has not pushed the Speaker on this matter. He has allowed the Speaker to come to a view. The Speaker has quite properly sought the input of the clerks, a paper has been produced and the Speaker has made a decision. We disagree with the Speaker's ruling and so this motion before the chair is that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. We put that dissent motion so that the power of the parliament, the prerogative of the parliament and the sovereignty of the people can be upheld.</p> <p>We do not seek to direct the executive. We do not seek to direct the Crown. Some characterise the bill we are putting up as an appropriation bill, but I note that others do not. The President of the Senate, Senator Hogg, does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate takes the view that, because an appropriation is already in the parliament—because there have already been appropriations placed in the parliament for these matters—this is not a new appropriation and therefore the Senate can deal with such a bill. So why would the Senate have greater powers than the House of Representatives? It is simply absurd to suggest that the Senate would give itself more powers than the House of Representatives, which is of course the people's house. While the people vote for the Senate, the different voting system means that the House of Representatives can most properly be characterised as the people's house. I urge people to support the dissent motion. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''" The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1] Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed. ''Background to the bill'' The bill abolishes the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce." References * [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. * [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

Change

Division

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:18

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. )
~~Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.~~
One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. )
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].)
~~References~~
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3) introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives). The motion was "_That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from._"
The ruling referred to is that the [Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512) cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2). )
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
One member, the Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ Section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). )
_Background to the bill_
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee). ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [Bronwyn Bishop](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives). The [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22) explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512).)
References

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:20

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.(Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here]. )
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section]. )
''Background to the bill''
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4]
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.(Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here]. ) It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."(Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].)
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
* [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here].
* [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 17:31:09

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
One member, the National MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
One member, the Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
''Background to the bill''
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4]
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
* [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here].
* [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 17:30:56

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
One member, the National MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
''Background to the bill''
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[3]
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[3] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[4]
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here].
* [3] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
* [3] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here].
* [4] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 17:27:27

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
''Background to the bill''
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."[3]
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
* [2] Learn more about superannuation in Australia, including the superannuation guarantee, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_Guarantee here].
* [3] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 17:24:52

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
''Background to the bill''
The bill abolishes the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."
The bill would abolish the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].
* [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].

representatives vote 2011-06-02#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 17:24:25

Title

~~Motions — Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011; Dissent from Ruling~~
Motions - Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 - Dissent from Ruling

Description

~~Christopher Pyne~~
Mr Speaker, I note your statement to the House and I take it from your statement that your ruling is that the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, introduced by the member for Mackellar, cannot be proceeded with. I have ascertained from the Leader of the House that he does not intend to move a motion to that effect, as occurred on two previous occasions—on the regional students bill and on the bill to do with increasing the pension. Having ascertained that, I reluctantly, but I feel necessarily on behalf of the opposition, move:
~~That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.~~
~~Harry Jenkins~~
On this occasion—and you know I do not do this often—perhaps you would permit me to liaise with the Clerk. I have characterised that this may be described as an advisory ruling, which is something I have tried to avoid. The member for Mackellar can shake her head all she likes. I am trying to get through this with no trickery or hokery pokery. I have been asked whether I consider this to be a ruling or a statement, and I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.
I thought I was making a statement, but I am happy for it to be looked upon as a ruling. I had expected it to become a ruling when there was something before us or there were other attempts to do something. If it assists the House, I am happy to put on the record that it is a ruling, and with its becoming a ruling the Manager of Opposition Business is open to do whatever he wishes to do.
~~Christopher Pyne~~
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. May I say at the beginning of my remarks on this dissent motion that usually dissent motions against a Speaker's ruling are moved in the heat of battle, in question time or at other times during the day, because emotions are running high and the opposition disagrees fundamentally with the Speaker's call on a particular matter. On this occasion I move dissent from your ruling not with any sense of anger or outrage but because it is the only mechanism available to the opposition to put on record its disagreement with the stance you, Mr Speaker, have taken on this occasion on an important bill before the House.
As you alluded to in your statement, Mr Speaker, this is not the first time we have debated the issue of appropriation bills—or bills that are not appropriation bills, in the opposition's mind—being before the House and whether the House of Representatives can deal with those bills or is incapable of dealing with those bills. We had this debate over the youth allowance bill that I moved in this House and we had this debate over the bill on the increase in pension, which was moved when Brendan Nelson was the Leader of the Opposition.
This is the first, most comprehensive treatment of this fundamental issue that we have had the opportunity to debate in a calm, considered way. I appreciate the note the clerks have produced. It is an excellent note. It is well researched and well written. I appreciate the spirit in which you have made your statement to the House. I also appreciate the fact that the statement was made in an entirely non-partisan way in an attempt to inform the House of what you, Mr Speaker, believe is in our power and within our capacity to deal with in the House of Representatives. However, we fundamentally disagree with the proposition that the Abolition of the Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 cannot be proceeded with in this House. We in the opposition believe that, while it is certainly the case that under the Constitution and the standing orders only the executive can present bills to the Governor-General for assent, that does not mean that the House of Representatives cannot deal with any matter it chooses to deal with that it seeks to put before itself. Our view is that the members of the House of Representatives are sovereign in their capacity to address and deal with any matter.
This is a very important debate, because it deals with the relationship between the executive and the Crown, it deals with the relationship between the parliament and the executive and it deals with the relationship between the people and the parliament. It is the opposition's view that the people elect a parliament of 150 members of the House of Representatives and from amongst those members of the parliament an executive is appointed by the Governor-General to advise them on how to govern the nation. The executive has a relationship with the Crown that is quite separate and apart from the parliament. That is in our Constitution and is how our nation has been governed since 1901 and before that in the colonies. The Crown has a particular relationship with the executive which it does not have with the parliament. The opposition has never claimed, and does not claim today, that we as a parliament have the power to direct the Governor-General on how to act or to direct a member of the executive on how to advise the Governor-General. However, we as a parliament do have a right to address and deal with any matter we seek to put before ourselves: we have the capacity to pass it, to amend it, to defeat it or to decide to lay it on the table. But we in the opposition do not believe that the Speaker has the capacity to direct the parliament on whether it can or cannot proceed with a bill.
I particularly appeal to the members of the crossbenches, who over the last nine months have made the capacity of private members in this House their cause celebre. The member for Lyne particularly has spoken on many occasions in this place about the sovereignty of private members and their capacity to represent their constituents. I am sure the member for New England would share those views, as would the member for Denison, the member for O'Connor, the member for Kennedy and the member for Melbourne. Our argument is very simple and our argument is this: that while the executive decides what to advise the Governor-General and which bills should be presented to the Governor-General for assent, it is the parliament which can decide any matter before it and dispose of it.
So we do dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. We dissent from your ruling because it is the only mechanism we have before us to get a vote in this House on whether the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 can proceed. This is a very important debate for our parliament because it goes very much to the whole basis of the Westminster system over many hundreds of years. Our forebears, who established the traditions upon which our parliament is based, would have fought very strongly, very powerfully, for the right of the parliament to consider any matter we choose to put before us.
This is not a light matter. An English civil war was fought over the relationship between the parliament and the people and the Crown and the executive. The English Civil War in the 17th century was not a light matter about a particular king who had a disagreement with a particular group of people led by Oliver Cromwell and many others. It was actually a war over whether the parliament had the capacity to act and its relationship with the Crown. The parliament won that civil war and the relationship between the Crown and the parliament and the executive was established at that time and reaffirmed—
~~Graham Perrett~~
~~They cut his head off.~~
~~Harry Jenkins~~
~~The member for Moreton will come to order.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
Do not be so pathetic. That relationship was reaffirmed in 1688 in the Glorious Revolution, as it was called, when James II was removed by the parliament and replaced with a different sovereign, because again the relationship—
~~Mr Perrett interjecting—~~
~~If you do not understand the basis of the traditions of the Westminster system, it is not my job to tell you.~~
~~Harry Jenkins~~
~~Order! The member for Moreton will cease interjecting and the member for Sturt will ignore him.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
In 1688, the parliament reaffirmed its power and the relationship between itself, the executive and the Crown. That relationship, set in Westminster in the 17th century, is the same relationship we have today in 2011. It has stood for hundreds of years and it is not a light matter for the parliament to decide that it cannot deal with a matter that we would like to put before it. For that reason, while some members of the Labor Party think these are trivial issues—
~~Graham Perrett~~
~~That is not what I am saying at all.~~
~~Harry Jenkins~~
~~Order! The member for Moreton is warned and the warning lasts all day.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
While some members of the Labor Party believe that the 24-hour news cycle, or even the 12-hour news cycle, should determine how we operate in this parliament and think that it is simply a game of sport—that it is about who is winning at any particular time—the truth is that these matters are of great import to the relationship this parliament has with the executive and to the relationship between the executive and the Crown. So these matters should be taken very seriously.
The Speaker has taken these matters seriously. The Speaker has spent the last week deliberating on this matter. He did not rule last Thursday that the bill could not proceed. I think that the Leader of the House has also taken these matters seriously, because he has not pushed the Speaker on this matter. He has allowed the Speaker to come to a view. The Speaker has quite properly sought the input of the clerks, a paper has been produced and the Speaker has made a decision. We disagree with the Speaker's ruling and so this motion before the chair is that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. We put that dissent motion so that the power of the parliament, the prerogative of the parliament and the sovereignty of the people can be upheld.
We do not seek to direct the executive. We do not seek to direct the Crown. Some characterise the bill we are putting up as an appropriation bill, but I note that others do not. The President of the Senate, Senator Hogg, does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate does not characterise this bill as an appropriation bill. The Senate takes the view that, because an appropriation is already in the parliament—because there have already been appropriations placed in the parliament for these matters—this is not a new appropriation and therefore the Senate can deal with such a bill. So why would the Senate have greater powers than the House of Representatives? It is simply absurd to suggest that the Senate would give itself more powers than the House of Representatives, which is of course the people's house. While the people vote for the Senate, the different voting system means that the House of Representatives can most properly be characterised as the people's house. I urge people to support the dissent motion. (Time expired)
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-06-02.4.3 motion] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne]. The motion was "''That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.''"
The ruling referred to is that the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011] cannot be proceeded with.[1]
Because the majority voted against the motion, the Speaker's ruling remains in force and the bill will not proceed.
''Background to the bill''
The bill abolishes the current age limit of 70 years for the payment of the superannuation guarantee.[2] It was introduced as a private member's bill by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Bronwyn Bishop]. The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4512_ems_08b7f49a-ad33-4a59-81e4-cc64a0238502%22 explanatory memorandum] explains that "[t]he current age limit set of 70 unfairly discriminates against older workers and forces them into retirement, when many want to continue in the paid workforce."
References
* [1] Read the Speaker's ruling [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-06-02.2.2 here].
* [2] Find more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4512 here].