Quote of the Week

"Bronwyn’s self-importance and vanity was, even by political standards, off the charts and so initially everyone doubled up laughing at the absurdity of Madame Speaker descending out of the sky like a Valkyrie to entertain a gaggle of Liberal Party supporters at a Geelong golf course." [Then Australian Minister for Education and Training & Liberal MP for Sturt Christopher Pyne speaking about his colleague  Bronwyn Bishop, 15 July 2015, in "A Bigger Picture", April 2020]

Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP is no more

The Sydney Morning Herald: Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker

Come federal polling day this year Australia will see the last of the Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop - Senator for NSW for six and a half years, Member for Mackellar for twenty-two years and Speaker of the House of Representatives from 12 November 2013 to 2 August 2015 when her forced resignation from that post resulted in an ignominious return to the government backbench.

The 73 year-old Ms. Bishop was dumped by the Liberal Party as its endorsed candidate in Mackellar on 16 April 2016 after a long but lacklustre political career spiked by periods of controversy.

Most notably when:

in 1990 when she breached Liberal Party conditions that said neither members of parliament nor candidates could accept money on the party’s behalf for their own campaigning;

in 1994 she breached parliamentary funding guidelines in relation to a researcher she had employed who was being paid by FAI Insurance;

her three-year stint as Minister for Aging saw her become known as the Minister for Kerosene Baths after mistreatment of the elderly in nursing homes came to light in 2000;
based on alleged security concerns she ordered that women wearing the burqa or niqab be segregated from others in the visitors' gallery of Parliament House in 2014;

as probably the most-biased politician to have ever occupied the Speaker’s chair she removed MPs from the House of Representatives chamber 400 times over 18 months with 393 of these instances involving Labor MPs (as well as condoning the Liberal Leader of the House openly calling the Leader of the Opposition a c*unt); and finally,

her excessive use and alleged abuse of parliamentary travel entitlements became public knowledge culminating in Choppergate in 2015.

Described as the “unacceptable face of the Liberal Party” and widely disliked both within and without the party, it is unlikely that she will be missed when the 45^th Australian Parliament is formed.

In which the Speaker in the House of Representatives looks to Prime Minister Abbott before deciding her course of action

At between 9-11 secs this YouTube video shows The Speaker looking directly at Prime Minister Tony Abbott, he signals her with a slight shake of the head and immediately Bronwyn Bishop states she personally finds the Leader of the Opposition's question offensive……

http://youtu.be/R4f6bN0fQvM

In which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop indicates that she considers being asked to leave the Chamber under standing order 94(a) on the last sitting day of the parliamentary week to be a form of early mark excusing an MP from further attendance

Excerpts from House of Representatives Hansard for Thursday 27 November 2014, in which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop (left) first indicates that she considers being asked to leave the Chamber under standing order 94(a) on the last sitting day of the parliamentary week to be a form of "early mark" excusing an MP from further attendance and, then barely an hour later complains that those so ejected were possibly conspiring to get that early mark she had freely offered:

The SPEAKER: [approximately 14:02] Order! When questions are asked, I am not going to have this perpetual wall of noise and interjection going on while an answer is being given. If it is to continue, many people will leave the chamber. Those who want early marks can have them.

The SPEAKER (15:13): I would simply say to the Manager of Opposition Business that the behaviour today was an absolute disgrace. Looking at the list, I can see that quite a few of them are indeed Victorian members, who perhaps wish to go back and campaign. Others may wish to have early planes, but there was a deliberate campaign of noise and disruption, and I am fortunate in having standing order 94(a) with which to deal with it, otherwise it means naming people and taking up the time of the House. Simply to stand there and try to say that you all behaved like little angels and that you were picked on is pathetic.

It is worth noting that when Ms. Bishop assigned an ulterior motive to the Victorian MPs she chose to ignore two facts:

1. Victorian MPs were not the most prominent group of members she ejected - that honour went to New South Wales.

2. At the time she was speaking, only one of the 18 MPs had completed the one hour exclusion period under 94(a). Therefore she had no proof and no basis for implying the five Victorian MPs were absent because they; perhaps wish to go back and campaign.

According to the Hansard record the 18 Labor MPs (7 from NSW, 5 from Victoria, 2 from Queensland, 2 from WA and 1 each from SA & Tasmania) ejected during Question Time on that day, left in this order commencing at approximately 14:04 pm and finishing at approximately 15:01pm:

The member for Chifley (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Greenway (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The members for Batman and Corio (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not these MPs returned to the Chamber

The member for Franklin (Tas) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Wakefield (SA) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber   

The member for Hotham (Vic) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Hunter (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber
The member for Griffith (Qld) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Grayndler (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Melbourne Ports (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Shortland (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Wills (Vic) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Fremantle (WA) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned
The member for Kingsford Smith (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Charlton (NSW) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Moreton (Qld) * record did not reflect whether or not MP returned to the Chamber

The member for Perth (WA) * later returned to the Chamber until it adjourned

* Photograph form The Canberra Times

Can the Speaker in the House of Representatives deny knowledge of alleged laundered money routed through The Dame Pattie Menzies Liberal Foundation?

According to a report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 September 2014, Liberal Party MP for Mackellar and Speaker in the House of Representatives Bronwyn Bishop has been identified in evidence before the Operation Spicer investigation as being a director of the Dame Pattie Menzies Foundation Trust which received $11,000 from the Free Enterprise Foundation on December 9, 2010, which it then directed to the NSW branch of the party for use in the 2011 state election and The previous day, Mr Partridge has sent a cheque for $125,000 to the Free Enterprise Foundation with a note which read: "We trust this donation will provide assistance with the 2011 NSW State election campaign". Additionally, A $2000 donation to the Dame Pattie foundation from Australian Corporate Holdings, a company connected to Sydney property developer and sailor Syd Fischer, was also passed on to the NSW Liberals.

So sure was the foundation that these donations would not be queried that they were included on the relevant disclosure from:

The Dame Pattie Menzies Liberal Foundation Ltd disclosure of political donations and expenditure for the financial year 2010-11

Can Bronwyn Bishop deny all knowledge of this foundation receiving ‘laundered’ developer donations before passing them onto the NSW Liberal Party, when Australian Securities & Investment Commission records reveal that at least three current office bearers of The Dame Pattie Menzies Liberal Foundation Ltd (incorporated in NSW) are being questioned concerning allegations of corruption currently being heard during NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Operation Spicer hearings:

JOHN PEGG,  9 Bushlands Avenue, GORDON NSW 2072, appointed 15.11.93 appeared before NSW ICAC on 8 September 2014

BRONWYN KATHLEEN BISHOP, 21 Pacific Parade, DEE WHY NSW 2099, appointed 29.08.86

WARWICK JAMES WILKINSON,  6A Parriwi Road, MOSMAN NSW 2088, appointed 29.08.86

GILLIAN STOREY, Werong, YASS NSW 2582, appointed 23.11.92 

CHRISTINE MARGARET LIDDY, 103 Raglan Street, MOSMAN NSW 2088, appointed 20.02.04

DENISE ANNE FINK, Unit 11, 282 Sailors Bay Road, NORTHBRIDGE NSW 2063, appointed 20.02.04

DAMIAN JONES,  853 Barrenjoey Road, PALM BEACH NSW 2108, first appointed 06.01.05

NICHOLAS CAMPBELL, 6 Rhonda Close, WAHROONGA NSW 2076 appointed 13.12.13 appearing before NSW ICAC 9 September 2014

The company secretary since 2008 is:

SIMON JOHN MCINNES 5 Hillpine Avenue, KOGARAH NSW 2217, appeared before NSW ICAC 4 September 2014

ABC TV show Clarke & Dawe reviews the Abbott Government's performance

https://www.facebook.com/ClarkeAndDawe

Once more Speaker Bishop demonstrates her lack of boundaries

The Sydney Morning Herald 24 May 2014:

Bronwyn Bishop has been hosting Liberal Party fundraisers in her Parliament House Speaker’s suite, a move that has raised further questions about her role as an impartial adjudicator.

A spokesman for Ms Bishop said there was nothing illegal or improper about the practice, and no official rules appear to exist. But no recent Speakers interviewed by Fairfax Media had used their office for party fundraising.

Asked about a recent fundraising event held in the Speaker's Parliament House suite, Ms Bishop’s spokesman said: "From time to time the Speaker holds private functions in Parliament House as does a large number of members and senators... the cost is charged to her private account.”

"There is nothing illegal about it, there is nothing improper about it,” he added.

"It’s the use of a room that every other Member of Parliament does often. Are you chasing up all the other people that held fundraisers at Parliament House?”

Recent Labor Speakers Anna Burke and Harry Jenkins said they had never used their Parliament House office for party fundraising events.

“The Speaker’s office is representative of the Parliament,” Ms Burke said.

“The Parliament is not owned by the government of the day, it’s owned by the people. And it would be highly inappropriate for the people’s house to be used as a fundraising arm of a political party.”

The House of Representatives clerk would not comment on whether it was proper for the Speaker to be using her office for fundraising. He referred questions to Ms Bishop’s office.....

The Daily Telegraph 23 May 2014:

About 20 Liberal donors were charged $2,500 a plate at the intimate dinner, which was briefly attended by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, The Sunday Telegraph understands.

Mrs Bishop’s office said it had not breached any electoral laws and all food and drink consumed was charged to her private account to be paid for by the Liberal Party.

Her large parliamentary suite includes a formal dining room that opens on to a parliamentary courtyard. As Speaker, she also collects a taxpayer funded salary of $341,477 a year…..

Mrs Bishop’s fundraiser was one of many events held on budget night by the Coalition and Labor, including a $500-a-head function for hundreds of Liberal donors in the Great Hall.....

When laughter became a sin in the Australian House of Representatives

House of Representatives Hansard 26 March 2014:

The SPEAKER: We seem to have a new tactic of having an outburst of infectious laughter—which I suspect may become disorderly—and I suspect it might begin with the member for Franklin. The member for Franklin is warned.

Mr Burke: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: It had better be a proper point of order.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, are you ruling people out of order because they are laughing?

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member for Franklin will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Franklin then left the chamber

In which House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop fails to acknowledge a Point of Order and allows comment on a matter still before an Australian court

On Tuesday 25 March 2014 former member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, was released on bail (approximately one hour after sentencing) after his legal team appealed the three-month jail sentence.

One day later in the House of Representatives Prime Minister Tony Abbott mentioned Craig Thomson in relation to the matter under appeal.

Because the matter is still sub judice Abbott's remarks were irresponsible at best and prejudicial at worst.

Hansard 26 March 2014:

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister.

Why does the government have a plan to bring back knights and dames, but no plan for Australian jobs? Prime Minister, why is the Abbott government's priority a plan to bring back knighthoods? ….

Mr ABBOTT: This is a government which is capable of doing several things at the same time. But our priority is lifting the burdens on Australian families, and last week we tried to scrap the carbon tax, and Labor made the carbon tax stay. Yesterday we tried to scrap the mining tax, and Labor made the mining tax stay. We are trying to clean up the building and construction industry; Labor is trying to stop that. We are trying to get rid of

union rorts, rackets and rip-offs, and corruption of the sort that the former member for Dobell was engaged in; Labor is still protecting that kind of wrongdoing. These are our priorities; I am proud of them.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there was ever a breach of standing order 104(a), it is what we just heard.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.

Australian democracy is dying by inches on the floor of the House of Representatives and the cause is the Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop MP

Excerpt from Australian House of Representatives Hansard of 10 December 2013, in which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has yet another ‘senior moment’, forgets parliamentary processes, gets snakey when she is reminded of the correct procedure and shows her intensely partisan nature:

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (21:16): I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson moving immediately:

That this House:

condemns the Government for failing to allow proper debate on legislation before the Parliament.

Mr BURKE: We are in the middle of a debate on important legislation about infrastructure—

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr BURKE: and the cowardice of the Leader of the House—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:17): I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [21:21] .....

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:25): Indeed, Madam Speaker. I second the motion and I have nothing more to say.

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, Madam Speaker, now that I have concluded my speech, you need to put the resolution to the House before you give someone else the call.

Mr Pyne: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Albanese: Yes, well, you need to do that, Madam Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.

Government members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The former Leader of the House, who is now apparently the Acting Manager of Opposition Business, has given the chair advice. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House will resume their seats. If the Manager of Opposition Business is raising a point of order to resume his status, then it is acknowledged.

Mr Albanese: Let's be bipartisan! That is outrageous!

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, if you want to be an impartial chair, I ask that you withdraw.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:27): Madam Speaker, the government opposes the—

The SPEAKER: I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business and have already said that I acknowledge the Manager of Opposition Business. Now I call—

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Mr Burke: A point of order, Madam Speaker!

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There will be no further points of order acknowledged.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (21:28): Madam Speaker, I move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

You have just ruled that no other points of order will be heard. That is a ruling, and I move that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Burke: No, Madam Speaker! There has never been an occasion when a Speaker has refused to allow a resolution for dissent to be heard. Your role and everything that is contained within Practice falls apart if you will not hear the dissent motion.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I don't need to. I—

The SPEAKER: Both members will resume their seats. You are asked to resume your seat; you will do so.

Mr Burke: I have asked that your ruling be dissented from!

The SPEAKER: You will resume your seat. You have said that you are dissenting from my ruling. Whether or not you consider I have made a ruling, I do not consider I made a ruling. However, I will entertain your dissent motion if you wish to pursue it.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, critical to the role of Speaker in this House is the one principle that the Speaker will not engage in debate. The comments that you made with respect to me would have been reasonable interjections when you were in this House merely as the member for Mackellar—rules that were reasonable for any member to get up and try to make a half-funny, childish interjection. But you need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that you are meant to be impartial. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that the office you hold is

greater and more important than your own political rhetoric. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that we have not previously—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:30): It is time this farce were brought to an end, and I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [21:34].....

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:40): Yes, Madam Speaker. A high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of office is one of the hallmarks of good speakership. That is what House of Representatives Practice—

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Pyne: I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard. A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—

Mr Albanese: I am wondering, Madam Speaker, whether there is any precedent for a shutting down of a dissent debate in the Speaker of the House of Representatives since 1901, ever?

The SPEAKER: I do not know whether that is a point of order.

Mr Albanese: Because there has not been in the last 17 years.

The SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. There is no point of order.

The House divided. [21:44] ....

The rest of this sorry saga can be read from Hansard 10 December 2013 p. 107

Peter Van Onselen gives his opinion of Speaker Bronwyn Bishop

The Advertiser online 23 November 2013:

THE first fortnight of parliamentary sittings has proven one thing: Bronwyn Bishop is going to be a hopeless Speaker.

Not, of course, if you are a partisan who happens to enjoy the Coalition winning the day in Question Time, for Bishop ensures that happens on an all-too-regular basis.

She is hopeless for anyone who thinks a Speaker operating with even just a modicum of independence is good for our parliamentary process.

Every day of Question Time over the past two weeks she showed her partisan stripes. She was condescending to the Opposition, to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and, particularly, to manager of Opposition business Tony Burke.

She let the manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, get away with behaviour even Prime Minister Tony Abbott thinks is unparliamentary when Pyne called Shorten "electricity Bill".

Bishop has only just started in the role, so the many slip-ups forgetting members' electorates and basic procedures can be forgiven. But the overtly partisan style she has adopted is unlikely to change.

In fact, it will probably harden as the political contest becomes tighter, once the Coalition starts making unpopular decisions.

I didn't have much time for the performances of her predecessors Harry Jenkins or Anna Burke during Labor's time in power but at least they tried to develop non-partisan approaches to rulings.

If one good thing came out of the minority Parliament that was it. Bishop can't even keep her snide remarks out of her partisan interventions. She has reverted to the well-worn precedent in this country (as opposed to in the UK, for example) of the Speaker simply being an extension of the government - a hack who might as well be sitting on the benches behind the Prime Minister.

If there is one shining light in Bishop's woeful performance as Speaker this past fortnight, it is that she is doing her relatively insignificant job rather than being a member of Abbott's cabinet.

Is this the royal 'we', Madam Speaker, or are you inviting the Abbott Government to consent to your ruling?

The Australian House of Representatives Hansard of 13 November 2013 highlights the ambiguity in language used by The Speaker, the still active member of the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party Bronwyn Bishop:

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100(d)(ii) indicates that 'argument' should not be included in questions. I know that a wide definition has been permitted for questions, particularly from oppositions, over the years, but the phrase 'betray the Australian people' is clearly an argument and I put it to you that that part of the question should be ruled out of order.

The SPEAKER: I think on this occasion we might give a little leniency to the Leader of the Opposition and let his question stand. [my red bolding]

UPDATE

The problem concerning language used by the Speaker is now on the Hansard record.

Hansard 21 November 2013:

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:46): I move:

That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from......

I must say it is the first time I can recall that I have had a Speaker refer to the government's position using the pronoun 'we'. That was an extraordinary part of the way you sought to explain yourself to the chamber. If it was not enough for us to have a Speaker physically brought to the chair by a Prime Minister and a Leader of the House, to then have rulings that are governed by the term 'we' referring to yourself and the government as one, changes the role of your chair entirely and changes the role of the high office you occupy entirely.....

The SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the reflection on the chair that was made.

Mr BURKE: I withdraw.... 

However, Ms. Bishop took exception insisted Mr.Burke withdraw that part of his dissent motion.

 Ms.Bishop apparently also took exception to this tweet on the subject by an Opposition MP:

Rob Mitchell ‏@RobMitchellMP
Speaker makes ruling citing WE as in Govt Independence of chair gone

6:10 PM - 20 Nov 13 

Was Bronwyn having another bad hair day yesterday?

Not content with getting her marching orders from the House of Representatives earlier in the day, Bronwyn Bishop (the Member for Mackellar and former Minister for 'Kerosene Baths') fiddled with the truth when she spoke in the chamber later in the day yesterday.

Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar) (18:49): ... I have had conversations with people who had abided by the previous scheme and kept their receipts and claimed them. They actually got more money back than they will get out of the cash splash, which the government has dressed up as an education bonus but requires no evidence of being spent on education at all.

Bishop was referring to the SchoolKids Bonus and what she failed to do was tell the whole story.

In a previous post clarencegirl pointed out:

"the federal government website states; The Education Tax Refund provides up to 50% back on a range of children's education expenses.

For the 2010–11 tax year refunds may be as much as $397 for every child at primary school, and up to $794 for every child at secondary school. The amount of the refund increases each year by the Consumer Price Index. In the 2011-12 tax year your refund could be as much as $409 for primary kids and $818 for secondary students.

While Budget Paper No. 2 states; From January 2013, every family with a child at school will be guaranteed $410 per annum for each primary school student and $820 per annum for each secondary school student. All eligible families will receive the full rate of payment and will no longer need to keep receipts as proof of expense, or wait until tax time. Eligibility for the payment will remain open to families with children enrolled and attending school who are in receipt of Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB A) or other qualifying income support payments or allowances under a prescribed educational scheme that precludes the family from receiving FTB A. [my red bolding throughout]

Seems Ms Bishop was speaking with well-heeled constituents who are going to miss out on the bonus because ... are you ready for the truth? ... they don't qualify for it. And why don't they qualify for it? Their earnings are such that won't get it because they don't need it.

Really, what Bishop was doing was speaking to prop up middle class welfare spending that should be given the drop-kick more often.