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.

When a website tells the unvarnished truth.....

This is an image of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, on his feet during Question Time, which was displayed on the Australian Parliament website on 24 March 2014:

In which Australian House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop appears to invent or ignore standing orders as she pleases

Federal Liberal Party MP and Speaker House of Representatives, Bronwyn Bishop, asserts that Abbott Government ministers are not obliged to answer questions during Question Time, then decides that standing orders relating to relevance don't apply and makes a mockery of the point of order rule by not immediately addressing the point but turning instead to ask a question of the prime minister.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 20 March 2014:

Sinodinos, Senator Arthur

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Senator Sinodinos's statement to the Senate in February 2013 that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to Australian Water Holdings by Sydney Water. Was the Prime Minister aware that Senator Sinodinos had in fact arranged for a letter from Premier O'Farrell to help secure the contract? When did the Prime Minister become aware of this?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:27): These are all matters that will quite properly be canvassed by the ICAC inquiry.

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

The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister finished his answer?

Mr ABBOTT: Yes.

The SPEAKER: He has finished his answer. Do you have a point of order?

Mr Burke: Yes, under standing order 104(a), Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has finished his answer.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, it cannot be the case that the moment—

The SPEAKER: You were very quick on your feet.

Mr Burke: I am given the call, you then, instead of hearing the point of order, turn to the Prime Minister for advice.

The SPEAKER: I point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that that is coming close to a reflection.

Mr Burke: Well—

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat! The member would also know that, under the standing orders, ministers are not obliged to answer questions.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The SPEAKER: No, they are not, as you well know. Merely because you do not get the answer you wish does not make it outside the standing orders. [my red bolding]

Excerpts from House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders (44^th Australian Parliament) concerning questions to government ministers and points of order:

98 Questions to Ministers

(a) A Member may ask a question in writing of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary), to be placed on the Notice Paper for written reply.

(b) During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary), without notice and for immediate response.

(c) A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected:

(i) public affairs;

(ii) administration; or

(iii) proceedings pending in the House.

(d) Questioners must not ask Ministers:

(i) for an expression of opinion, including a legal opinion; or

(ii) to announce government policy, but may seek an explanation about the policy and its application, and may ask the Prime Minister whether a Minister's statement in the House represents government policy. [my red bolding]

Point of order and Speaker's ruling

86 Point of order

(a) Subject to standing order 104, a Member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time. After the question of order has been stated to the Speaker by the Member rising to the question of order, consideration and decision of every other question shall be suspended until the matter is disposed of by the Speaker giving a ruling thereon. [my red bolding]

Excerpt from Parliamentary Library Research Paper, 22 November 2013, on the subject of relevance:

Standing Order 104 was amended on 29 September 2010 in relation to relevance as follows:

(a) An answer must be directly relevant to the question.

(b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer.

(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 4 minutes.

Hitherto the requirement had been for answers to be 'relevant to the question'—meaning 'relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant', with the result that 'provided the answer is relevant and is not couched in unparliamentary language Ministers may virtually answer questions without notice in any way they choose'. [my red bolding]

The fact that the Speaker is so visibly partisan does not earn her the respect of her own party.

It is becoming increasing obvious that government ministers, from Prime Minister Abbott down, are cutting short her remarks or directions from the Chair by interrupting/over talking her whenever the mood moves them.

That vote and the Hansard record

Twitter had it first as it happened on 12 February 2014:

Then the mainstream media picked it up in articles such as this in The Sydney Morning Herald the next day:

It's a brave thing for a politician to abandon his party and vote with the other side. But last night it was confusion, not bravery, that led the new Liberal member for Barton, Nickolas Varvaris, to unwittingly "cross the floor" and vote with Labor.

The Sydney MP walked into the chamber, took his usual seat and drifted off into his own world.

''He had just walked into the chamber so he couldn't have been asleep, even though I am told he had his eyes closed,'' Mr Perrett said.

While Mr Varvaris' state of wakefulness is a matter of dispute – and he has not yet returned Fairfax Media's calls to clarify – one thing is certain: he was sitting on the wrong side of the House when it switched over for the vote.

And as the Labor opposition MPs began filling the seats around him all declined to alert the Liberal MP to his mistake.

The doors closed and Mr Varvaris was counted as a Labor vote.

Liberal MP Craig Laundy, who like Mr Varvaris is a new member of Parliament, said he ''felt sorry'' for his colleague.

''We're new to it,'' Mr Laundy said. ''There but for the grace of God go I.''

Mr. Varvaris was recorded as being in the Chamber and voting at 5.10pm. He was also recorded as present for the 5.18pm vote.

However, don’t look for Nickolas Varvaris’ embarrassing vote during the 6.16pm division in question – it had been removed from the 12 February 2014 Hansard record by the next day.

UPDATE

Video found at realities of the world:

http://youtu.be/zbWt7ODMVxA

Australian Parliament: Draft Legislation Programme For The House Of Representatives & Senate, 11-13 February 2014

For all the political tragics..........

House of Representatives

Click on images to enlarge

Senate timetable can be found here.

Senate asks Abbott's Commission of Audit to explain itself

Australian Parliament – Senate notice:

On 11 December 2013 a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into the Abbott Government’s Commission of Audit, was established to inquire into the Commission of Audit established by the Commonwealth Government and, in particular, any report of that Commission to the Government, with interim reports as the committee sees fit and a final report on or before 13 May 2014.

Submissions should be received by 31 January 2014.

Today national audit commissioners are due to appear before this select committee and will be asked what instructions they have been given by ministers on everything from raising the GST to selling off Medibank Private and Australia Post. The proposed $6 Medicare levy and any changes to industrial relations laws will also be topics under scrutiny.

Will some or all of the commissioners attend or will they send their excuses?

The Commission's first phase report is due to be delivered to the Abbott Government by the end of January 2014.

Change.org petition asks Australian House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop to resign

Bronwyn Bishop MP, Speaker, 44th Australian Federal Parliament : An open letter to Bronwyn Bishop, "Please resign as Speaker".

Petition by

Victoria Lamb

Dover Gardens, Australia

Dear Ms. B. Bishop,
I have been watching the new parliament. I feel the need to point out that the persons to your left were elected by Australian voters to speak for their respective constituents. Your obvious bias towards the persons to your right is a shameful affront to the dignity of the Australian parliamentary process. 
Sitting there in smirking compliance to the LNP, is conduct utterly inappropriate for a speaker, you seem to not understand that you are no longer a toadying backbencher. When you assumed the privileged seat of speaker it became your duty to fairly and impartially represent all Australians.
When you dismiss and silence the voices to your left, you are dismissing and silencing the millions of Australians they have been elected to represent.
For the sake of Australian democracy I ask that you resign immediately as speaker. Your conduct is an utter disgrace to Australia and the parliament. Every moment you sit in that chair, you preside over the destruction of the once proud democratic process of my country.
Sincerely,
An Australian Voter

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

Has Bronwyn Bishop the intellectual capacity and political balance to do justice to the office of Speaker in the Australian House of Representatives?

One of a growing number of instances where Bronwyn Bishop’s own behaviour raises doubts about her fitness for the role of Speaker.

The Question Without Notice on 19 November 2013:

Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for visiting an Afghan family in Townsville who had spent 24 years in refugee camps before coming to Australia as part of our humanitarian visa program. How are the government's border protection policies supporting the integrity of our humanitarian program?

How the Speaker chose to hear this this question:

The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his nice reading. But I call the minister and I would point out that when he is asked about the position of people who are coming with permanent visas and the 20,000 versus the 13,750 he is entitled to say, as he has done, that the difference between 13,750 and 20,000 constitutes information that the House would find directly relevant to the question. I call the Leader of the House

The ensuing exchange between the Speaker and members of the Labor Opposition:

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a matter that is not relevance.

Mr Burke: I am seeking to understand how a ruling can make relevant material that was irrelevant to the question.

The SPEAKER: You have just said that your point of order is relevance and we have already had one and you are only entitled to one.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, it is with respect to how your ruling is now enforced given that we are dealing with material that you have now said is part of the question which categorically was not.

Ms Plibersek: You have just rewritten the question.

The SPEAKER: The question was one that was pertaining to numbers, as clearly was indicated by the questioner. But I would ask the minister to be relevant to the question as asked.

Not only did Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker rewrite the question, from the Chair she entered into the Hansard record an unsolicited statement which supported the political position of the party in which she is a member.

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 

On only the second full business day of the 44th Australian Parliament the Abbott Government appears to be in breach of a Senate Order

It seems that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is willing to defy a Senate Order For Production Of Documents, as what was tabled one hour and thirty-four minutes past the stated deadline was a Letter from the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to the Clerk of the Senate (Dr Laing) responding to the order of the Senate of 13 November 2013, dated 14 November 2013.

BACKGROUND

Senate Hansard 12 November 2013:

Senator Cameron to move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister Representing the Treasurer, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 14 November 2013; all documents relating to the decision to grant $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank of Australia Reserve Fund, including, but not limited to, documents produced by and/or for, and communications to and/or from the following:

(a) the Treasurer;

(b) the office of the Treasurer;

(c) the Treasury;

(d) the Prime Minister;

(e) the office of the Prime Minister;

(f) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;

(g) members of the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia; and

(h) the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Senate Hansard 13 November 2013:

Reserve Bank of Australia

Order for the Production of Documents

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:46): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister Representing the Treasurer, by no later than 2 pm on Thursday, 14

November 2013; all documents relating to the decision to grant $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank of Australia Reserve Fund,

including, but not limited to, documents produced by and/or for, and communications to and/or from the following:

(a) the Treasurer;

(b) the office of the Treasurer;

(c) the Treasury;

(d) the Prime Minister;

(e) the office of the Prime Minister;

(f) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;

(g) members of the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia; and

(h) the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Question agreed to.

Senate Hansard 14 November 2013:

Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Assistant Treasurer) (15:34): I table my response relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Reserve Bank of Australia reserve fund.*

* House of Representatives Hansard for 14 November confirms that the Labor Opposition's believes Sinodinos tabled none of the requested documents.

Madam Speaker Bronwyn Bishop - partisan, contradictory and in error

First the derogatory nickname used for the Labor Leader of the Opposition was ruled a description then in the next breath It was not a description. 

Either way the new Speaker found using a nickname was not unparliamentary, despite such use appearing to fly in the face of at least two sections of House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders** which were not included in those government amendments to these orders that were voted in at 12.44pm on 13 November 2013.

Excerpt from House Of Representatives Hansard of 13 November 2013:

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education) (09:22): The reason standing orders should not be suspended on this occasion is that the coalition won the election two months ago and today we want to introduce the carbon tax repeal bills. On the draft daily program, the carbon tax repeal bills are listed for debate. Labor has demonstrated for the last 20 minutes that they will do anything to stand in the way of lowering electricity prices in this country. 

'Electricity Bill' Shorten, as his first political act in the parliament, has desired to get his Manager of Opposition Business to block the repeal of the carbon tax. 

Mr Burke: I rise on a point of order. A large number of comments were made yesterday about people being referred to by correct titles.To have the Leader of the House immediately abrogating that is inappropriate and his comment should be withdrawn. 

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House was not addressing a member by any title; he was merely using a description and I do not find the term unparliamentarily. [sic]

Mr Burke: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether you heard the description that was given— 

The SPEAKER: It was not a description. 

Mr Burke: but what we had was something that even the Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged could not be used within the chamber. 

The SPEAKER: I have already ruled on the point of order and you are raising the matter a second time.

** 64 No Member to be referred to by name

In the House and the Federation Chamber, a Member shall not be referred to by name, but by one of the following forms, as appropriate:

(a) the Member’s ministerial office (e.g. Prime Minister, Minister for Defence, Attorney-General);

(b) the Member’s parliamentary office (e.g. Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition, Chief Government Whip);

(c) the Member’s electoral division (e.g. Member for Adelaide).

89 Offensive words

A Member must not use offensive words against:

(a) either House of the Parliament or a Member of the Parliament; or

(b) a member of the Judiciary.

Note:

The new Nationals Member for Page was in the Chamber and voted with other Government MPs to gag debate on the Speaker's ruling.

The Lies Abbott Tells

Tony Abbott treated the Australian electorate like a collection of fools as Opposition Leader and he continues in the same fashion as Prime Minister.

FACT

Australian Public Service Commission on 8 November 2013:

Guidance on the interim arrangements for recruitment in the Australian Public Service is now available.

The purpose of these arrangements is to help meet the Government’s commitment to a reduction of 12,000 employees through natural attrition. 

To meet this commitment and minimise redundancies, it will be necessary to control engagements very tightly. At the same time, we need to maintain viable front line services, particularly in regional locations, and preserve the skills required to meet the Government’s priorities.

Accordingly, the Government has agreed to a set of arrangements that make the redeployment of displaced employees, within agencies and across the APS, the first priority when filling vacancies....

Outline of Key Principles

4. The key elements of the interim recruitment policy are as follows, and are effective immediately:

a.   before considering any recruitment action, agencies should undertake careful and objective analysis of the role and whether it actually needs to be filled;

b.   priority is to be given first to displaced (or potentially displaced[1]) APS employees, then to other existing APS staff;

c.   agencies will only engage non-APS staff to fill critical vacancies with the agreement of the Australian Public Service Commissioner;

d.   staffing action which is underway should be suspended, except where an offer of employment has been made to a successful candidate (this action may be re-initiated after the redeployment register has been examined and where approval is sought from the APS Commissioner and where the Commissioner agrees that filling is essential);

e.    where new vacancies arise, agencies will follow these steps:

o    Step 1: the vacancy is to be filled by displaced staff from within the agency, or if none are suitable, by displaced staff from across the APS;

o    Step 2: if evidence is provided to the Commission that the agency has considered the CVs of displaced employees on the APS redeployment registers without finding a suitable candidate, and filling the vacancy is considered essential, the vacancy may be advertised internally (ie. within the APS on APSJobs[2]); and

o    Step 3: if steps 1 and 2 are unsuccessful, critical vacancies can be advertised to external candidates with the APS Commissioner’s agreement. These cases are expected to be rare and demonstrably exceptional, with the exception of positions funded through fee for service arrangements;

f.     Non-ongoing employment: consistent with the intention of these arrangements to support a significant reduction in APS employment overall, agency heads will take measures to ensure that existing non-ongoing employment arrangements cease at the end of their current term, and refrain from entering new arrangements, other than where the agency head approves a particular requirement in order to meet a critical business demand. Agency heads should also consider cancelling non-ongoing arrangements in the case of programs that have been closed or downgraded. Agency heads are to advise the APS Commissioner in writing on a monthly basis, using Form 1, providing details of when they have agreed to a new or extended non-ongoing engagement with details and reasons for the decision.

g.    agencies are to seek the APS Commissioner’s prior endorsement to conduct larger scale non-ongoing recruitment activities to meet essential business requirements; in particular, for intermittent and irregular non-ongoing employees.

5. The APS Commissioner’s Directions will be modified to allow promotions to continue to be available for existing APS employees where the vacancy was only advertised to APS employees. The new Directions will also require the APS Commissioner’s agreement before advertising is made open to the community. These measures are intended to be temporary and are intended to help achieve the Government’s objective to quickly and significantly reduce the size of the public service by natural attrition. Subject to the changed processes outlined here, the merit principle continues to apply in all other respects.

6. Agencies should ensure that positions considered as critical for filling are classified correctly against the appropriate work level standards as these will be used to assist matching against the redeployment register. Agencies should consult the SES and non-SES classification guides on the APSC’s website for further information....

Interim arrangements for APS recruitment processes

Media statement

On 31 October, CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark advised staff about changes to recruitment processes at the organisation.

8 November 2013

The changes included the temporary suspension of external recruitment and contract renewals except in exceptional circumstances which will be considered on a case by case basis.

Dr Clark provided an update to staff today about the changes, including the following details:

“The figure quoted in the media today of 1500 staff under uncertainty is incorrect,” Dr Clark said.

“There are approximately 300 non-casual contracted staff whose terms finish in the 2013-14 financial year. In normal circumstances, a proportion of these terms are not renewed in any given year however we recognise that this temporary suspension will result in a higher than usual number of non-renewals.

“Regarding casual staff, CSIRO recruits casual staff primarily for seasonal work or for covering absences of administrative support staff – which provides employment opportunities for people who prefer this mode of employment or who may not be able to commit to full-time employment. In this financial year, we have around 150 casual staff whose contracts are due for renewal.

“I want to remind everyone that, with approval, we can still renew contracts and recruit to positions that are critical for our work.

“We will not be compromising on our commitments to industry or other key stakeholders through these changes. This approach will allow CSIRO to continue to deliver our outstanding work with industry and the community - work that has led to some of the country’s most valuable discoveries and inventions, such as Wi-Fi and the Hendra virus vaccine.

“In order to maintain longer term capability, we will continue targeted recruitment programs for our Indigenous employment and Post-Doctoral Fellows. We have around 50 positions currently open for recruitment, which are primarily for Post-Doctoral Fellows.” [my red bolding]

Note: The COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION is a Commonwealth Government Entity. It is an entity within the portfolio of the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane [See CSIRO Annual Report 2012-13 tabled in the Australian Parliament on 31 October 2013]. It is constituted and operating under the provisions of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 and its primary functions under the Act are to carry out scientific research to benefit Australian industry and the community, and to contribute to the achievement of national objectives.

LIE

Prime Minister Tony Abbott in The Sydney Morning Herald 8 November 2013:

"We haven't made any cutbacks to the CSIRO. The management of the CSIRO and the employment of staff inside the CSIRO and the management of contractors for the CSIRO is a matter for the CSIRO itself,"

THE LIE REPEATED IN PARLIAMENT

On 13 November 2013, the first full day of the 44^th Australian Parliament, Tony Abbott stated in the House of Representatives during Questions Without Notice:

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:07): I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has a job to do, but the problem with that question is that it was based on a farrago of falsehoods....

The Leader of the Opposition claims that we have cut jobs at the CSIRO. Management of the CSIRO is a matter for the management of that organisation. It is as simple as that.