Topics: Lidia Thorpe;
1020 AWST
24 October 2024
Gary Adshead: Let’s go to Simon Birmingham, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as I said, thanks very much for your time, Simon.
Simon Birmingham: G’day, Gary. It’s good to be with you.
Gary Adshead: All right. Now, look, I’ve gone through a bit of a bit of material, but it does appear that sort of politicians, in some ways, when they’re in the chamber or when they’re in the Parliament, seem to be a law unto themselves, Simon. Is that the case with Lidia Thorpe?
Simon Birmingham: Well, Gary, it is complex, as you were just outlining, there are various intersections between what the Constitution says and then how different elements of parliamentary practice and standing orders intersect. First and foremost, we’ve got to accept and acknowledge, even though I don’t like it, I suspect you don’t like it, and many of your listeners don’t like it that Lidia Thorpe’s there because people voted her in. Now those people voted Greens. And the number one thing I’d say to your listeners is don’t vote Greens. If you don’t want nutty extremists in the parliament, don’t vote Greens and there will be less chance of people like Lidia Thorpe being there. Because she’s not the first one to behave in this type of disrespectful way. Other Greens senators, even though she’s left the Greens, other Greens senators are, staged protests during speeches by the President of the Philippines. Previously the president of the United States. We’ve seen this before, and I think that in itself is a problem for the Parliament and for governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal, that we should be able to have our Parliament as a place where visiting foreign leaders can address the Parliament and do so confident that there won’t be a scene, cause that they won’t be disrespected and that they aren’t at risk of somehow being embroiled in controversy. And it’s a problem that the Greens are undermining the ability of governments to use parliaments in this way. We need to look at the rules as to whether we can create a greater deterrence for Greens or other activists to do so in the future.
Gary Adshead: But, Simon, you know, in the chamber, let’s say in the lower house chamber, for example, where if there’s during Question Time – and something is said and it might be the third time that someone says something or someone runs foul of the speaker, you know, they can be thrown out. Alright. I mean, you can’t seriously tell me that there’s nothing within the parliamentary act that says that she has not brought the place into disrepute.
Simon Birmingham: Well, Gary, the challenge here is her conduct wasn’t in the Senate. Now, that’s why I’m advancing the idea that we probably do need to have a look at the standing orders and the rules that ultimately her conduct was at an official event conducted by the Parliament and the government. It was within the Parliament House building itself. And so just because it wasn’t in the Senate, we should be able to make sure that these rules and practices carry through. But then what is the actual penalty? Is the next stage that’s got to be looked at, because some of my colleagues have mooted the idea of a censure. A censure is an important way of the Senate and the Parliament being able to say, we disapprove of what somebody has done, but somebody like Lidia Thorpe will just actually relish that. The attention, the disapproval, she thrives on those sorts of things. So, we probably need to look at whether there are further steps that can be put in place, if not retrospectively for this incident, then at least to try to deter future ones. Whether that goes to questions of suspension from the chamber for a period of time. Indeed, in other areas, new codes of conduct are looking at whether there are impacts on parliamentarian salaries. These are fair questions that I think, frankly, the presiding officers of the Parliament, the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Reps should already be looking at. But if they’re not, then we’ll be making sure that they and or the procedure committees of the Parliament do take a look at what type of deterrents can be put in place to try to prevent a repeat of this.
Gary Adshead: Because I think any ordinary person, having heard what she did say when she was in the great hall and effing and blinding in front of the King, would agree with what that caller said. If you did that in the workplace, there would be serious ramifications if not sacking because of it. And what seems to be here is a case of one rule for one, and another rule for others, Because even if you say when you were a minister, if you’d done that to a staff member, Simon, it would be a very good chance that you’d be resigning as a minister because the Prime Minister of the day would be asking you to. Especially if it was caught on camera in the way that was. It just makes no sense that Parliament is a place where you can get away with that.
Simon Birmingham: Look, absolutely, Gary and I understand the intense frustrations that many people have, and frankly, I share it. And having seen the many antics of Lidia Thorpe over the last couple of years and of other Greens senators and other extremists over the years, too. It is intensely frustrating and betrays the fact that when you are elected to the Parliament, you accrue certain privileges. The parliamentary privileges, the right to stand in those chambers, the Senate or the House of Representatives, and to speak freely, and to do so in ways that if you did out of the chamber, you know, may see you fall foul of defamation laws or the like. But these rights, these privileges have accrued over centuries because there’s an importance attached to enabling parliamentarians to speak so freely. But! Most of us recognise that comes with serious responsibilities, too, as to how you conduct yourself and how you apply those privileges. And tragically, what we’re dealing with here are people who like to take all of the privileges but flout the responsibilities and seem to show complete disregard, of course, for the system, but happily take the salary and the rights that the system delivers.
Gary Adshead: It’s outrageous. It is outrageous. I mean, I’m reading, Simon. I’m reading at the moment. I’m just looking now at the Australian parliamentary, the actual code of conduct and behavioural code that, you know, you essentially sign up to when you become a member of the place and indeed anyone that works in the parliamentary workplace. And I mean, it just talks about acting respectfully, professionally, with integrity and so on. Right. So, you’ve got the code and it’s quite lengthy. You’ve got the behaviour code that’s attached to politicians. But what happens if someone breaches it. What did someone forget to tack that onto the end of it. That if someone breaches it, they could be in serious trouble? It’s just a waste of paper.
Simon Birmingham: Well, it is potentially a waste.
Gary Adshead: It’s a joke.
Simon Birmingham: Without proper consequences. Or certainly. Whilst the code in some ways was developed quite recently and developed really to try to deal with the type of staffing issues you gave as an example to me before. But what we’ve got here is the public conduct of a parliamentarian who has all of those rights and privileges to speak her mind in a whole range of different ways, including her views on the monarchy as well as her views on colonialisation and all of those issues. But, to do so in a way that’s so disrespects the Parliament, its institutions, and undermines the ability of the parliament and governments to use that platform as a tool for diplomacy and engaging with visiting leaders. You know, that is what is at the heart of the problem here. You’ve also got the secondary issue that she’s brought upon herself in the last couple of days about her claims, her statements that perhaps she didn’t actually properly take the affirmation of office. And so that, I think, is one again, that the presiding officer of the Senate, the Senate president, a West Australian Senator, Labor Senator Sue Lines, needs to be looking very closely and carefully at. You can’t seek to have it both ways as a parliamentarian, if she isn’t willing to conform in terms of accepting the constitutional responsibilities to have taken that oath or affirmation of office. Well, then, that does bring into question her right to be able to take up that seat in the Senate.
Gary Adshead: All right. Well, we’ll wait and see whether anything comes of it at all, other than the sort of global headlines that Lidia Thorpe has attracted for that rather childish tantrum that she threw in the Great Hall. I appreciate you joining us today, Simon.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Gary. My pleasure.
[ENDS]