Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Melbourne, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Watson moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'notes' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division) The Leader of the House, on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the sides changed from no to yes and yes to no and, therefore, members moved, I think that that should be a four-minute bell, because a lot of people are confused about it. This was also a mickey division. Given that the sides changed, we'd usually ring the bells for four minutes, and I request that that be the case.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I've been doing is ringing the bells for one minute when the sides change but doing a full count. But I'm very happy to have a four-minute division if people felt confused by it.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's just some confusion, because a lot of people would've been looking at the channel and seen only three members on the other side for that division. Because it was so quick, I think a lot of people have not come.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.I think that's quite reasonable. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point that we're at right now is: when the ruling was made that it be one minute, no objection was taken. You've now locked the doors. Having locked the doors, we should now do a count on the number of members who are here. If the Leader of the House has an argument that people were caught through misadventure, then we will listen to that and respond responsibly. But, right now, the doors have been locked, the division has been called and no objection was taken at the time to your ruling. All points of order, under standing orders, must be taken at that time.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'll say to the Manager of Opposition Business is that the standing orders make very clear that, in the event of confusion, there can be, obviously, an opportunity to revisit that issue. I think it would be cleaner—this cuts both ways—if a one-minute division has immediately been called on what's called a 'mickey division', meaning that not everyone has to be here for that, to simply ring the bells for four minutes. I think that would be cleaner. But I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to you making that ruling, if the government wants to move an amendment to standing orders to the effect that you just suggested, I can indicate now that the opposition would look at that amendment favourably. But, right now, under current standing orders, the doors have been locked and the moment to litigate how many minutes the division should be has passed. I indicate, in a way that we will commit to regardless of the outcome of this division, that, if the government makes a claim of misadventure and they want to subsequently recommit the same question, we will assist the government in that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his comments. As Speaker, how the Manager of Opposition Business presents that in that event, obviously, is a matter for him. But my interest is in members being able to have their say in a division. I think there is a difference between a successive division where everyone's been in the House and has voted as distinct from a division that does not result in a count because there are fewer than five members. I don't want to detain the House for any great point of time. The doors are locked. I've said that what I'd prefer to do at a practical level is simply ring the bells for four minutes. That's what I'd prefer to do. But, if the Manager of Opposition Business insists on a count, I think he's right. On one point, I say to the Leader of the House that no objection was made until the doors were locked, and I think that that is a reasonable point. So let's proceed with the count, rather than delay things any longer, and, in the event that there's a need to revisit this from some members in the House, we can do that.

I do want to be practical on this. Specifically, I think the Manager of Opposition Business is referring to standing order 132, where there can be a new division in the case of confusion, error or misadventure. I imagine that is what he is inviting if members have been confused, and I think that would be reasonable, as I tried to outline, just given the nature of the fact that members did not all have to be in here once it was obvious there was not going to be a count. I think that is the difficulty some members would have. What I imagine the Manager of Opposition Business is suggesting is that he'd cooperate if leave was sought on such—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very good—been watching Annabel Crabb!

Government members interjecting—

The members on my right can cease interjecting because, as I said, I want to address the House. It's not too late to be ejected under 94(a), I can assure members. I'm very capable, given the last two question times we've had, of doing a significant job lot. Now we've completed the division, let me just say very plainly to the House that I think the point that the Leader of the House made was valid. If anyone had raised with me the practicalities of that one-minute division following on from a division where a count didn't occur, I would have, during that division, absolutely changed to four minutes partway through, and there are many precedents for that. So I certainly take my share of responsibility for the confusion that has occurred.

Honourable members interjecting—

Whoever it is up there that's muttering can stop muttering, or they can do it outside the chamber. It's the member for Lilley, is it?

Mr Swan interjecting—

I thank the member for Lilley. As with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, it takes both to cooperate in this place, so I do take the overtures of the Manager of Opposition Business seriously and, as I said, the standing orders do make provision for this, where members are confused or the Speaker is sometimes a bit quick off the mark. So I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for making that point. I call the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House divide again.

Mr Burke interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can speak to it.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to speak first?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House can speak.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to speak?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to get on with it. I'm not speaking.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, to explain to the House what the opposition will do—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the motion be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion be put.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now need to put the motion moved by the Leader of the House that the House divide again, and that is on the question that the amendment moved by the member for Watson be agreed to. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I will stand corrected but, as I understand the process, the motion that I moved was that the House divide again. I then moved that the motion be put, that being that the House divide again. I understood that to be a separate motion and then, once we had dealt with it, the House would divide again in case the House wanted to vote against that. If that's carried then the member for Watson's amendment gets put again, as I understand it, to which we would then obviously be voting no.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly the understanding from members on this side is that right then we were voting on the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which, if carried, means that my second reading amendment will be voted on. I had made a commitment that we would vote in favour of it. When the Speaker put it, we all voted in favour of the motion of the Leader of the House. They didn't. So, if you vote yes to this, we're in favour of your motion, as we told you we would be.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, I'm not going to detain the House any longer than we need to. The Leader of the House moved that the motion be put. That has been passed. The question now is that the House divide again.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be agreed to.