Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, you would be aware that yesterday, on the motion of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the House passed a motion that read:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning forthwith the Member for Perth.

Despite that motion being carried, there was no subsequent motion moved to condemn the member for Perth. Mr Speaker, you would understand that the scheme of the standing orders is such that a member who is to be censured or condemned can only be censured or condemned by substantive motion. The scheme of the standing orders is quite deliberate—it is one of the protections of members in this House—and the protection given is that a member subject to such an allegation therefore has the opportunity for an extended, full and unrestrained debate. Indeed, so much is this dealt with in House of Representatives Practice that at page 322 it says:

Whilst there are precedents for amendments expressing censure of private Members, they may also be considered bad precedents and undesirable, as they do not constitute good practice in terms of the principle that charges of a personal character should be raised by way of substantive and direct motions.

So Practice is saying it must be a motion and it is undesirable for it even to be in the form of an amendment. Mr Speaker, you would be aware that of course suspensions of standing orders are quite different devices. On page 333 of Practice the nature of suspensions is dealt with, as is of course the fact that:

A Member debating a motion to suspend standing orders may not dwell on the subject matter which is the object of the suspension.

So the form of the debate is quite different; the time of the debate is quite different.

Mr Speaker, I have made inquiries of chamber research and they are unable to identify any time in the history of this parliament that a suspension of standing orders motion condemning a member has been moved and carried without the motion of condemnation then proceeding by way of substantive motion. In view of Practice and in view of the absolute lack of precedent for what happened yesterday, my question to you is: regarding your ruling yesterday in relation to the suspension of standing orders motion, are we to take it that that is a complete break with all prior practice in this House and with the contents of House of Representatives Practice or would you concede that the motion dealt with yesterday ought to have been dealt with by confined debate as a suspension and then a substantive motion ought to have been moved after that motion was carried?

See this speech in context