Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I refer you to Hansard and the House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings of 7 March 1995, which dealt with a motion of censure following on a motion of suspension moved by the then Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, against the then member for Barker, and the fact that in the House Votes and Proceedings it is recorded that the question on the suspension was put and passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority and then, after that vote, the censure motion moved by the Attorney-General was put and was subject to a division, which was recorded as being resolved in the affirmative. You may recall this, Mr Speaker, because you were a teller in this division. Firstly, I draw your attention to that particular direct precedent to the matters that occurred on Tuesday in an identical set of circumstances.

Secondly, I draw your attention to standing order 47(c), which, as that particular instance indicates, requires an absolute majority—that is, 76 votes of the House—to be recorded in order for a suspension motion that is moved without notice to be successful. I note that the motion moved by the minister on Tuesday which you declared to be a composite motion of a suspension and a censure is declared in the Hansard to have been agreed to. My question to you is: when such a composite motion is moved, where it is both a suspension and a substantive censure, does it require an absolute majority of votes of the House in order to succeed?

See this speech in context