Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 67, I ask you to repeat in full the motion before the chair.

I will first take advice on the meaning of ‘state’ in standing order 67. The Manager of Opposition Business has raised with me a point of order under standing order 67. The guide that is given to occupants of the chair indicates that the question is normally stated by saying, ‘The question is that the motion be agreed to.’ So far in this debate, I have on at least three occasions stated the question in the form: ‘The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.’ The intent of standing order 67 might be interpreted as being that the full terms of the motion should be stated. I am guided by the final aspect of standing order 67, which indicates:

This requirement shall not apply when the terms of the question or matter have been circulated among Members.

As I understand it, the full terms of this motion have not been circulated, and I feel that I should state the question in full. The question before the House is:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately—That the Rudd Government be condemned for being out of touch, out of its depth and out of the country. In particular:

(1)

that the Government be condemned for its complete indifference to the plight of Australian pensioners who are struggling on a daily basis to meet the rising costs of petrol, groceries and rent;

(2)

for their complete indifference to the plight of Australian families who are facing increasing job uncertainty and rising day to day living costs, when they were led to believe that Kevin 07 would do something about it;

(3)

that the Prime Minister be condemned for becoming “Kevin 747” and spending more time and effort on his grandiose plans for the world, than on real plans for Australia; and finally

(4)

that this House condemns the Treasurer for his complete lack of understanding about the domestic impact of the global financial crisis and his inability to understand the impact it will have on Australian families, their jobs and their mortgages.

Question put.

See this speech in context