Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and the clerks for the attention you have paid to this matter and for the note. I have not yet had a chance to read and digest that note, so I make these comments without having read it. I must say that it is only because the motion is moved in the form of dissent to your ruling that I will not be supporting the motion, but I do it through gritted teeth because this should not be about whether or not there is confidence in you. This is an important matter that goes to the role of private members in a minority parliament. I agree with the member for Mackellar and the Manager of Opposition Business that this is not an appropriation bill and I think that should be something that is resolved by the House through a motion on the merits of the bill and not by way of a proxy debate through dissenting your ruling.

I can indicate to you, Mr Speaker—especially not having had the chance to read the advice that has come—that I could not guarantee that I would vote the same way next time. I also indicate to you and to other members of the House that, if this were a motion that were to come in some way other than in the form of a dissent from your ruling and would allow the House to be master of its own business and would allow these kinds of bills to be debated, my inclination would be to support it. The question of past practice and precedent is of limited relevance because every past ruling and every procedure that has been referred to—again, without having read the Clerk's advice—has been developed on the context of majority government, and of course it would make sense in those instances to deal with amendments from the opposition in that way.

But that is not the case we have here. Private members, whether on the crossbenches or from the opposition, ought to have their full rights to move amendments or move bills, even though the government might consider they are appropriation matters. If the House considers they are not appropriation matters, they should be able to be debated. I indicate that I will not be dissenting from your ruling, but I cannot guarantee that that would occur in the future. I hope that there is some way in which a motion may come back before the House to allow this to be debated in a form that is not dissent from your ruling.

See this speech in context