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

Thank you. The point is that this would be a very significant precedent if an opposition, or for that matter a government, could move a motion in which a bill that was currently under debate—in this case, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018—could simply be mentioned and that would somehow make the motion relevant to the bill that was under consideration. There has never been a time when a suspension of standing orders has been allowed to interrupt a substantive debate in the House just because the first item mentions the bill that is being debated. If this precedent is allowed to stand, anytime the opposition or the government wants to move a suspension of standing orders, they will simply have to name the bill in the first item and somehow that will be enough to make it relevant to the bill. The matters that are being canvassed by the Manager of Opposition Business to do with the Minister for Home Affairs may well be legitimate matters to be canvassed but they should not be canvassed during the debate on this bill. It would be a very significant precedent if that were allowed to happen.

See this speech in context