Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

As I said earlier, we're getting to the point where motions are on the border of becoming frivolous when we're trying to deal with the debate before the House. The House has expressed a very clear view with respect to the second reading. I'll allow this motion to go ahead, but I'm being very clear: this is probably the only time. I think the motion is relevant to the discussion. I think—and I do need to say this—that the argument being put is spurious to the extent that it doesn't reflect the practice of the House for many, many decades. I think the Manager of Opposition Business has demonstrated that the examples where it hasn't occurred are rare and do not relate to the motion he's put before the House. In my time here, I have never seen a member rise and say, 'I demand the third reading should be on another day so that I can consider the difference in substance between the second reading debate and the third reading debate.'

Honourable members interjecting—

No, hang on. I'm speaking, okay? That's about the only advantage you have here: having control of the microphones.

Honourable members interjecting—

So I'm saying to the House very clearly now that, in allowing this, I'm allowing a second motion. It is relevant. We would then have had a motion on the second reading and the third reading. Just so everyone's clear, so that no-one's in shock, with these motions to suspend standing orders during a bill—and I've outlined the history of it, the rarity of it and the capacity of the chair to judge these and them being done on the hop—I will not be entertaining another motion to suspend standing orders. The Leader of the House.

See this speech in context