Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question about the process of consideration of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Would you please outline to the House the consequences of accepting or rejecting the second reading amendment that is before the House.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McPherson for her question, which raises some complex procedural considerations. I will attempt to place these considerations before the House.

The House has no precedent of its own to follow if a second reading amendment should be agreed to. However, the specific terms of the amendment indicate that the bill is unacceptable in its current form, and that a different policy approach is preferable. If the House agrees to this amendment, the effect would be similar to that if the second reading of the bill were negatived. No further progress would be possible on the bill as transmitted from the Senate.

A substitute bill could be introduced that implements the policy approach preferred in the amendment by the member for Lindsay. This would only be possible immediately following the granting of leave or the suspension of standing orders. A notice of motion to this effect could be lodged contingent on the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay being agreed to, but, to be effective for the next sitting, this would need to be lodged before the House rises today.

If the second reading amendment is negatived, the House will have made a clear decision in relation to the policy approach proposed by the amendment. It would not therefore be possible to move amendments during consideration in detail that would seek to implement that policy approach.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify my position. I understand that there is no interest in having a suspension of standing orders. To reassure members, I have distributed a copy of the bill that will be introduced in place of the current bill in order for the proceedings to continue and a vote to be taken on my combined amendment.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a note of clarification on what the member for Lindsay has said: my understanding is that, if the amendments are not successful, we will proceed with the bill before the House. If the amendments are successful, the member for Lindsay then can bring to the House a new bill. Is that correct?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my answer to the question from the member for McPherson, a substitute bill could be introduced—preferably, if notice were given, today; otherwise, it would only be possible following the granting of leave or the suspension of standing orders.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on another matter of clarification: if the substitute bill is brought into the House and voted on, is it then referred back to the Senate?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, the bill would be a new bill and the Senate would have to consider it.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I also seek clarification. If any member of the House declined leave for the honourable member for Lindsay to introduce the new private member’s bill, I take it that the bill could not be considered.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point that I made, for the benefit of the Chief Opposition Whip, is that if notice were given—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but in the absence of notice. If any member of this House declined to grant leave, I take it that the private member’s bill proposed by the honourable member for Lindsay could not proceed.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If leave were not granted then there would have to be a suspension of standing orders.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every member in this House has been distributed a copy of that bill, which will be on the Notice Paper tomorrow. A suspension of standing orders or leave will not be required.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, given the importance of this debate and the fact that it is a conscience vote, I think it is very important that people are clear about the procedures. The worst of all possible worlds would be, of course, that someone exercised a vote in error because they were confused about the procedures. I understand very clearly that the effect of your ruling, with which I very strongly concur, is that if the second reading amendment moved by the member for Lindsay is passed by the House, that negatives the second reading and the bill before the House is at an end. If the second reading amendment moved by the member for Lindsay is not carried by the House, we will then proceed with the second reading of the bill and on to the third reading, which would include the consideration of the amendment proposed by Mr Laming, the member for Bowman.

Can I be very clear, though—and I think this is a matter of government business scheduling as much as it is a matter of anything else: is it being suggested that, should the member for Lindsay’s second reading amendment be carried, the House would then immediately move to consideration of the private member’s bill that the member for Lindsay has said she will make available to members? It is a very important matter. As you would know, Mr Speaker, we are here at 10 to four today and I have not seen that private member’s bill yet. I suspect very few members of this House have seen that private member’s bill. It is a matter that people would want to give the same consideration to that they have given to the bill before this House. It would be inappropriate, even by way of suspension of standing orders, which may or may not attract a conscience vote, to force the House to immediately deal with it unless it were very clear that that was going to be the course of action proposed and people could prepare themselves for that—particularly when I have heard no suggestion that the House will not rise at its normal time tomorrow, so the time available for the consideration of any subsequent private member’s bill by the member for Lindsay is dreadfully short indeed.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that it is the government’s firm intention to facilitate the consideration of the current private member’s bill, and all matters arising from it, as speedily as possible, consistent with the right of as many members of this House who wish to speak to be able to speak on the topic. That is our intention: we wish to facilitate the expeditious handling of this whole matter.

It is my understanding that the member for Lindsay’s alternative bill is about to be distributed. It is also my understanding that the bill is precisely in the terms of the amendments that she flagged yesterday. There will be as much opportunity to consider the member for Lindsay’s bill as there has been to consider other important matters that have come before the House as part of this debate.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that, in response to the Manager of Opposition Business, the Leader of the House has given an answer. It is of course contingent on what the vote is; then, if the bill is on the Notice Paper, it depends on the House.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to my point of order, I think the matter could be assisted. I know we are dealing with something that is a contingency, but I think it is very important that people understand what could happen in the event of that contingency. The opposition has been very cooperative with the government. Both the Leader of the House and I have privately discussed the importance of not gagging something that attracts a conscience vote, because that would be contrary to what I think would be everybody’s broad approach that, insofar as is humanly possible, people ought to get their opportunity to have a say on a matter that attracts a conscience vote. I anticipate that there would not be anybody who would suggest that, if the current bill before the House attracts a conscience vote, a bill by the member for Lindsay will not attract a conscience vote. I think everybody would concede that it too would attract a conscience vote. I am seeking an assurance from the Leader of the House that it is not his intention to gag the member for Lindsay’s bill through tomorrow.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to give that assurance. As I said, this is a very important topic. It ought to be given full consideration. That is what the government is attempting to do, and we will continue to give people the opportunity to examine things and to speak on things regardless of which way particular votes go tomorrow.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a further point of clarification. We have got into a very difficult technical area. I am wondering, without having looked at the House of Representatives Practice, whether or not it is possible for the member for Lindsay to withdraw her second reading amendment and move it as a fresh amendment at the consideration in detail stage.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a matter, I believe, for the member for Lindsay.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There seems to be a dilemma because it has been moved as a second reading amendment. The dilemma would be solved if, as I suggested, it was withdrawn and moved as an amendment in consideration in detail, when the issue could be just as well canvassed.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I suggest in response to the member for Mackellar that she should discuss that matter with the member for Lindsay.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I believe that too much is being made of difficulties. The fact is that what the member for Lindsay has moved in this House, as I understand, was canvassed with the clerks beforehand. It is perfectly in order under the standing orders. There are clear procedures, which you have already outlined to the House, and any suggestion that the member for Lindsay should in any way be obliged or requested to change her procedures I think is quite wrong. Apart from anything else, this amendment has been moved and seconded and the seconder is not in this House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not trying to influence the member for Lindsay in any decision that she may wish to make. All I want is a simple answer to my question: can it be done?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that if the member for Lindsay has moved that motion and wishes to withdraw it, then it is a decision for the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question I asked was—and I am not putting pressure on anyone or making a judgment; I just want to know the answer—is it possible for the member for Lindsay to withdraw her second reading amendment and move it as an amendment in consideration in detail? I just want to know if it is possible.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in the hands of the House if that course is to be followed.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before you rule on that, Mr Speaker, can I make it clear that I do not intend to withdraw my reasoned amendment. I have followed all the procedures necessary to ensure that, if my amendment is agreed to, as flagged by Deputy Speaker McMullan virtually straight after my speech—which was the third speech on this matter—my intentions can be carried out tomorrow when voting commences. Everyone has been aware of my amendment and has had this amendment in mind when they have been discussing this issue.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay for that clarification.

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the member for Lindsay’s clarification, but that is not what the member for Mackellar was seeking. It is clear cut, Mr Speaker, and she deserves a clear-cut answer. It is possible for a person to remove from the chamber any amendment that they have moved in their name. They can withdraw that amendment if they want to. That is point 1. Point 2 is this: it is possible to amend the legislation in the way in which has been suggested by a foreshadowed bill in consideration in detail, which answers the second part of the member for Mackellar’s question. That is possible too. That course of action is open. If the member for Lindsay does not want to take that course of action, that is fine. But the member for Mackellar is entitled to a straight answer on it.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I believe I have answered the member for Mackellar inasmuch as the motion has been moved and, I am informed, seconded. Therefore, the House would have to agree to take another course of action; otherwise, it would go onto the Notice Paper.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to make my position clear. I would like an answer from you to my question. Perhaps I can make my position clear. I intend to vote against the bill.

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

We’re not interested in how you’re going to vote.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I am. I do want to have an answer to my question.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar. I have given a detailed answer to the member for McPherson. I have given a response to the specifics that have been raised, and I believe the answer is there.

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

Mr Speaker, I want to ask a question to clarify one point in your ruling. I understood you to be saying that, should the second reading amendment be negatived, it would therefore preclude the member for Lindsay from moving in consideration in detail any amendments that are broadly of the same thrust. Is that personal to her or does that preclude other members from doing so, on your ruling? Is this something that you believe applies generally—that is, if a second reading amendment is negatived, it precludes any member from moving in consideration in detail an amendment that reflects broadly similar sentiments?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer to the first part of his question is yes. In relation to other amendments to be considered in detail, that course of action could be followed with the agreement of members.

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

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I did not understand your response. If another member, whether with respect to this bill or another bill, decides to move in consideration in detail an amendment that arguably reflects a sentiment that was contained in a second reading amendment that has been negatived, would that member be precluded from doing so? Would they be out of order in doing so?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have responded to the member for Melbourne on the specific case. I will give consideration to the more general aspect that he has raised, but I think the immediate point has been covered.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the second point that the Leader of the Opposition raised—that is, why wasn’t my reasoned amendment part of the detailed amendment—the answer is that this is not a technical amendment; it is an amendment on principle, which is ministerial accountability. It must remain where it is.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay, but I think the points are already covered.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question to you which relates to the RU486 bill. As we have been discussing, the bill before the House is a private members’ bill which has come from the Senate. A conscience vote has been extended by all political parties. Consequently, in participating in this debate, every member of the House has identical status to every other member of the House. It is not one of those government business propositions where the minister is in a special position vis-a-vis other members of the House. In light of the fact that every member of the House is in the same position as every other member of the House in dealing with this proposition, my question to you is about the appropriateness of a member of the government executive, most particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, using the resources of executive government to procure advice in relation to the private members’ bill, particularly advice which has not been provided in its original form to all members of the House who are seeking to vote and express a view on the private members’ bill before the House.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I will give that further consideration and get back to her.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a further question to you. In response to the question put to you by the member for McPherson and your prepared response to that question, would you arrange to email all members of this House a copy of your statement to this House?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be happy to arrange that.