Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to you, Mr Speaker. It also relates to procedure. It relates to the procedure concerning the recent—and excellent—debate concerning the late Rick Farley. I hasten to say that I was not upset with the outcome; I think the debate was well managed and well conducted. I was concerned about the process in which you, as I understand it, created a situation in which all of us spoke on indulgence rather than as of right.

As I say, I have no concern about the outcome on this occasion: the debate was very well conducted on all sides, including by the Deputy Speaker and other deputy speakers who were in the chair in the Main Committee. Everybody handled it very well. But I am concerned that we have created a precedent whereby, in circumstances of legitimate debate, the right of members to speak is a matter of indulgence rather than of right.

I would appreciate it if you would perhaps distribute to members the basis of the decision on which we proceeded on the basis of indulgence rather than on the basis of a motion to take note or some similar motion as would normally have been the case. That would have meant that people had a right to speak under the standing orders rather than needing to seek indulgence from the chair.

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

I thank the member for Fraser. I think he would be aware that those who spoke in the chamber yesterday on the condolence motion for Mr Farley were speaking on indulgence. The indulgence was today extended to those who wished to speak in the Main Committee. I do not believe there is any precedent. If the member for Fraser were to look to the House of Representatives Practice, he would see that there is quite a big section on condolence motions. I do not think that we have done anything that has not been past practice.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have spoken, unfortunately, on several such motions, including, recently, for a former Senate colleague, and my recollection is not that that was the process. I have no recollection of ever having sought indulgence to speak on such a matter before.

As I say, I have no question about the manner in which the matter was conducted by you in here, Mr Speaker, or by the Deputy Speaker or other deputy speakers—in my case the Deputy Speaker was the member for Herbert—all of whom conducted the debate excellently. But I am concerned that there might have been a precedent. I ask you to review the process. If I am wrong and this has been the norm, I would appreciate some advice to that effect. If it has not been, I would appreciate you advising members generally of the basis on which the decision was made.

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

I thank the honourable member for Fraser and I appreciate the sincerity of his question, but can I make the point that, in speaking to the condolence motion for a former member of parliament, the guidelines and the House of Representatives Practice are quite clear. The guidelines cover the procedures for former members of parliament. In this particular case, it was by indulgence, as it has been on a number of other occasions for people who were not former members of the parliament.