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, you would be aware that yesterday, on the motion of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the House passed a motion that read:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning forthwith the Member for Perth.

Despite that motion being carried, there was no subsequent motion moved to condemn the member for Perth. Mr Speaker, you would understand that the scheme of the standing orders is such that a member who is to be censured or condemned can only be censured or condemned by substantive motion. The scheme of the standing orders is quite deliberate—it is one of the protections of members in this House—and the protection given is that a member subject to such an allegation therefore has the opportunity for an extended, full and unrestrained debate. Indeed, so much is this dealt with in House of Representatives Practice that at page 322 it says:

Whilst there are precedents for amendments expressing censure of private Members, they may also be considered bad precedents and undesirable, as they do not constitute good practice in terms of the principle that charges of a personal character should be raised by way of substantive and direct motions.

So Practice is saying it must be a motion and it is undesirable for it even to be in the form of an amendment. Mr Speaker, you would be aware that of course suspensions of standing orders are quite different devices. On page 333 of Practice the nature of suspensions is dealt with, as is of course the fact that:

A Member debating a motion to suspend standing orders may not dwell on the subject matter which is the object of the suspension.

So the form of the debate is quite different; the time of the debate is quite different.

Mr Speaker, I have made inquiries of chamber research and they are unable to identify any time in the history of this parliament that a suspension of standing orders motion condemning a member has been moved and carried without the motion of condemnation then proceeding by way of substantive motion. In view of Practice and in view of the absolute lack of precedent for what happened yesterday, my question to you is: regarding your ruling yesterday in relation to the suspension of standing orders motion, are we to take it that that is a complete break with all prior practice in this House and with the contents of House of Representatives Practice or would you concede that the motion dealt with yesterday ought to have been dealt with by confined debate as a suspension and then a substantive motion ought to have been moved after that motion was carried?

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

The Manager of Opposition Business has raised an important matter, and I thank her for her question. I would make a number of comments. First of all, the motion that was moved yesterday was a suspension of standing orders and it was also a substantive motion, and the House voted on it. Could I also draw to the honourable member’s attention that it has been reasonably frequent for the House to agree in more recent times to a motion to suspend standing orders for a purpose contained within such a motion.

Having anticipated that this question might come, I might give a couple of examples. For example, yesterday there was a motion to vary the time of questions without notice for today. There have been other ones—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Other ones?

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

and there have been a number of motions moved by opposition members seeking to suspend standing orders when the intended enabling effect of the suspension is contained within the motion without calling for a separate motion to give it effect. To help the member for Grayndler, I have a number of examples. The member for Corio has had four recent examples. They were voted on. There were also examples from the member for Hunter, the member for Wills and a number of others. Indeed, the matter moved by the member for Perth was in a similar vein. So again I thank the Manager of Opposition Business but I have responded to her question.

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, can I ask you to reflect further on this matter, because on the examples you have used today and on the basis of the materials provided to me by chamber research, you are right to say that a practice, perhaps undesirable, has grown up in the House where on procedural matters the suspension and the object of the suspension are dealt with as the same thing—for example, delaying question time to 2.15 today. But chamber research has not been able to identify any time in the past that a non-procedural matter as serious as a condemnation of a member was dealt with in this way. It flies in the face of the protections for members in the standing orders that they need to have any allegations against them dealt with by way of substantive motion. One cannot assume the standing orders would read that way if you could use a procedural device like a suspension.

While I appreciate, Mr Speaker, you relying on precedents from the opposition—I think that is very gracious of you—one of the inconvenient things in this parliament is that opposition motions do not get up. I can assure you that, if one of our suspensions was ever successful, we would then proceed to the substantive motion that the suspension would then permit. Let me assure you, Mr Speaker, we would never leave that unattended to, should we win a suspension.

In view of the scheme of the standing orders and the information from chamber research, I really do think that this is a substantial matter that violates the long-term rights of members in this parliament. The scheme that you are contemplating means that any member at a change of business can jump up at any time and move a suspension of standing orders condemning another member and that the government, with the numbers, will then proceed with that debate and somehow the substance and the procedure have become conflated as one. That really is a very marked departure from all past practice and, I would say, a very substantial violation of our rights as members to defend ourselves through a substantive motion, through a long and unrestrained debate.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for her question and the spirit in which it is raised. I will make a couple of comments. I will deal with the first point that she raised. It is not a matter for the chair as to whether a motion is carried or not carried. If a motion does not require a subsequent motion then there is no need for a subsequent motion to be moved. I also make the point that it is always available to other members to move a separate motion if they so choose. The opportunity to raise a suspension of standing orders is always dealt with as soon as it is raised.