Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on Tuesday this week the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations moved a motion which Hansard records in the following terms:

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

The member for Grayndler asked whether or not that motion was in order, saying:

Is it in order for the House and for you to accept a motion before this House that simply condemns the member for Perth …

To which you responded:

The minister has moved a suspension of standing orders and he is in order.

As the debate unfolded, that motion which you advised was a suspension of standing orders was actually dealt with as both a suspension and censure in the one vote, contrary to the earlier advice given to the member for Grayndler. My question to you, Mr Speaker, concerns the wording of the original motion. You may be aware that your department has, just in the last week, installed the latest Macquarie Dictionary on our parliamentary systems. It defines ‘forthwith’ as ‘immediately’, ‘without delay’ and ‘as soon as can be reasonably be expected’ and lists the alternatives in its thesaurus as ‘hurriedly’ or ‘momentarily’. None of those definitions represent concurrent or simultaneous activity, nor did the motion moved by the minister for employment have words to the effect that the censure occurred by passage of the suspension motion.

Given that it is customary for motions in this parliament to include the words ‘forthwith’—for example, ‘that the third reading be moved forthwith’—in what circumstances will the use of the word ‘forthwith’ now take on a meaning different to that in simple English as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary and thesaurus? Mr Speaker, will you review whether or not the motion moved by the minister was, as you advised the member for Grayndler, a suspension of standing orders or, as later occurred, a combined suspension and censure? Alternatively, will you provide guidelines as to when the word ‘forthwith’ will have its normal English meaning as opposed to the meaning that it was given on Tuesday?

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

I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The first point I would make is that the ruling was made at the time. It was discussed again yesterday. He is also aware that the matter is being referred to the Procedure Committee. I believe that the Procedure Committee will look at it.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of the decisions yesterday and the agreement for it to go to the Procedure Committee. I am also aware that it can take quite some time for the Procedure Committee to report to the parliament—or at least history tells us that that can be so. In the interim, will you provide guidelines—a statement from the chair—to define when the word ‘forthwith’ will have its normal English meaning and when it will have the meaning given to it on Tuesday?

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

It is not the role of the chair to offer advice. The chair will consider motions as and when they appear before the chair and deal with them at the time.

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

Mr Speaker, I refer you to Hansard and the House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings of 7 March 1995, which dealt with a motion of censure following on a motion of suspension moved by the then Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, against the then member for Barker, and the fact that in the House Votes and Proceedings it is recorded that the question on the suspension was put and passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority and then, after that vote, the censure motion moved by the Attorney-General was put and was subject to a division, which was recorded as being resolved in the affirmative. You may recall this, Mr Speaker, because you were a teller in this division. Firstly, I draw your attention to that particular direct precedent to the matters that occurred on Tuesday in an identical set of circumstances.

Secondly, I draw your attention to standing order 47(c), which, as that particular instance indicates, requires an absolute majority—that is, 76 votes of the House—to be recorded in order for a suspension motion that is moved without notice to be successful. I note that the motion moved by the minister on Tuesday which you declared to be a composite motion of a suspension and a censure is declared in the Hansard to have been agreed to. My question to you is: when such a composite motion is moved, where it is both a suspension and a substantive censure, does it require an absolute majority of votes of the House in order to succeed?

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

I thank the member for Melbourne. I believe that there are probably a number of precedents that we might look at as well as that one, including some votes more recently. As the member is well aware, the matter is being referred to the Procedure Committee, and I believe that is the most appropriate place for it. Also, I think the particular vote this week that he is referring to was carried by an absolute majority.

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

Mr Speaker, my question to you refers to Tuesday’s events and the debate again yesterday. Does voting for a suspension motion necessarily imply support for the motion that would be subsequently moved if the suspension is carried?

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

It is an interesting question. The whole point about it is that, when members vote on a motion, they vote as they understand the motion to be.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the 5th edition of the House of Representatives Practice at page 187, which says:

The Speaker has stated that House of Representatives Practice is the authoritative source of precedent.

I also draw your attention to page 186 of House of Representatives Practice, which talks about traditional practice, and I quote:

A number of practices and conventions are observed in the House which are not imposed either by the Constitution or by the standing orders, but which are traditional parliamentary rules, often also followed in other parliaments operating in the Westminster tradition. An example of such a convention is the sub judice convention. Another is the practice that a charge against a Member should only be made by means of a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House.

Mr Speaker, that was not brought to your attention on Tuesday. The reason I draw it to your attention and the House’s attention now is the practice that might occur between now and when the Procedure Committee next meets on this matter.

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

I thank the member for Banks and note the points that he raised.