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

Mr Speaker, I have a question further to that asked by the member for Hunter. The member for Hunter raised a very important point, and I have two questions. Firstly, I do not understand how a problem with regard to House of Representatives standing orders can subsequently be pursued in the Senate, and I would ask you to clarify that for me. I did not understand that. Secondly, could you consider referring to the Procedure Committee or getting advice on how we might avoid the problem that arose today?

I think Deputy Speaker Wilkie probably had no alternative but to rule in the way he did in the circumstances that were before him, because there is no mechanism for allowing a member who is concerned with a breach of this standing order to have time to seek advice—for example, from parliamentary counsel. You indicate now that it might have been available, but I understand that it was not available at the time. Certainly there is no way that the member for Hunter could get access to that information.

I think the House has a glitch in its procedures here, and it is not a matter that can subsequently be pursued in the courts. The courts have said that they will not adjudicate on internal matters about the parliament and its procedures. So the only people who can deal with it are the members of the House of Representatives. I ask you to follow up on the important matter raised by the member for Hunter and perhaps ask the Procedure Committee to look at how we can overcome the problem that arose on this occasion. Even though I do not criticise how it was handled, I think it has created the circumstance that has the potential to have bills carried here that are actually not in accordance with the standing orders.

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

I thank the member for Fraser. As he would be aware, in a situation like that, the occupier of the chair is always placed in the fairly difficult position of not being able to work out the full implications of amendments. However, the minister did give an assurance, as I understand, that was accepted at the time. The matter has gone through a vote and has been accepted. But it is certainly in order for the member for Fraser to refer that matter to the Procedure Committee.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, can I put it to you that the whole situation could be vastly improved if the government delivered its amendments to both the clerks and the opposition at an earlier time?

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

I think I have responded to the issue as it was raised. The point that the member for Hunter raises is something that I am sure the whips can consult on further.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the issues raised by my colleague the member for Hunter, I have actually moved in this chamber an amendment to Senate amendments, and to do that I had to seek detailed advice from the clerks. I am wondering whether you can inform us as to whether or not advice was sought from the clerks about the appropriateness or otherwise of the amendments that were moved.

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

I make the point to the honourable member for Lingiari that the House has made a decision on this. I believe that if the member wishes to pursue the matter with the clerks he will, but the chair reminds the member that the House has made a decision and it will move on.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect, I understand that we have made a decision, but I would have thought a normal process would have been that the government lodged the proposed amendments with the Clerk to establish whether or not they were in line with standing orders. Did they or did they not?

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

I thank the member for Lingiari, and I understand his point, but I do not think this is a matter for the chair to pursue; it is a matter that he may wish to pursue through other channels.

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

Can you confirm that it is the case that six members of this side of the House were excluded under standing order 94(a) and none from the other side and that 11 members of this side of the House were warned compared with one member only from the government side?

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

I thank the member for Grayndler. I would have to check to confirm what he wants to know, but can I just make the point again to the member for Grayndler that when disruption occurs in this chamber I call members to order. I usually give them a warning and, if they ignore the warning, I then take action. Those members who have found themselves excluded under standing order 94(a) were all warned and they chose to ignore that warning.