Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr Speaker, I stood before this House to have the call to move a subsequent amendment to call on the Prime Minister to guarantee to this House and to the Australian people that, under the government’s Fuelwatch, petrol will not go up by more than 1c. Now the government is closing us down and stopping a debate on fuel after it came into this place and moved a motion outlining for the very first time the details of its Fuelwatch proposal. This clearly illustrates—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. This is a motion of dissent from your ruling. The member for North Sydney must refer to the standing orders.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling and the member for North Sydney should return to the question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House clearly illustrates that you, Mr Speaker, have failed to take into account that I had the call in the first place so that we could go on to debate this government’s hashed-up proposal for Fuelwatch. We want to debate it; now the government is trying to close us down.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, we allowed a censure motion. We want a vote on whether Fuelwatch is supported or not, and we agreed on two speakers—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling is a rather narrow motion. The member for North Sydney will return to the motion before the chair.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am moving a motion of dissent for the specific purpose of outlining to the House exactly what the process is and was in relation to a debate about Fuelwatch. How arrogant of this new government, which came in and tried to change the standing orders—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney must go to the reasons that he believes that the ruling was wrong and is dissenting from it.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring specifically to standing orders, Mr Speaker. In those standing orders there is the opportunity for a member to move a further amendment, as the Prime Minister did in this debate, and there is subsequently an opportunity for further members to move amendments. The Leader of the House and the Prime Minister sought to close us down on fuel. They are trying to close down the Australian people when it comes to petrol prices. We will not be silenced.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this is a motion of dissent from your ruling. Your ruling was made under standing order 81. The Manager of Opposition Business needs to indicate where standing order 81 has been breached by you.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney has the call and will address that question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, section 87 of the standing orders is about dissent motions. I am moving a motion of dissent from your ruling. Specifically, House of Representatives Practice allows us to engage in a debate and to move an amendment to the debate. Do you know what? We have the hypocrisy of the government in relation to matters of accountability and transparency. What they do is try to close us down. We are defending Australian motorists and the Labor Party are trying to close us down. They are trying to close us down!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure there is something in there about excess anger shown in the House, but—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the member for North Sydney must show where your ruling is wrong, Mr Speaker. He has not referred to it once. He has been going—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The question before the chair is a dissent from the Speaker’s ruling, and that is what the debate must be about, not other matters.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have outlined it, Mr Speaker—section 87, dissent from the ruling of a Speaker. Section 87 allows me to argue the point. I have made the point again. What happened was that—and let us be very clear about the procedures that occurred immediately before this dissent motion—firstly, this opposition, the coalition parties, moved a censure motion against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister scurried away to write up what would be Fuelwatch on the run. He moved an amendment to our motion—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for North Sydney is defying your ruling. He has to refer to—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The question before the chair is a dissent from the Speaker’s ruling under standing order 87, where the objection or dissent must be declared.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister then made a hashed-up Fuelwatch scheme on-the-run motion and sought to have our words omitted and replaced with his words. In the interim, after the first vote about omission had taken place, I came to this dispatch box and I sought the call. You gave me the call. I was moving a further amendment calling on the government to guarantee that under their Fuelwatch plan the price of petrol would not increase as a result of that plan. In the interim you provided the call to the Leader of the House, and under that situation you gave him the call in which he sought to close the debate. We disagree. We are moving a motion of dissent from your ruling. You should have given me the right to outline the motion and debate a motion. That is our view. We want to have a debate on fuel prices and so do 21 million Australians.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening carefully to the member for North Sydney. I ask him to be relevant to the motion.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is now saying—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will ignore the interjections and the interjections will cease.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are entitled to move a further amendment under the standing orders and under House of Representatives Practice. We are perfectly entitled to move a further amendment. The fact that the government has closed us down when we have tried to continue the debate in relation to fuel says everything about the way this government runs this place, and everything about the arrogance of the Prime Minister and the leader of the government in this House. It is with great regret that we are moving a motion of dissent from your ruling, but we are doing it because we want to have the right to debate petrol prices in Australia. We want to speak for Australian motorists. We want to speak for Australian people.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That cannot possibly be relevant to the question before the chair.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House has continually stood up and made frivolous points of order and should not be allowed to continue to make the same point of order.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This House is a house for the people, and the people are speaking. The people are saying they want to have a debate on fuel. You have ruled that we have to close down a debate on fuel. We do not accept that. We want to debate petrol prices. We stand up for pensioners. We stand up for families. We stand up for motorists. We stand up for the people who are paying too much for their petrol. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regrettably, on the moving of the motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling I should have called for a seconder. Is the motion seconded?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a quite extraordinary performance from the member for North Sydney. It was an extraordinary performance given that, once the government provided leave for the motion of censure that was provided by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the shadow Treasurer, the government ascertained that there would be two speakers each in this debate. There was an agreement about one hour ago. The problem that those opposite have is a complete failure of direction. We have stuck to the standing orders, House of Representatives Practice and our word—and, Mr Speaker, your ruling gave me the call in accordance with standing order 81. I want to read it for the benefit of those in the House. It says:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair a Member—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the speech made by the member for North Sydney, you continually asked him to come back to the subject of the motion. The Leader of the House has been in flagrant breach of that and I would ask you to ask him to return to the subject.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quoting from the standing order upon which you made your ruling, Mr Speaker, and which the member for North Sydney has dissented from—and I recommend that standing order! This is the little book, and this one here, Joe, is the big book. And the little book, at standing order 81, says this under ‘Closure of question’:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair—

which you did, Mr Speaker—

a Member may move without notice, and whether or not any other Member is speaking—

Did you hear that? I will repeat it for the benefit of the member for North Sydney, who did not refer to it at all in his motion:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair, a Member may move without notice, and whether or not any other member is speaking—

That the question be now put.

The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

There is some ambiguity in some of these standing orders, but there is no ambiguity—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question that was before this House commenced immediately you gave the call to the member for North Sydney, and that question is not yet resolved and therefore cannot be put. He is speaking about another question, and further I suggest that you look at the Hansard or the tape and find out what question you put as we were all crossing back to our positions. So let him talk about the issue before us.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for O’Connor does not have a point of order and should be very careful, given that I warned him earlier on. He has entered into the debate with a contribution in the guise of a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The statement that you made, Mr Speaker, was: ‘The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.’ You made that clear. You then had a situation whereby I, in accordance with standing order 81—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do it again. For the member for North Sydney, I will read standing order 81 again:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair, a Member may move without notice, and whether or not any other Member is speaking—

That the question be now put.

The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

They have a conflict of disloyalties over there. The fact is that this was the sixth censure motion or motion for the suspension of standing orders after question time so far this year. Last year there were three in the entire—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the same rules ought to apply to the government as apply to the opposition. He must strictly debate the motion of dissent and not make general political points which—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question before the chair is the motion of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling and that is what speakers to the motion should be talking about.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

House of Representatives Practice, on page 309, outlines the process of how you move an amendment to a proposed amendment. The problem that those members opposite have is that because, when it has been moved to omit words in the main question in order to insert or add others, no amendment to the words proposed to be inserted or added can be moved until the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question has been determined. That was determined and then, in accordance with standing order 81 and in accordance with the agreement between the government and the opposition about two speakers each, the debate was closed. Coming up we have, from the member for Cowper, an MPI debate on petrol with three speakers each. There are three more speakers on this item. But what we want to do is vote. We want to vote on FuelWatch because we are for it, and we are not sure whether they are.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is the same point that you so correctly enforced when the Manager of Opposition Business was speaking. It needs to be enforced against the Leader of the House, who is plainly making a political point, not debating the actual motion before the chair.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will return to the dissent motion.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A dissent motion is pretty serious. You move it when you think that the Speaker has made an incorrect ruling, when you think standing orders have been breached and when you think House of Representatives practice has been breached. We on this side of the House, when we sat over there, took our obligations seriously in terms of dissent resolutions. There have already been more dissent resolutions this term than there were last term. There have been more dissent resolutions in relation to your rulings this term than last term, and we are only six months into the new government. You have to take—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The dissent motion is not about the number of dissent motions that have been moved by this opposition or by the previous opposition. The speaker should return to the subject of—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will speak to the motion.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Mr Speaker, because this dissent motion goes to the heart of your performance as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. That is what a dissent motion is. It says, in House of Representatives Practice, that a motion of dissent should be moved when the Speaker has got it wrong. It is a very serious motion to move. It should not be used by someone who says, ‘The Leader of the Opposition’s had a speech, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s had a speech and I don’t want to miss out—I’m a candidate for leadership; I want to give a speech too.’ That is all we have seen here.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all about Joe. And now it is all about Tony—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will return to the motion.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

who thinks he has missed out. He thinks he is falling behind.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will return to the motion.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Warringah and the Leader of the House will resume their seats.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know that the Leader of the House has run out of material, but the fact that he has run out of material—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will debate the question before the chair.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is whether your ruling is correct. It is correct. It is in accordance with standing orders—it is very clearly in accordance with standing orders—which is why we have not seen a single argument from the member for North Sydney about this ruling. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, as the Speaker you have tried to be very fair in your office, and I think that you have earned the respect of the whole House for the way in which you have endeavoured to give members an opportunity to have their say. This is an instance where I think that a misinterpretation of the standing order has not allowed the honourable member for North Sydney a fair go. I refer to standing order 81—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a seconder of this motion who reserved their right to speak, and the seconder of the motion is entitled under standing orders to be given the call.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: there was only one person who sought the call and I have given that call to him—the Leader of the Nationals.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing order 81 says:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair, a Member may move … whether or not any other Member is speaking—

That the question be now put.

The issue is that, before that particular motion can be moved, the question must have been proposed, and the chair must have proposed the question to the House. That had not happened yet in this instance. The member for North Sydney was endeavouring to move an important amendment. He had not even completed moving the amendment, let alone got to the stage where the Speaker would actually propose the question to the House. The Leader of the House intervened and sought to immediately close it down. I would argue, therefore, Mr Speaker, that he acted prematurely, before he had a right to actually put that motion to the House. He should have listened first to the member for North Sydney moving his amendment and then waited for you, Mr Speaker, to propose the question to the House. That had not happened. He intervened immediately to deny the member for North Sydney the ability to even complete the motion he wanted to bring before the House.

It was an important matter. We have been debating the question of FuelWatch. The government had put forward an amendment to our original proposal; that had been approved by the House. Then we were proposing an additional amendment. That was a perfectly normal and correct procedure. But the reading of this additional amendment, proposed by the member for North Sydney, was not even completed. He was going to challenge the government in a really practical way to stand behind their commitment that no-one would pay extra for petrol. This amendment would have put the government to the test about whether they really believed that FuelWatch was going to work or not going to work. But he was not even given a chance to complete moving the amendment. The members of the House are not aware of its contents. Members of the government, who would have had the opportunity to put their votes where their mouths are over recent times, did not even get to hear the amendment. The Leader of the House may not have been aware that some of his members were probably interested in the commitment that this amendment would have enabled, but they were not even given the chance. The amendment had not even been completed by the member for North Sydney, let alone got to the key stage which triggers standing order 81—namely, that the Speaker then puts the question to the House. The Speaker had not done that. He could not, because the amendment had not yet been moved.

So, Mr Speaker, I would argue that, whilst you have always sought in this office to understand and to administer the rules of the House fairly and equitably, in this case there was no fair play. The procedures were truncated in a way that denied the member for North Sydney his right to actually put his motion and then for you to put it to the House. So, when the Leader of the House intervened, he was indeed out of order. He was acting ahead of the opportunity that the standing orders provide for the closure of the question.

In that regard, Mr Speaker, I believe in this instance your ruling was not correct. Whilst I have every respect and admiration for the way in which you are fulfilling the role, on this occasion there was an error. The opposition is seeking to correct that error and to give all members a fair go and, in this instance, to give the member for North Sydney the opportunity to move his amendment.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well done on the ruling, Mr Speaker, because the fact is that there can be no area of disagreement amongst any sensible observers of what has gone on today. What we have witnessed today is an audition for the position of future Leader of the Opposition. What we know, Mr Speaker, is standing order—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, Mr Speaker, the member at the dispatch box should come back to speaking to the dissent ruling rather than the leadership of the opposition.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt has a valid point of order. The minister will come to the motion.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I go to standing order 81. Unlike the member for North Sydney, I have no doubt that standing order 81 is unequivocal. As indicated by the Leader of the House, there is no room for the Speaker to do anything other than that which was done when the Leader of the House rose and moved the procedural motion to have the motion put. That is what occurred. I do not know what part of standing order 81 the opposition do not understand, but again for the benefit of those opposite the standing order says:

After a question has been proposed from the Chair, a Member may move without notice, and whether or not any other Member is speaking—

That the question be now put.

The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

That is exactly what was to occur until the member for North Sydney, Mr Speaker, chose to defy your ruling with no basis for it whatsoever. Indeed, the member for North Sydney did not raise one substantive argument in defending his position to move a dissent from your ruling. There is a reason why the member for North Sydney did not advance one substantive reason for moving that motion of dissent. It is that there is no reason. This standing order is unequivocal, and every Speaker who preceded you in this place has upheld standing order 81 and the principle that when a procedural motion is moved—in this case by the Leader of the House—the Speaker has no option other than to put that procedural motion before debate continues. That is the only position left to the Speaker, and it is outrageous that the member for North Sydney chose to audition himself for the position of Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. The same goes for the member for Warringah. The two of them were getting up, trying to steal the grab that is going to be on the television news tonight.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will return to the motion.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that is the main reason the member for North Sydney got up and started to scream.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister at the dispatch box is plainly defying your counsel. I think he should be sat down for any persistent course of conduct.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The minister will return to the motion before the chair.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is absolutely correct. Over the last two terms, since I have been in this place, there has been no occasion when standing order 81 has been defied in the way in which it has been relied upon today. Standing order 81 is unequivocal. It quite clearly sets out the reasons we have substantive motions and procedural motions. Standing order 81 provides the opportunity for this place to move on to other business but does not provide you, Mr Speaker, with any discretion not to accept the procedural motion that is moved pursuant to that standing order. That is the reality. The fact is that the member for North Sydney chose to defy your ruling when in fact you had no room to move other than to put the procedural motion moved by the Leader of the House. You actually accepted that as a procedural motion. You accepted the meaning and the definition of standing order 81. You accepted it not only because it is unequivocal in its wording but also because it has been upheld by Speakers who preceded you as what happens when a procedural motion of this kind is moved in this chamber. The fact is that the member for North Sydney understands that and he chose to move otherwise. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, under standing order 121, the member for North Sydney was entitled to move a further amendment. This dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker, has not been moved in a way that is overcritical of you and the way you carry out your duties in the normal way, except—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Mackellar must refer to where your ruling is—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, she cannot stand up moving a dissent motion and saying—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am saying that, in the noise and disturbance that was in the House, it is quite clear that you could have made the error that has been made, and hence this motion has been moved. Standing order 121 clearly makes it the case that—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for debate on the motion has expired.

Question put:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.