Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already moved my motion.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already made the call.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you have made the call and have made the ruling, and I move dissent. That you have made the ruling allows me to move dissent.

Honourable members interjecting—

Even the person who normally sits in that chair allows dissent motions.

Honourable members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business cannot simply bellow at the dispatch box: 'I move dissent from your ruling.' It is disorderly conduct. If he wants to move motions, he needs to write them and sign them and hand them in to the Clerk.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, you made a ruling that I was not able to raise a point of order. I moved dissent in that ruling.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, I made the ruling that I had already given the call to the Minister for Social Services. That was the ruling.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that your ruling?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my ruling.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move dissent in it. I move that the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from. If that is your ruling, that is the one I am moving dissent in.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have not made a ruling on a point of order. What occurred is that I distinctly saw and heard you call the Minister for Social Services. The Minister for Social Services moved that the motion be put while the Manager of Opposition Business bellowed at you: 'Point of order', but you did not actually recognise him at any point. He did not have the call, nor do you have to give it to him when you had already called the Minister for Social Services. How do you know the Minister for Social Services did not want to make a point of order? And, quite frankly, why would the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order overrule the Minister for Social Services? In fact, you did precisely the right thing, and the motion before the chair is that the motion be put. That is what is before the chair.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Subsequent to all the events that were just referred to by the Manager of Government Business, I asked you whether you had made a ruling. You, at that point, said that is your ruling. I have a right under standing orders to move dissent in that ruling and I have done so in writing. I now have a right to speak to the dissent motion.

Honourable members interjecting—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I give the call to the Leader of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a situation, in moving this dissent motion, that we would not be in were there competence from the Minister for Social Services. The only reason, Deputy Speaker, that you have been placed in this impossible position is that the Minister for Social Services could not be bothered letting the parliament know that the entire debate we have just had on the age pension is in fact now going to be voted on as a fundamentally different proposition. Each side of the House has made speech after speech and yet, at the eleventh hour, he seeks leave to introduce amendments that completely gut the bill. Apparently, we discover now, the deal that he has been talking about with the Greens, and the deal that the Greens have been claiming that they have got, is not in fact what is going to go through the House today. With the entire national debate that has been happening during the week, the entire debate that has been happening within this House during the course of the week, we find out at the last minute that they now want us to vote with a whole lot of the measures completely taken out—that the deal with the Greens and the dollar figure that was apparently attached to that deal were entirely untrue.

We should have had a situation, had they not tried to sneak this through the parliament in the way they have, Deputy Speaker, where we would have been able to raise these issues in the normal way. If the Minister for Social Services had had the capacity to dial the numbers on a telephone and call the shadow minister, call the member for Jagajaga, then we would have had the debate in the normal way.

But instead, when this government tries to cover up, the Labor Party will call it out on it. When this government tries to cover up and avoid there being any sort of a decent debate, then we end up with the House again in chaos. We end up again with the chaos that has characterised this legislation, with the chaos that we have seen during the course of this week from those opposite, now once again on full display here within the House of Representatives. Deputy Speaker—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: a dissent motion has to deal with the issue which is being dissented from. It is not an opportunity for a wide-ranging speech about pension reform. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that full well. What he has to deal with is whether your decision not to call him on a point of order should be dissented from. He therefore has to deal with points of order, the precedents about points of order and the standing orders surrounding points of order—and nothing else. It is not a dissent motion about you and pensions, as, because you are in the chair, you do not have a position on pensions. So, if he continues to talk on pensions, I will continue to take this point of order, and he knows it.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business, and I know that he will be relevant to the motion.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Deputy Speaker. Threatened as we feel from the Leader of the House, threatening as he can be, he knows full well that a suppression of debate is exactly what they were pressuring the chair to do. The reason we have to move dissent is that the action taken by the chair was to prevent members from this side speaking. The action taken by the chair was to prevent there being a debate within this parliament. If those opposite think they can now try to prevent us from being up front and that that debate was whether or not Labor would stand in the way of pension cuts, well, you have another think coming. If those opposite think that we will somehow be silenced through their little procedural games and not defend Australia's pensioners, well, they have another think coming.

This entire game from those opposite is because they wanted to change the debate. They wanted to change the bill and did not want it to be honestly referred to within this House. And then, when I sought the call to raise these issues, those opposite immediately started to take points of order. Unfortunately, the Deputy Speaker ended up agreeing with them and making a ruling which had one impact. The impact was to say that this is a chamber where, according to those in government, only members of the Liberal and National parties need be heard. The ruling was that those who are standing in defence of pensioners will be silenced. The ruling was—in a complete abuse of the standing orders by the Deputy Speaker—that this government wants to get away with covering up what it is doing to Australia's pensioners.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Don't you love the claims from the Leader of the House, who just took a point of order that he used as a speech? He just took a point of order that he used as a speech and now wants to say, 'Oh, but you're abusing standing orders.' The most extraordinary abuses of standing orders happen every day by the man sitting at the table opposite—every day in the way he behaves.

And unfortunately, Deputy Speaker, today you fell for it. Unfortunately, Deputy Speaker, you allowed the pressure that was brought on you by a member of your political party to affect how you handled yourself in that chair. Unfortunately, Deputy Speaker, it took until the very end of the entire objection back-and-forth before it occurred to you that you should seek advice from the clerks. I have to say: therein lies the problem. And, once you sought advice from the clerks, that was the first time you recognised that we had the right to move this motion, and we had the right to stand up for Australia's pensioners within this parliament.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I am allowed to reflect on you. It is a dissent motion.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I was going to say that the advice from the clerks was contrary to what you just said. The clerks' advice was that I got the call and it was my decision to be made.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, if you want to be in the debate, you do not sit there, and that is our point. That is our point. If you want to get involved in the debate, there are 149 other places you sit in this room. All of them are available.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You were reflecting upon the chair.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a dissent motion!

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't matter—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! There will not be any reflection on the chair. I give the call to the—

Honourable members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the only matter—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There will be silence in the chamber!

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There will be silence.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There will be warnings that will be given.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! All right. The next person that speaks is getting thrown out under 94(a). I give the call to the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the point of order is that the Manager of Opposition Business can only deal with his right or not to take a point of order under the standing orders. Therefore, he can deal with that and whether you made the right decision or the wrong decision about a point of order. He cannot deal with any other matters. I know you have no material, and you are probably thanking me for taking this point of order, but the reality is that you actually have to stick to the debate.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business, and he will be relevant.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there were ever evidence of bias in the chair, it is direct participation in the debate. I have to say that what we have seen today—the claim that I cannot reflect on the chair during a dissent motion—is a ruling that begs a dissent motion, because what we are in is a situation where it is impossible to move a dissent motion without reflecting on your ruling. What you have illustrated in that is exactly the level of bias that shows why we should have been given the call, why the government should not be allowed to get away with the games that they are playing, and why Labor is the only group of people who are standing up for pensioners in this debate.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. This dissent motion is necessary in order to restore proper process to this House. You denied the member for Watson the right to move a point of order. Had he been able to move that point of order, the debate might well have progressed such that we would have moved the adjournment of this debate. That was where it was headed: the proper process around these changes that have been sprung on us by the Minister for Social Services—changes that impact on pensioners and which members of parliament are entitled, through proper process, to be able to scrutinise.

What has occurred here is a jackboots approach to democratic processes in this parliament, and it was exacerbated by your decision as the chair, acting as Speaker, to allow a motion that a motion be put to take precedence when most of the people sitting here—everyone, I suspect, except for the Minister for Social Services—has no idea what is actually before the chair. It has a real impact on people. The normal process in the scrutiny of legislation is that you lay it on the table, it is moved and it then gets adjourned so that there can be proper consideration. What this is about is stopping that process—a complete gutting of a bill that is before the parliament, without any ability to provide proper scrutiny of what the implications of this are for pensioners by those opposite, by those on this side and by the Independents such as the member for Indi.

It is entirely inappropriate for a government to come in here and to move such a motion without even the common courtesy of a phone call to the shadow minister, who knows more about social services and providing assistance to the most vulnerable people in our community than anyone else in this parliament. I will say this about our shadow minister: if it is her up against any of you lot about the needs of vulnerable people, I am with Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga. But the member for Jagajaga has not been given the opportunity to scrutinise the amendment that is before the chair and what the implications of it are. Is the minister going to reintroduce the things that he has taken out as a result of this amendment through other legislation? Is there an opportunity for us to go through proper processes? I would be interested in that, perhaps as part of this debate, because this dissent is about whether there is an opportunity to provide proper scrutiny, and what the Deputy Speaker has ruled is not only that you cannot have proper scrutiny but that you cannot even move a point of order to establish a procedural process that would allow for there to be proper scrutiny of this legislation.

Those opposite might have done their deal with the Greens political party, but up until today, up until this motion, we do not know what the details of it are, because the way the Greens political party always function—such as at their conferences, where no-one gets to scrutinise anything—has now infected the government. This is no way to run this sort of legislation. The way that legislation has always operated is for there to be proper scrutiny from all sides of the House in order to assess what the real world implications are, not for people in this chamber but for some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

Part pensioners have a right to know what the implications of this legislation and the amendments that have been moved are. That is why we have moved dissent here, Mr Deputy Speaker: because you chose to shut down the Manager of Opposition Business, who was perfectly in order in making a point of order which would have then led to a procedural resolution that this debate be adjourned. This can all be resolved if the minister will just agree to adjourn the debate. (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That government business take priority over all other business until question time.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, the Leader of the House does not know the rules in this place. The Leader of the House thinks he can thuggishly push his way through and that is how this government operates.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the motion be put.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that people on the crossbench did change their vote during that last division from previous numbers, would the Deputy Speaker please advise the House why the official count is that there are 78 people on that side when in fact there are only 74.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are wandering in now.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People did change their votes. There were only 74 people. Could you explain to the House why we are given a count of four people voting who were not in fact in the room and which names will be recorded in Hansard.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the standing orders have been applied at all points in this debate, according to the standing orders passed by the House last year.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the esteemed position of the Leader of the House, my question was not to the Leader of the House. My question is to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. It was a situation where people on the crossbench changed their votes, where according to the tellers, did take place. In that circumstance, I am asking: how will it be recorded in Hansard that there were 78 people there, when in fact only 74 people voted on that side? The official record counts four people who never bothered to turn up to the chamber. How can that be?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Manager of Opposition Business knows, there are tellers for both sides, and this has been recorded by tellers from both sides. It has been universally agreed to, and the Clerk has given me that result. That is the reason why.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. With respect to that, the advice that the count was wrong has been given by the tellers. The tellers have raised that they were told that they had to hand in a count that is inaccurate. If there are 74 people there and the record says 78, how on earth can the official record of this parliament include people voting when they did not in fact vote?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None of that information has been directly relayed to me as Deputy Speaker. I call the member for Shortland.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders were changed earlier this year to require the tellers to write down exactly the same number as on the previous count. I was aware after doing a head count that there were only 74 members on that side as opposed to 80 on the previous count. Two members changed sides—we were aware of that—but there was an incorrect count that is going to be part of the record of this parliament. If I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not the first time.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland. The member for Shortland has signed off on that. I will investigate the matter and return the results of that to the parliament at a later date. At the moment, the motion is—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not sign off.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will investigate this at a later stage. I will not be able to investigate it now, because the clerks have given me the advice and I have called the result. This matter will be dealt with at a later date. The member for Grayndler has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. It is not appropriate for this parliament to simply move on when we have a situation whereby there were 74 people on that side but there were going to be 78 names. What are they going to be—Tory 1, Tory 2, Tory 3 and Tory 4? It is simply not appropriate to just move on with phantom Tories on that side of the House. It is not on. You need to deal with this and you need to deal with it now.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the Leader of the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not an ALP branch meeting in Marrickville. This is the national parliament.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you are having a lot of fun trying to create mayhem in the House. The question that the motion be put has been passed. The question now is that the motion be agreed to. We need to get on with the business of government rather than your silly, sandpit behaviour.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point or order. You made a ruling a moment ago, based in good faith, that you believed the count had been signed off by the tellers for each side. I ask that you check with the clerks whether or not that is in fact true.

Government members interjecting—

We cannot move on. The next stage of debate is determined by what has just happened. How do we deal with what names go into Hansard? A ruling has just been given based on advice from the clerks which may or may not be correct. I would ask that you check with the clerks as to whether or not the tellers from both sides signed off on that count. I am asking for that to be done now. We do not have to wait a month. The clerks are right here; the papers are right here; it has either been signed off by the tellers for each side or it has not.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the tellers have signed off on both sides. The question before the House now is that motion of the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Ms Hall interjecting—

I know that the member for Shortland believes that there is something different to what is in front of me. She will be able to investigate that at a later date. At the moment I do not have the forensic ability to rule on whether what she said is correct. On the information in front of me I have made my call, and now the question before the House is that the motion of the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. On the count, when it is done by the tellers: I have had a look at the sheets where they were signed off last time, and the wrong count—the 78—was only signed off by the coalition tellers. I am asking: when counts are signed off, do the Liberals get to choose how many votes they believe they have—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It makes an argument as to why we did not win, if we had to sign off our own. Is that what is happening? They can put forward a count that is inaccurate and it is only signed off by people who were voting on the government side?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this question will have to be resolved by an independent committee or by the Speaker. From what I have seen, the sheets—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: in referring that to the Speaker, can it also be drawn to attention that one of the four people who was counted as being here was the Treasurer, when the Treasurer had gone down to the cafe or somewhere else.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has dealt with this.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, because he has no way of knowing who the four invisible people were. One of them is the Treasurer of Australia, who is meant to be relevant to counting.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will refer it to the Speaker.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, given you have been in the chair for as long as you have, I am sure you want to be refreshed before question time. I will speak on the contingency motion put by the Minister for Social Services about an hour and a half ago in order to make sure that everyone has the chance to get their break before question time—except, of course, the poor old Leader of the House. I will speak to give you the chance to have lunch, a drink or any other kind of refreshment stop that you desire.

The Minister for Social Services has moved a contingency motion, a suspension of standing orders, in order to complete all stages of this bill—the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015. He has been prosecuting the case for this very important budgetary and economic reform for some time. As the House knows, as the members of the public know and as the press gallery knows, he achieved a breakthrough deal with the Australian Greens in the Senate to pass these reforms. These reforms are vital to making a sustainable pension in Australia. They are supported by the Australian public. They will ensure that those people who should have access to a part pension or a full pension get that access and those who can exist into the future with the resources they already have, without government support, will not.

The specific changes are that the assets test will be changed for the Australian age pension to ensure that those people who have assets of over $1million, not including their family home, can no longer access a part pension. I come from an electorate in Adelaide's eastern and north-eastern suburbs where there is a very high proportion of part pensioners and self-funded retirees. I can tell the House that I have had virtually no criticism at all in my electorate for this decision from part pensioners who are also self-funded retirees and who will lose that part pension. I think they recognise that $1 million worth of assets, not including their family home, is a substantial resource for them. They can earn the income from those assets that mean they do not have to rely on government support. On the other hand, because of this reform, we can make the age pension sustainable. Those people on lower incomes who get a full pension, those people who exist on the full pension, will get an extra $30 a fortnight in their pension because of this government's changes. That is the effect of the Minister for Social Services extremely important reform.

It is passing strange that the Labor Party would oppose this reform. The Labor Party want to keep people with assets of over $1 million, not including their family home, getting a part pension. They want to stop the poorest of pensioners from getting a $30-a-fortnight increase in their pension. That is the effect of the Labor Party's decision in blocking this legislation.

The debate that we are having now is all about allowing the House to continue through the stages of this debate to make sure that the pension reform bills are passed today and can be sent into the Senate today to be dealt with next week. What I find absolutely remarkable is that the Labor Party have allowed the Greens to steal the clothes of economic rectitude, fiscal rectitude. What the Labor Party are saying is that they are prepared to allow the Greens to become a political party in the Senate and represented here by the member for Melbourne to be more fiscally responsible than the Labor Party. I welcome the Australian Greens' move to the economically sensible position that they have adopted. It is a shame on the Labor Party that they would be so lacking in any principles of fiscal balance and rectitude that they would allow the Greens to do that.

The actual amendments being moved by the Minister for Social Services today would split the bill in order to take the assets test into a separate bill from the other reforms that have been proposed in the budget. This will allow the Senate to deal with that change cleanly next week, when the government and the Greens together ensure that this reform passes both houses of parliament. I see the Leader of the Opposition joins us in the House. I would implore him to see reason on pension reform—to see reason if only for his own political survival—because it is inimical to the Labor Party's interests to allow the Greens to be economically more responsible than the Labor Party. I have to say as a Liberal that I would prefer it if the Labor Party were more fiscally responsible than the Greens. Madam Speaker, on that note, I sit down because I note that we are at 2 o'clock and question time can therefore begin.

Debate interrupted.