Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to report that the House that on 23 April 2021 I received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks the appointments became effective on that day. I now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the memberships of the committees.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask leave of the House to move a motion for the appointment of members to certain committees.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

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

Could you re-state what you just said to the House, please?

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, sure. I have to report to the House that on 23 April 2021 I received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks the appointments became effective on that date. I now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the memberships of the committees.

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

Okay. Leave is granted.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

I move an amendment to the motion that has been moved by the minister:

That the following words be added:

"Mr Laming be discharged from the Employment, Education and Training committee."

The opposition accepts in moving this that it will be for the government whips to replace Mr Laming with whoever they choose. We are not seeking to shift from the practice that the whips recommend who becomes members of committees. But, can I tell you, we were told by Mr Laming himself, the member for Bowman, and by members of the government that he was resigning from all parliamentary positions. We were told that. And when we agreed to the motion today for what the order of business would be, committee memberships was one of the things we agreed to, presuming there would be that opportunity. We didn't raise it in question time, because the government had specifically nominated that they would deal with committee memberships. And then, when we get to committee memberships, guess what is the one that they don't want to change.

After everything we heard about the member for Bowman over the break, we get back here and nothing has changed. After everything we dealt with for weeks and weeks in this parliament, we get back here today and we discover nothing has changed! We find the committee memberships that were reported to be changed in April—in April!—will now be 'tidied up'. But in relation to someone who in March announced he was going, nothing's going to be done. Every single day since that announcement, that they did as part of their media management, he's been collecting the salary of chair of a committee—every single day. His claim wasn't, 'Oh, I'll resign later on.' The claim was he would resign immediately. That's what we were told, that he would resign immediately. And why were we told that? Why was it important that he would resign immediately? Because the member for Bowman is not fit to be a member of this parliament.

The member for Bowman is not fit to be a member of the House, and this government is relying on the tainted vote of the member for Bowman to retain any majority in this place. He has a long history of trolling and abusing his own constituents on Facebook. He publicly accused one woman of misappropriating charity funds, leading her, under pressure from him, to consider taking her own life. He targeted another woman, and her husband, with abuse for six years! Six years! This man has been targeting his constituents with abuse. When he was exposed on Nine, he apologised. He stood over there in the parliament and he apologised for the abuse. Then, within hours, he was sending messages saying he didn't even know what he was apologising for. If you behave that way, you are not fit to be a member of parliament. If you then apologise and don't even know why, you are not fit to be a member of parliament. If you hide behind bushes, jumping out, taking photos of constituents, you're not fit to be a member of parliament. If you offer a $100 reward to people to help identify who another member of parliament has been seen with in public, you are not fit to be a member of parliament.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move

That the question be now put.

Mr Burke interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I know the difficulty. I'm very familiar with the Practice, and I will get out the page. I'm just going to familiarise members with this issue; I've had a lot of cause to reflect on it. I'll helpfully get the page in a second, if I can, from the Practice, which I can find if members want, where it states that a closure motion can be moved during the moving of a motion, during a seconding of a motion, at any time before the chair has stated the question. The other principle at stake is: when members seek the call—the Leader of the House was there seeking the call immediately afterwards—you don't want a precedent where I don't give members the call. The only difference here is that what normally happens has happened a little bit later, but it has happened just in time. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

The seconder had concluded her speech—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

and reserved her right. It also is one of the principles of Practice and standing orders that the moment a seconder has concluded the question will be stated. That's part of the Practice. For the Leader of the House to be able to move the closure is for you to give the call, but immediately after the member for Griffith sat down, the first thing to happen was for the question to be stated, before the call was given to anyone.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't agree with that interpretation. I really don't. It's a fundamental difference. What you're really asking of me is to speak very quickly and state the question when there's someone there already seeking the call. If the boot is on the other foot, there are times when you're seeking the call or the Leader of the Opposition is seeking the call. That is why those standing orders, and they're fairly brutal standing orders, they really are—the Leader of the Opposition and yourself know the history of them; they go back a long way—are designed for exactly that purpose. So what the argument here really is is that I should have ignored someone at the dispatch box and stated the question. We were talking about a millisecond. Let's be real-world about it. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business again.

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

Mr Speaker, what we're talking about is whether or not the member for Bowman remains on a committee, and this judgement call is a big part of determining that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, no; that's not—

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

Yes, but the House—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, because what you are suggesting is that I should have a different interpretation based on the question before the chair. And I do not accept the principle that amendments are of unequal weight. All amendments are important. The Manager of Opposition Business has moved an amendment—he has done so—and the Leader of the House was there seeking the call. The Leader of the House, as you well know, could have moved the closure motion during the Manager of Opposition Business's speech. I don't think he could have moved it after that—after the Manager of Opposition Business was no further heard. I think I did have to call for a seconder. But it remains—

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

It would be helpful if the member for Lingiari didn't interject. It remains the case that the question before the chair was not that the amendment now be disagreed to. That's the case. So the question before the chair is that moved by the Leader of the House, and that is that the question be put.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the minister for the appointment of members of certain committees be agreed to.

Question agreed to.