Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Dunkley from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

  (a) the member for Bowman stated on 27 March that he would step down from all parliamentary roles, effective immediately, but has not relinquished his chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, which gives him extra salary;

  (b) the Prime Minister has refused to respond appropriately to allegations made against the member for Bowman by forcing him to step down from his chairmanship;

  (c) coalition members have now voted 12 times to keep the member for Bowman as chair of the committee, including coalition members of that committee;

  (d) by voting to keep the member for Bowman as chair of this committee, the Prime Minister and everyone who sits behind him in this House is endorsing the member for Bowman's behaviour;

(2) and therefore calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.

This is outrageous leadership—

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

I'll ask the member for Dunkley to resume her seat. I feared we would start to run into this problem. There was a problem I raised yesterday, which was not an issue with the motion itself, but we are now running into the same-motion rule. I've read yesterday's motion, and it was almost word for word. In fact, three elements of it have been repeated. The House has already made a determination on that matter. The same-motion rule is about the substance of the proposition. Merely substituting a word or adding another sentence in, of itself, does not change the substance of the decision that the House has now made several times. I'm raising that point right now. There was only one element that was added to that motion. In fact, if I look at yesterday's motion, part A was not in; part B was in, word for word; part D of yesterday's was in, word for word; and No. 2 in this motion was word for word. The only addition was a reference to the Prime Minister, which has also been in the other motions. I think the House has already decided these matters in substance. I'm not saying motions can't be moved, but the same motion—almost identical—cannot be continuously moved, because the House has determined the matter.

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

Just to the point of order for clarification, because the ruling on this matter is not, I think, something that we've previously had during your speakership: when points of order have been taken with respect to the same question rule, your ruling has consistently been that the question would have to be absolutely identical for the same question rule to apply.

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

If I take it that the ruling being made today is that, for the same question rule, the ruling is that it would have to be absolutely identical whereas, for the same motion rule, you look at it in a more general way—if that's the advice to the House—we will obviously work within that ruling. But there are, as you would appreciate, a number of ways that this matter can be dealt with, and the matter will continue to be dealt with every day. If there is a ruling that says that the way that we deal with that gets scripted in a form, then it will happen. But I don't want to create any impression that the issue is going to go away, because it won't.

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

I just say to the Manager of Opposition Business that it's certainly not my place to advise whether a matter before the House should go away or not go away. That is absolutely none of my business. I want to be absolutely clear on that. I want to make it clear to the House, in that vein, that motions can certainly be moved; it's just that an identical motion or indeed a similar motion in substance that the House has made a decision on cannot continually be moved.

The Manager of Opposition Business does raise a very good question, and that is the difference between questions and motions. Certainly the approach and, indeed, the standing order, on questions is very specific. I suppose the difference here goes back to some of Speaker Sneddon's rulings, which is that, when it comes to a motion, it really is detaining the House and asking them to decide a question—albeit, I have to say that these questions have been decided by the House determining by a majority vote that the speakers be no further heard et cetera, but that is a decision—and, once they have decided that, to continually pursue the same motion in substance detains the House. Obviously with questions it's a specific period of time and there's a different approach. But, in saying that I won't accept this motion, I want to make it very clear to the House that's not saying that I will not accept any motion on the substance of the issue; it just really needs to be a motion asking the House to make a decision on something different, not merely repeating what was said yesterday. The member for Monash?

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, just a question: did you actually rule then?

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

Yes, I have so ruled. That's why I have not called for a seconder. I want to make it very clear to everyone that I have ruled in that light.