Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I give the call to the member for Warringah, the question now is that this bill be now read a third time.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I sought to move a motion under standing order 154 prior to moving to the third reading. Standing order 154 says:

Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House.

That is what I sought the call for, prior to it going to a vote on the third reading.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that under the resolution the standing orders have been suspended to enable this to occur.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Respectfully, Mr Speaker, we've passed the terms of the resolution. We've gone beyond the terms of that resolution.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, as a result of the resolution, the stated questions now are being followed. We've done the agreements to the bill. Now we're doing the third reading, which I've called the division for, and the clock is running for one minute. Once that's concluded, we shall then move on and call the Clerk. This is the question on the third reading of the bill.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(In division)Mr Speaker, under standing order 155(b), I seek to amend the motion 'That this bill be now read a third time' to insert the word 'not' so that it reads 'That this bill not be read a third time'.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the standing orders, that's unable to occur because the motion is being put before the House, so the division is underway.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's important to understand what has just happened. The government has moved—

Honourable members interjecting—

No, I'm entitled to be heard on the point of order.

An honourable member: It's not a point of order.

It is a point of order. The government moved a debate management motion, a gag, that said there were going to be four crossbench speakers and then it was going to be put to a vote. It was explicit in that motion that, notwithstanding the ram nature of it, there would be an explicit provision for crossbench members to move amendments and have those amendments voted on. There wasn't going to be debate—it was truncated and so on, and we opposed that—but the resolution contained an explicit commitment from the government that crossbench members could move amendments and vote on them.

When it came time for the member for Warringah to move her amendments, she sought the call but we just moved straight on. The amendments had been circulated exactly in accordance with what the government had proposed. So, if the motion under standing order 154—for the bill to be reconsidered in detail—is not allowed to be put, then the government will have just breached its own resolution that it put to the House, which gave the members of the crossbench the right to move an amendment and have it voted on. That is why the motion under 154 should be reconsidered. If not, I call on the government to commit to allowing what they said they would do in the motion they put to the House and allow the debate to be reopened so that the member for Warringah can move the amendment that she has circulated in good faith, exactly in accordance with the provision that the government asked for.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the point of view of the Leader of the Australian Greens and the member for Warringah. As I said earlier in my remarks, I'm unaware of the arrangements that were put into place but, under the resolution that the House has taken and because of the time limits and constraints, that was not able to occur and that is why we are in this position now. We'll continue with the division so that we can deal with the question before the House, which is that the bill be read a third time.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, respectfully, the problem with that position is that, when the opposition moved their consideration in detail amendment, they had already gone past the 1.40 pm deadline of the procedural motion of the government. If that were the case, then, when I sought the call to move the consideration in detail amendment, it should not have been possible for the opposition to move theirs either. Are we saying that, despite the wording of the motion the government itself forced through the House, there are two standards in this place of our democracy and that it will only be sometimes that the government and, respectfully, the chair will comply with the procedures that have been put before the House?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order, to clarify for members of the House, the resolution for the suspension of standing orders—therefore, standing orders that are being quoted—were suspended for that time. There were time limits imposed. Once I had brought that to the attention of the chair, we had gone into the procedures that we're now in.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the points being made, but, because of the resolution of the House that was undertaken, we're now in this position. So we're just going to complete this division. I'm happy to talk to members separately after the debate has occurred, and we shall move to question time.