Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That my motion relating to the Queensland government may be moved immediately, and have precedence over all other business this day till determined.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on the basis of standing order 86. As I understood your earlier ruling, when the standing order 86 point of order was taken, you did not entertain it because at that stage we were debating a procedural motion to suspend standing orders. That motion has been resolved in the affirmative, and so much of standing orders have been suspended as would prevent Senator Lazarus proceeding. However, as I understood your ruling, the time to deal with standing order 86 points was not on the procedural motion, but subsequently. The procedural motion having been disposed of, I do invoke standing order 86 which, might I remind you, provides that:

A question shall not be proposed if it is the same in substance as any question which has been determined during the same session, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such question was determined more than 6 months previously or has been rescinded.

I start with the basic proposition that standing order 86 must have some work to do. It cannot be the case that standing order 86 could always be avoided or got round by a tactical device. Having ruled, as you have, Mr President—and I respect, of course, and accept your ruling—that this point of order could not be taken on the procedural debate, it has to be able to be taken on the substantive debate or else standing order 86 would be in a nullity in all circumstances, and that cannot be right. There was a perfect circularity in what Senator Milne had to say before, a perfect circularity.

That being the case, the question is whether or not the motion of Senator Lazarus answers the description of being the same in substance as the motion that was put before this chamber some seven days ago. That is an exercise of the construction or the characterisation of the motion. But I would submit to you, Mr President, that, just as you cannot avoid standing order 86 through a procedural tactic, nor can you avoid the effect of standing order 86 by confecting a marginal difference to a motion.

The motion before the chamber has 15 paragraphs and it runs to two full pages. In all but one very small respect, it is identical to the motion that was resolved in the negative last Tuesday afternoon. The one difference is the addition, after all of the terms of reference in paragraph (1), of another term of reference:

The Committee will inquire into and report on the adequacy of Commonwealth oversight of the approval of coal seam gas projects in Queensland.

It is on that very slender basis that it is sought to be said that this is a substantially different motion.

The courts have decided time beyond number what the word 'substantial' means and, for the purposes of this parliamentary debate, it is enough to say that it means 'significantly dissimilar'. It would not, I would submit to you, Mr President, be possible to say that a very, very extensive motion varied by two lines is significantly dissimilar from an earlier motion from which those two lines were missing, particularly, by the way, because paragraph (2) of the motion adds nothing to it—because, if you look at paragraph (1)(c), 'approval processes for the development of projects for the export of resources or services', that would entirely comprehend the narrower reference to coal seam gas projects in paragraph (2). So, in fact, paragraph (2) adds very few words to the motion. But, more importantly, it adds no meaning to the motion because there is nothing that paragraph (2) adds to the motion that is not already comprehended by the extremely wide terms of reference in paragraph (1). So there is in fact no change at all in the meaning of the motion; and, if there is no change at all in the meaning of the motion, it is not possible that the motion could be treated as being substantially different.

On either of those bases, if paragraph (2) adds anything to the pre-existing motion, then it is something so slender that it could not be regarded as a substantial difference. But, as well as that, because the terms of reference in paragraph (1) are so sweeping and so comprehensive, there is nothing at all that paragraph (2) adds to the jurisdiction of this proposed committee that it does not already have. So it is not possible to conclude that it is in any way substantially different, and therefore standing order 86 ought to be applied. If it is not applied, the effect of that ruling would be to say that standing order 86 could never be applied, and that, with respect, could not be right.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order that Senator Brandis has raised: what we have passed here is the suspension of standing orders that would prevent Senator Lazarus from moving a motion in relation to the Queensland government. We have suspended standing orders. The next question is—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's already ruled on that.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's ruled against you on that.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on my right!

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The next question, standing orders having been suspended, is that Senator Lazarus has asked that the motion relating to the Queensland government be moved immediately and have precedence over all other government business. That is a procedural motion. Standing orders having been suspended to enable the motion to be considered, he is now moving that it be considered immediately and take precedence. That has nothing to do with standing order 86, as Senator Brandis is arguing. He can argue that when we get to the next part of the debate, but this is procedural and it does not apply. We have heard it twice, and he has been wrong on both occasions so far.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rule on this. Senator Brandis, in relation to your argument concerning the similarity of the motions, I do not wish entertain that at the moment but I do have some sympathy for your argument in relation to that. But that is really irrelevant at the moment, because what we have done is set aside so much of the standing orders to enable Senator Lazarus to do two things. By setting aside standing orders to enable him to do this, that includes any standing order that would impede him. Standing order 86 would impede him, so it has now been set aside. So standing order 86 has no effect for the rest of this debate, until we determine Senator Lazarus's end goal in his original suspension of standing orders. So Senator Lazarus has moved this motion and from there he has the right, if this motion is successful, to then deal with the substantive motion, which is the motion to establish the committee. I do not propose to entertain any further points of order on this. I feel as though that is quite clear. Senator Lazarus, you have moved your motion, and I will put the question. That the motion moved by Senator Lazarus that his next motion has precedence over all other business be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Lazarus, you can now move your substantive motion.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: you having ruled on each of the last two stages when substantially the same point of order was taken. I acknowledge that Senator Milne in her contribution a few moments ago has conceded and accepted that at this point this point of order may be moved. We can have an argument about at what stage of the debate the standing order 86 point of order could be moved but this is the last point in the debate. Even Senator Milne concedes the standing order 86 point is appropriately moved at this point in the debate. I will not repeat the argument—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but this is now the point at which, according to your earlier rulings, a judgement has to be made about whether or not this is substantially the same as the motion the Senate voted to defeat last week. For the reasons I explained before, it is not possible to construe it otherwise, and if we cannot move this motion now, then as I said standing order 86 is a nullity.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. In relation to Senator Milne's remarks earlier, Senator Milne was incorrect. This is not the place to move 86 because 86, as I indicated a moment ago, does not apply. That is because we are in a continuing effect from the suspension of standing orders, which was setting aside any standing order that was going to impede Senator Lazarus. Standing order 86 would impede him. He is now entitled to move this current motion. Order! The standing order can be used outside of this context, but, if you read Odgers, you will find that on page 230 it says that it is very rarely used—or 'very seldom used' I think is the exact wording. There are a number of standing orders that are very rarely used. I am not going to entertain any further points of order. I think the matter is quite clear that Senator Lazarus has now the right to move his substantive motion.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I move the motion circulated in the chamber relating to the establishment of a select committee on certain aspects of the Queensland government be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lazarus, that was the motion you recently moved and passed. We are now onto the substantive motion, which is the motion that has been circulated in relation to a select committee.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I would like to seek a clarification: in moving a motion like this, do you have to acknowledge a conflict of interest of a commercial nature—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is no point of order.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the reason for the inquiry.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, there is no point of order. All senators have a register of interests where they declare their interests. Senator Lazarus, you have the right to move the substantive motion to establish a select committee.