All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2021-05-11#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-01 11:05:15
|
Title
Committees — Membership- Committees - Membership - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Terri Butler</p><p>I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I move</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p><p class="italic">Mr Burke interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>No, I know the difficulty. I'm very familiar with the <i>Practice</i>, 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 <i>Practice</i>, 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.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The seconder had concluded her speech—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>and reserved her right. It also is one of the principles of <i>Practice</i> and standing orders that the moment a seconder has concluded the question will be stated. That's part of the <i>Practice</i>. 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.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Actually, no; that's not—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Yes, but the House—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>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—</p><p class="italic">Mr Snowdon interjecting—</p><p>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.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-05-11.59.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to end debate and instead vote on the question immediately.
-
-
|