|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#1
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 08:47:12
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion to amend the temporary rules of parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion to amend the temporary rules of parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.
- As this is a motion to suspend the rules without providing advance notice, an absolute majority of the House (i.e. 76 of the 151 MPs) must vote in favour for it to pass (which has happened).
- In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Zoe Daniel [said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2#g102.3):
- > *The urgency of this matter to justify suspension of standing orders is as follows. The intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was that the crossbench get three questions each question time, in line with increased crossbench representation. Even in the short period parliament has been sitting, this is not the way question time has developed. This is urgent because, now, in five of the seven question times so far during this parliament, the crossbench has received only two questions, and only 18 questions were heard today. Each day that passes, therefore, reflects the denial of the opportunity to question the government on important matters relating to the community that elected this crossbench—the largest crossbench of our time.*
- > *It's important that we begin as we plan to continue in this new parliament, rather than allowing poor habits to evolve or simply turning a blind eye to deliberate, mischievous points of order. It is urgent because this is denying crossbenchers the full opportunity to represent our communities in parliament, in one of the few times we get the opportunity to speak up. It is on that basis that I put this motion.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >> *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- >> *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#1
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 07:21:56
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion to amend the temporary rules of parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.
- As this is a motion to suspend the rules without providing advance notice, an absolute majority of the House (i.e. 76 of the 151 MPs) must vote in favour for it to pass (which has happened).
In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Zoe Daniel said:- In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Zoe Daniel [said](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2#g102.3):
- > *The urgency of this matter to justify suspension of standing orders is as follows. The intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was that the crossbench get three questions each question time, in line with increased crossbench representation. Even in the short period parliament has been sitting, this is not the way question time has developed. This is urgent because, now, in five of the seven question times so far during this parliament, the crossbench has received only two questions, and only 18 questions were heard today. Each day that passes, therefore, reflects the denial of the opportunity to question the government on important matters relating to the community that elected this crossbench—the largest crossbench of our time.*
- > *It's important that we begin as we plan to continue in this new parliament, rather than allowing poor habits to evolve or simply turning a blind eye to deliberate, mischievous points of order. It is urgent because this is denying crossbenchers the full opportunity to represent our communities in parliament, in one of the few times we get the opportunity to speak up. It is on that basis that I put this motion.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >> *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- >> *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#1
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 07:21:05
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.- The majority voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion to amend the temporary rules of parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.
- As this is a motion to suspend the rules without providing advance notice, an absolute majority of the House (i.e. 76 of the 151 MPs) must vote in favour for it to pass (which has happened).
- In arguing for the suspension of standing orders, Zoe Daniel said:
- > *The urgency of this matter to justify suspension of standing orders is as follows. The intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was that the crossbench get three questions each question time, in line with increased crossbench representation. Even in the short period parliament has been sitting, this is not the way question time has developed. This is urgent because, now, in five of the seven question times so far during this parliament, the crossbench has received only two questions, and only 18 questions were heard today. Each day that passes, therefore, reflects the denial of the opportunity to question the government on important matters relating to the community that elected this crossbench—the largest crossbench of our time.*
- > *It's important that we begin as we plan to continue in this new parliament, rather than allowing poor habits to evolve or simply turning a blind eye to deliberate, mischievous points of order. It is urgent because this is denying crossbenchers the full opportunity to represent our communities in parliament, in one of the few times we get the opportunity to speak up. It is on that basis that I put this motion.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >> *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- >> *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#1
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-17 19:38:24
|
Title
Business — Sessional Orders- Business - Sessional Orders - Let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I seek leave to move:</p><p class="italic">That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:</p><p class="italic">"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—</p><p class="italic">That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:</p><p class="italic">"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."</p><p>The urgency of this matter to justify suspension of standing orders is as follows. The intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was that the crossbench get three questions each question time, in line with increased crossbench representation. Even in the short period parliament has been sitting, this is not the way question time has developed. This is urgent because, now, in five of the seven question times so far during this parliament, the crossbench has received only two questions, and only 18 questions were heard today. Each day that passes, therefore, reflects the denial of the opportunity to question the government on important matters relating to the community that elected this crossbench—the largest crossbench of our time.</p><p>It's important that we begin as we plan to continue in this new parliament, rather than allowing poor habits to evolve or simply turning a blind eye to deliberate, mischievous points of order. It is urgent because this is denying crossbenchers the full opportunity to represent our communities in parliament, in one of the few times we get the opportunity to speak up. It is on that basis that I put this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Monique Ryan</p><p>I second and support the member for Goldstein's motion for this change to sessional order 65A. The 47th Parliament has the largest crossbench yet seen in this House, reflecting the fact that one-third of Australians voted for a representative independent from the major parties at the most recent federal election. The millions of Australians who make up our electorates have expressed a desire to see politics done differently. As a new member of parliament, I have been disappointed by the opposition's frequent interruptions and stonewalling in question time in the first sitting fortnight of this parliament. The opposition's points of order are pointless. The time we have here is precious. It is expensive. It should be valued. We hold the trust of the public that we use this time effectively and responsibly. Our electorates want and deserve better than the time wasted in question time. We wish to facilitate a more productive question time in which the important and pressing issues of our time can be discussed in detail and with respect. This country needs an effective opposition and question time needs to include real questions and real answers. The interests of our individual electorates will be better served by a redistribution of questions such as to increase the ability of this crossbench to hold the government to account.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I inform the House that the opposition became aware of this proposed suspension of standing orders around 2.15 today, when the member for Goldstein approached me to provide me with notice of that, and I thank her for doing that. I was then informed that the government intends to support this.</p><p>Just weeks ago the government made changes to the standing orders, through the normal process, to add standing order 65A, which aims to set out a set of new and modified arrangements to deal with the fact that we do have a different composition in this parliament than we have had previously. Standing order 65A, amongst other things, is predicated on the assumption that there will be—when you work through the maths—22 questions, because it refers to a crossbench member seeking the call on the fifth, on the 13th and on the 21st questions.</p><p>As the member for Goldstein has rightly said, in fact, today the Prime Minister brought question time to an end after 18 questions. And in the several question times in the last sitting period we saw the Prime Minister bring question time to an end after 18 or 20 questions. We've had conduct from the government which is different from the premise on which it drafted standing order 65A, brought it to the House and secured the support of the House for it.</p><p>I make no criticism of the crossbench for bringing this motion forward today, but I do say that these are matters within the control of the government. Given the conduct that we have seen from the Prime Minister today and in several question times in the last sitting period, where the Prime Minister shut down questions after 18 or indeed 20 questions, unless the Prime Minister changes his practices, the practical impact of what is put before the House today—let's be in no doubt about it—will be one less question for the opposition and one more question for the crossbench.</p><p>I say to the House, and I say particularly to the government, that this is not an exercise of good faith by the government. The government just weeks ago set out a set of arrangements in the standing orders. There were extensive discussions between all of the parties: government, opposition and crossbench. There were a whole range of discussions on these matters. We did raise concerns with a number of them, but the government set out a set of arrangements, and that has now been set out in the standing orders. Literally a week or two later, in terms of sitting weeks that have elapsed, the government is now proposing, as I'm advised, to support a material change to those arrangements, which will have the practical effect of reducing by one question the number of questions that the opposition receives and increasing by one the number of questions that the crossbench receives.</p><p>Again, I make no criticism of the crossbench. I do criticise the government. This is not the way that the government should be engaging with the opposition. We've heard a lot about kinder, gentler politics; we've heard a lot about a more cooperative and consultative approach. This is the very opposite of that. This is being done with absolutely no notice to the opposition and the practical effect of it is to reduce by one the number of questions that the opposition is able to ask.</p><p>I say to the Prime Minister that he could resolve this issue simply by committing that he will maintain a practice of having 22 questions, which is the basis on which standing order 65A was drafted. The opposition will oppose this motion on the practical grounds that its substantive effect is to reduce the number of questions that we receive. The government could very simply solve this issue by committing to having 22 questions in question time.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>That was a valiant defence of the sessional order the opposition voted against. That's what we just had. The Manager of Opposition Business is right that the sessional order presumes we'll get through 22 questions, which most of the time we used to when we got to the normal finishing time of 10 past three. What has happened this term is, because the only question they feel is at stake is the crossbench question, they take point of order after point of order to slow everything down and they don't lose a question. It has always actually been a natural restraint on oppositions that you would feel, if you kept the points of order going, you were going to lose a question at the other end. That would cause oppositions to hold back. On this occasion what they've done is decide, 'Well, it's only the crossbench that's at stake, therefore we'll do points of order.' We had four on one question today.</p><p>The impact of this will be really simple. If the number of points of order goes back to normal, the opposition will get all the questions that they had every right to expect. But effectively what this change to the sessional order does is say the commitment that was publicly given to the crossbench that they would get three questions is what will ordinarily now occur. That's what this says—and it says, for the commitments that were made to the opposition, it's very much up to you. There is only one reason we're getting through so few questions, and that's in the hands of the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>When I came into parliament as a member of the National Party government, in three months I got no questions at all. Now every two or three weeks I get a question. When I did get the question, the whip came down and said, 'You've got a question today, Katter,' and he gave me the question. I said, 'That's got nothing to do with my electorate. I'm not interested in that. What're you giving me that for?' and he said, 'That's the question you're asking.' I said, 'Hold on a minute, am I to understand that the only way I get to stand up and ask questions in this place is if I'm a mouthpiece and a little puppet on a string for you? Is that the way it works?' and he said, 'Yes, that's the way it works.' What we're asking for is a more enlightened approach than that.</p><p>Question time was cut short because I had question 21, and the Prime Minister was a bit scared of it; I know that. He's a good bloke. Peter Andren and Ted Mack, the fathers of the third force in politics, said on their first re-election, the first time that a third-party person had ever gotten re-elected, 'The only questions that will be asked in this place will be asked by those of us on the crossbenches, because they are the only meaningful questions.' One side throws banana skins in front of the government, and the government tell us how wonderful they are, which bores the entire Australian public silly—and I want to thank both of them, because that's the reason we're here. It sure would be nice if we gave a bit of return on their money to the taxpayers of Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to suspend the standing orders so as to allow [another motion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/2) to be considered immediately. [Standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are the usual procedural rules of parliament. This means that the House can proceed to debate and vote on that motion.
- As this is a motion to suspend the rules without providing advance notice, an absolute majority of the House (i.e. 76 of the 151 MPs) must vote in favour for it to pass (which has happened).
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Goldstein from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >> *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- >> *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
-
-
|