|
senate vote 2023-08-10#19
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-05 13:34:24
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — National Health Legislation Amendment (Opioid Dependence Treatment and Maximum Dispensed Quantities) Instrument 2023; Disallowance- Regulations and Determinations - National Health Legislation Amendment (Opioid Dependence Treatment and Maximum Dispensed Quantities) Instrument 2023 - Disallow Schedule 2
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I note that, in accordance with standing order 78(3), Senator Pratt has indicated her objection to a withdrawal of the motion called on earlier today and has had her name put on the motion. At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-10.149.2):
- > *That Schedule 2 to the [National Health Legislation Amendment (Opioid Dependence Treatment and Maximum Dispensed Quantities) Instrument 2023](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2023L00843/latest/text), made under the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed [F2023L00843].*
- Schedule 2 relates to maximum dispensed quantities.
<p class="italic">That Schedule 2 to the National Health Legislation Amendment (Opioid Dependence Treatment and Maximum Dispensed Quantities) Instrument 2023, made under the <i>National Health Act 1953</i>, be disallowed [F2023L00843].</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Point of order, President. I note the minister has moved the motion on behalf of Senator Pratt. Firstly, there are two points that I wish to have clarified for the benefit of the chamber, please. The first is that the effect of the notice of transfer is that Senator Pratt is now moving the motion to disallow the government's policy and regulation in relation to the change to dispensing rules for community pharmacies. Can I firstly just have clarified for the benefit of the Senate and senators that the effect of this is that a Labor senator, Senator Pratt, is now moving the motion to disallow the government's own policy?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order! That's correct, Senator Birmingham. And your second point?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Thank you for that clarification, President. With that—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I'm sorry, Senator Birmingham; you will need to resume your seat. I need order in the chamber.</p><p>Senator Cash, I just called for order in the chamber. That includes you.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>With that in mind, can I seek an understanding, President, from you, that Senator Pratt therefore needs to vote for the motion that she is moving?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>That's not correct, Senator Birmingham. The principle was established in 1991 that the senator is free to vote either way. Is this a further point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>It's a further point of order. I know you've just received advice from the Clerk about a 1991 principle, but this is quite an extraordinary and preposterous situation where we have a Labor senator—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, this is not—</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>who—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, I'd like you—</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>President—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order!</p><p>Senator Wong, I'm going to allow Senator Birmingham to immediately get to the point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I'm asking for some more detail. It's a 1991 precedent without any reference to the detail of it, as to what type of motion it was, the circumstances of it or the grounds upon which a ruling was made allowing a senator to move a motion and then vote the opposite way and against their own motion. It's completely preposterous!</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, you asked me a specific point in relation to Senator Pratt as the mover of the motion. I indicated to you a longstanding rule of the chamber that it was completely in order. I am once again informed by the Clerk that it's completely in order, and, unless a division is called by that senator, the senator is free to vote either way. So I'm going to proceed, and Senator Wong has moved a motion.</p><p>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|