CONSTITUTION (REFORM OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND SETTLEMENT OF DEADLOCKS ON LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The SPEAKER (23:13): Following the division on the vote on the second reading of the Constitution (Reform of Legislative Council and Settlement of Deadlocks on Legislation) Amendment Bill, I neglected to call the Clerk to read the bill a second time. I now ask the Clerk to do that.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter has already been determined and you cannot retrospectively change the standing orders or the rules. Therefore, I ask for your ruling in relation to this matter. The matter has passed. The house has proceeded at some length to deal with other business. If there was a problem, the time to have brought this to the attention of the house was at the actual moment when the vote was taken, not two to three hours later when the house has determined other business.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stuart will take his seat. I gather his point. Standing order 242, for the benefit of the member for Stuart, deals with what happens regarding bills that require an absolute majority of members to agree to them. It is quite clear that, if the question is carried by less than an absolute majority of all the members of the house, the bill is read a second or third time, as the case requires, but is not further proceeded with and may not be revived. So it is quite clear that the bill needs to be read a second time. I should have been aware of that but I was not, so that is why we are rectifying that particular problem.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (23:14): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move for the rescission of a vote of the house forthwith.

Mr HANNA: I have a point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mitchell has a point of order.

Mr HANNA: It is clear where the Attorney-General is heading. He is heading this way so that the constitution (Legislative Council) bill can be revived, and that would be completely out of order. At this point, I suggest that the motion being put is out of order because it is part of a process to revive a bill that has already been negatived.

The SPEAKER: Whether it is or is not, it is in the hands of the house to decide how it wants to deal with it. It is quite clear that standing orders provide for motions to be rescinded, provided there is the concurrence of an absolute majority of members present. I have no option but to allow the motion to be put, provided there is an absolute majority of members present and an absolute majority of members agree to it.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will deal with one point of order at a time.

Mr HANNA: If I might briefly respond to that, sir.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will not engage in a debate on it. I will quickly hear the member for Mitchell for the purpose of expediting the matter, but I will not engage in correspondence with him.

Mr HANNA: Standing order 242 is quite clear that this bill to amend the constitution cannot be revived. We know that is what the Attorney-General seeks to do. The rescission motion of itself does not do that, but it is the first step in reviving the legislation. The standing orders which were in force at the time that you gave your ruling that the bill was negatived mean that the bill cannot be revived in this session.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I did say that the bill was negatived and I erred in saying that.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition might not be used to hearing members of the chair admitting when they have been at fault, but it is something which I do, and I erred in saying it had been negatived. It clearly had not. The second reading had been agreed to but did not have the constitutional majority that is required in order for it to proceed. Standing order 242 makes clear the bill should have been allowed to be read, and that has now happened.

As I say, at the heart of any ruling is the will of the house and you cannot use technicalities to try to prevent the house from making a decision, and if it is the will of house to rescind the second reading and have it recommitted, then the chair is in no position to prevent that from happening. It is entirely up to the will of the house.

Mr HANNA: In that respect, I propose to move dissent in your ruling, Mr Speaker. I will write out a suitable motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell can bring his motion to the chair.

Mr HANNA: I will read it out in full for you, sir. I must read this out, because we need to be clear what your ruling is, sir, and I hope I have encapsulated that. I propose to move that the second reading of the Constitution (Reform of the Legislative Council and Settlement of Deadlocks on Legislation) Amendment Bill may be rescinded and the bill recommitted.

The SPEAKER: My ruling is that the Attorney-General be allowed to move a suspension of standing orders. I imagine that what the member for Mitchell is dissenting from is that the Attorney-General be allowed to move his motion.

Mr HANNA: The Attorney-General's motion, sir, specifically referred to the purpose of rescinding the second reading vote and recommittal.

The SPEAKER: I do not think it mentioned recommittal. All the motion does is to rescind; it does not mention recommittal.

Mr HANNA: Is that right, sir, that the Attorney-General's motion is to rescind a vote, but it does not specify any vote?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! For the purposes of the member for Mitchell, I will explain the procedure. There are two procedures, both of which require an absolute majority. The first is a motion from the Attorney-General to suspend standing orders to allow the rescission motion to be moved, which is what the Attorney-General is proposing; that is, a motion of suspension to allow the rescission motion to be moved. That requires an absolute majority of members. Following that motion, provided it is successful, the Attorney-General, I would imagine, would move the actual rescission motion itself, and that would also require an absolute majority.

So, all the Attorney-General is moving at the moment is a motion to suspend standing orders to allow a motion of rescission to be moved. I have ruled that the Attorney be allowed to move that suspension, and the member for Mitchell has moved dissent from that ruling.

Mr HANNA: The basis of my dissent then, sir, is that the motion does not specify the vote, which is the underlying purpose of the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not know how I can make it any clearer. All the Attorney-General is moving at the moment is a suspension of standing orders to allow a motion to be put. I do not know how you can dissent from a ruling from the chair that a member be allowed to move a suspension of standing orders. Any member can get up at any time and move that standing orders be suspended so as to achieve something. That is all, at this stage, I am allowing the Attorney-General to move.

I can understand why the member for Mitchell may take issue with the rescission itself. That is fine, and we can have that debate. However, at this stage, all that is being dealt with is a suspension of standing orders, which would allow the Attorney-General to proceed with a motion to rescind.

I do not know on what basis you could move dissent from a ruling by the chair to suspend standing orders. Nonetheless, in order to expedite matters, if that is what the member for Mitchell wishes to do, I ask him to please do it so that we can do this as quickly as possible.

Mrs REDMOND: Can I ask for a point of clarification on your ruling, sir, because, although I see that standing order 398 allows any standing order to be suspended, standing order 403 specifically limits that. It provides:

After the orders of the day have been called on—

which today they have been—

no motion for suspension without notice may be entertained until the consideration of such orders is concluded...

We have not concluded the business of the house for today.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I am in the middle of asking for a point of clarification.

The SPEAKER: Order, the Minister for Transport!

Mrs REDMOND: I am reading the standing order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: On any plain reading of standing order 403, this motion to suspend standing orders in this particular case, because we have not concluded the business of the day, is out of order.

The SPEAKER: No, that is not the case because, if the leader will read to the end of standing order 403, the words are 'or otherwise facilitating the business of the House' which—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I want to get through this as much as anybody. It has always been the practice of the house that at any time any member, including members of the opposition, has been able to rise and move to suspend standing orders. That has always been the understanding and the interpretation of standing order 403. I have a motion of dissent being proposed by the member for Mitchell and I wish to deal with it as quickly as possible. The member for Mitchell.