House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Members Members Member for Norwood, Naming MEMBER FOR NORWOOD, NAMING The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER (17:32): Earlier today I named the member for Norwood and the member, pursuant to standing order 139, was provided the opportunity to be heard in explanation or apology. The Minister for Transport then moved that the member for Norwood's explanation not be accepted. There was then a series of points of order in relation to whether the motion of the minister can be debated, and I ruled that no debate was allowed. Standing order 139 is silent on the matter of whether debate is permitted on such a motion. However, the same standing order makes clear that the subsequent motion to be moved in the naming of a member, that the member be suspended from the service of the house, is moved with no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed. Members have brought to the table a number of examples from earlier proceedings of the house, where debate on the question that the member's explanation be accepted being moved has been debated. Votes and Proceedings contains many examples where no debate took place and even examples of the Speaker ruling that the member's explanation not be accepted without a question being put to the house before the motion that the member be suspended from the service of the house is immediately put. It is clear to me that the standing order has been inconsistently applied over a long period of time and by numerous occupants of the chair. I am persuaded, by presence in standing order 139 at paragraph 3 of the prohibition of amendment, adjournment or debate on the question that the member be suspended from the service of the house, to draw the conclusion that the absence of such a prohibition in paragraphs 1 and 2 means that such debate is possible. However, I am concerned that if this is the conclusion to be drawn then there is no limitation placed on the debate, as is the case in other procedural motions, such as the motion for the suspension of standing orders. If the question is to be regarded as a substantive motion, then the question is subject to amendment, adjournment, as well as debate, and this would make this standing order, designed as a means of enabling the house to assist the chair in immediately restoring order, a nonsense. I remind members of my statement last sitting week where I said that the naming of a member is not a ruling but a means of enabling the house to assist the speaker in maintaining order. Consequently, I believe this is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on, and I will convene a meeting.