Parliamentary Procedure

STANDING ORDERS, MEMBER NAMING AND SUSPENSION

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to ask for some clarification. Yesterday in the house, to my mind, you gave a ruling which unilaterally changes the practices and conventions of the house and, indeed, undermines the rights of members.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I will give you my indulgence.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you. Madam Speaker, there was some discussion on a motion that a member's explanation be accepted and whether or not that motion could be debated. I have taken the opportunity to do some research of Hansard between the years of 1994 and 2005 and have found at least 16 occasions when members have been named. On all but three occasions the motion not to accept the member's explanation was, indeed, debated. On one of the three occasions when it was not debated there was no motion because the member so named was absent from the house. On the other two occasions nobody sought to debate the question so there was no ruling that the question could not be debated.

I contend that, if the standing orders are silent, the practices and conventions of the house, at least, demonstrated by the evidence in Hansard, allow for that particular motion to be subject to debate on the floor of the house.

In light of your ruling yesterday, I crave that you make a new ruling or, indeed, inform the house that you will allow debate under those circumstances until such time as the Standing Orders Committee can address the matter.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You can't tell the Speaker what to do.

Mr WILLIAMS: I said, 'I crave.' You should have been out the front listening earlier.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER (14:05): Order! I will point out, first, my statement I made at the end of yesterday regarding the suspension of the member for Norwood, and I take note of what the honourable member is saying to me. I point out that, if debate on the motion without notice is permitted, then such a debate would be unique. That is the only form of debate not limited in some way by the standing orders.

I would also make the observation, as I said yesterday, that it seems odd that such an unlimited debate would be permitted on the questions of acceptance of the member's apology or explanation but that the standing orders explicitly prohibit any debate on the much more important and substantive question of the suspension of the member from the service of the house.

As I said yesterday, it is quite clear to me that the standing orders have been inconsistently applied over a long period of time, and numerous occupants of the chair have interpreted them differently. I do believe that this is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on.

In the meantime, I will be guided by the wishes of the house, of course, but, if the situation arises again, then I may allow some indulgence. If the member for MacKillop can leave it at this stage and, before the next sitting week of parliament, hopefully, we will have this situation resolved.