Parliamentary Procedure

Standing Orders Suspension

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:31): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion without notice forthwith.

The SPEAKER: I have counted the house and I see there is an absolute majority present. Is the motion seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

Ms BEDFORD: My motion would be that a privileges committee be established to examine and report on the conduct of the secret ballot held on Tuesday 8 September. This is a matter that I believe is of grave urgency to the house and goes to the very essence of democracy: the principle of the secret ballot and how it relates to privileges, powers and immunities of this house.

Without traversing the full details of the matter, which is properly a matter for the committee to consider, it is necessary to put a brief chronology to you in explanation of this motion. On Tuesday 8 September, a secret ballot was needed for the election of a new Speaker. On the first ballot, the numbers were tied at 23, 23 and 1.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: it seems to me that the member for Florey might be moving towards debating the motion itself rather than the motion for the suspension of standing orders. I think the chronology, with regard to how she would like to build up her case for the select committee, could be done later if standing orders are suspended.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I am very much alive to the point and note that the matter is now raised also by a point of order. I direct the member for Florey to address the question of the suspension rather than the merits for the time being, but I am listening carefully.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, sir. There are three basic arguments, which I believe a privileges committee might engage. Firstly, it should examine whether the conduct of the ballots affronted the dignity of the house. All ballots of the house should be undertaken in such a way that the unfettered opinion of members is available to the house—

The SPEAKER: Member for Florey, this is not the occasion to raise the scope or the merits but, rather, the reasons why it is necessary in your view that standing orders be suspended.

Ms BEDFORD: At the very end of it all, I suppose, it is around the business of the house and how the business of the house should be conducted. It is necessary to give consideration to a privileges committee in order to make sure that the rules of the house and the standing orders of the house are in place.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: I submit that the reasons why a privileges committee may or may not be important to get up, as the member for Florey has just spoken about, are not relevant to the urgency or otherwise of suspending standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order, once again. The member for Florey has addressed the matter of urgency, and I appreciate that the member for Florey is endeavouring to abridge her remarks. Again, I remind the member for Florey to confine her remarks to the question of the suspension for the time being.

Ms BEDFORD: The need to suspend standing orders to look at this matter, I believe, is of importance because the view of everyone I have spoken to, legally, in the last few weeks is that this is a question that should be resolved by the house. I think the only way it can be resolved is by a privileges committee.

The SPEAKER: Is there any speaker against the motion?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (10:36): Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. In the last set of remarks we again heard the member for Florey talk about her opinion about the importance of establishing a privileges committee. That may or may not be the case, but this debate is actually about whether or not to suspend standing orders and whether or not it is urgent that that happens.

I submit, and the government submits, that there is no urgency with regard to this issue. There is no basis for suspending standing orders to deal with this matter. The member for Florey has other means at her disposal if she thinks this is an important issue that needs to be dealt with.

She has said that she thinks this issue 'strikes at the heart of democracy'—I think those were the words. If they were not exactly those words they were very close. Again, I believe that has absolutely nothing to do with the urgency of the matter of whether or not we should suspend standing orders. The government will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders.

One of the things that is at the heart of our democracy is that after a fair ballot is had the verdict is respected. Again, coming to the urgency or otherwise of this debate, this is something that the member for Florey has already asked you to consider, Mr Speaker, whether it was a matter of privilege, whether you thought, under any other circumstances, her particular perspective about the vote for Speaker in which you were successful and she was unsuccessful should urgently be dealt with now.

The SPEAKER: Minister, no point of order has been raised but I note, in very much the same manner in which I addressed the member for Florey, that it is very important at this stage that you confine your remarks to the merits or otherwise of suspending standing orders.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I made those comments was that your assessment, as Speaker, on this issue broadly has already been provided. If it were genuinely urgent that it be addressed today, it would have been genuinely urgent to have been addressed before today. I submit that it is not urgent.

I believe the member for Florey has every right to express her concerns. I believe the member for Florey has every right to pursue this issue in other ways, but I do not believe it is an urgent issue that warrants the house suspending standing orders immediately to deal with it.

The SPEAKER: Is there any other speaker? The question before the Chair is that the motion to suspend—

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:39): I would like to conclude my remarks, sir.

The SPEAKER: I understand that is correct, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: The reason it is important, I believe, is to completely remove any doubt at all that this house has operated as it should with—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

Ms BEDFORD: Because you yourself, sir, have set a very high bar.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The member for Florey will resume her seat. A point of order has been raised. The minister on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Could I ask you again, please, to ask the member for Florey not to talk about the importance but to talk about the urgency, because that is what this debate is about. The importance or otherwise can be dealt with at another time; this is about urgency.

The SPEAKER: Again, the point of order is well made. I will hear the member for Florey, but I note that further remarks on the merits are a matter for the substantive motion in due course.

Ms BEDFORD: In your two rulings on the matters I have raised, the first one was about me providing you with a 10-page letter, which I believe, unfortunately, you did not have time to consider properly. However, in your first ruling you said to me if there were any further materials I would like to bring to your attention, to do so—which I did by bringing the 10-page letter to your attention. You then said, sir—

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Florey, this is very much to the merits of the matter as opposed to the question of urgency that may well go to whether or not standing orders should be suspended.

Ms BEDFORD: That will be in the hands of the members, of course, sir, but if members do not feel this is a matter of urgency, that this does not underpin the very essence of why we are here, it will be voted on shortly.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 23

Majority 2

The SPEAKER: The motion lapses for want of an absolute majority.