HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

SPEAKER'S RULING, DISSENT

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (23:26): I move:

Dissent from the ruling of the Speaker allowing the Attorney-General's motion because:

1. It does not sufficiently specify the vote to be rescinded; and

2. The vote concerned is no longer business of the house per standing order 403.

The SPEAKER: Is that the motion or is that the speech?

Mr HANNA: That is the motion of dissent from your ruling, sir, specifying two grounds for dissent.

The SPEAKER: Perhaps I could encapsulate it a bit better and have the motion take the form that the house dissents from the ruling of the chair that the Attorney-General may move a motion to suspend standing orders for the purposes of rescinding a motion.

Mr HANNA: I am happy to take your guidance on that, sir.

The SPEAKER: Does the member for Mitchell wish to speak to the motion?

Mr HANNA: Yes, I do.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

Mr HANNA: I need to be clear that the motion encapsulates the wording of the Attorney-General's motion which I do not have in writing but, as I recall, it was about rescinding a vote. It does not refer to any specific vote and, therefore, it is impossible for this house to consider that as business. It is like moving a motion in private members' time that 'somebody do something' without specifying who, what or why.

The suspension of standing orders, of course, can be moved at any time after orders of the day have been called unless the motion for suspension is moved for the purpose of expediting progress or otherwise facilitating the business of the house. But in all of the cases I can recall at the moment, usually the purpose of the suspension is included in the motion. For example, I move that the standing orders be suspended so far as to allow item No. 3 to be dealt with before item No. 2, then at least we all know what we are dealing with. If the motion is only from—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, I have said that.

Mr HANNA: I am going from the Speaker's recapitulation of what the Attorney-General said, which was to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Move for a rescission of the vote of the house.

Mr HANNA: —move a rescission of the vote of the house. That needs to be specific. That is my point.

An honourable member: Why?

Mr HANNA: So that we know how to consider the motion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HANNA: Sir, I believe there will be one speaker on the other side after I have concluded. Really, the point is as simple as that. I do not need to go on. The Attorney-General's motion lacks specificity; therefore, how can the house consider that as business? We do not know the reason why he seeks to rescind a vote of the house. We do not know which vote he is talking about. How can we decide whether standing orders should be suspended for that purpose if we do not know which vote he is talking about?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (23:30): I must say that the father of the house is here and he would know better than me, but I can never remember anyone dissenting from allowing a motion to suspend standing orders. The complaint is that it is not specific enough because it says to allow him to move a motion for rescission of a vote of the house.

I make two points about that: if rescinding the vote is contrary to standing orders and is contrary to the parliament, that is the time to make that argument, I tell the member for the Mitchell. The second point is that he says it does not have enough specificity, but I think it has sufficient specificity to have the member for Mitchell so agitated that he wants to oppose a suspension for the first time in this house in my memory. So, he knows what it is for.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I cannot help it if you made a fool of yourself. It is not my fault.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I conclude by saying this: I look directly at the father of the house and ask him to tell me whether he has ever seen a motion to suspend standing orders ruled out of order. Mr Gunn?

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: You are right.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I think we are arguing somewhat at cross-purposes. Standing order 160 sets out how a resolution of the house may be rescinded. It contains two paragraphs and two parts: both parts require an absolute majority of members present, so it is quite clear that standing orders must be suspended before the motion to rescind can even be moved, and that is what the Attorney-General was planning to do.

There are two absolute majorities required: one before a member can even move a motion of rescission, and then the motion of rescission itself. I think the member for Mitchell's problems are with the rescission motion itself rather than the Attorney-General having an opportunity to move the rescission.

We are, I think debating somewhat at cross-purposes. All that I am proposing to do is to allow the Attorney to move that standing orders be suspended so far as to enable him to move the rescission motion. When you think about it, I think it answers the concerns of the member for Mitchell.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Mr Speaker, before you put the motion, can I just seek clarification on your ruling in relation to standing order 242? My understanding of your ruling is that you have said that you have erred in your ruling by not saying that the second reading was carried, or that the second reading had—

The SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to entertain any points of clarification until we deal with this dissent motion. Once we have dealt with that I am happy to—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As long as we can still raise points of order and do not go to the vote on Mr Atkinson's motion—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We are dealing with a very specific motion of dissent, and that is whether the Attorney-General is allowed to move a motion to suspend standing orders in order to move a motion of rescission. I will not entertain any points of order or points of clarification until we deal with that matter.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (11)
Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Gunn, G.M. Hanna, K. (teller)
Penfold, E.M. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.
NOES (27)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. (teller) Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. Lomax-Smith, J.D.
Maywald, K.A. McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F.
Piccolo, T. Rankine, J.M. Rann, M.D.
Simmons, L.A. Stevens, L. Thompson, M.G.
Weatherill, J.W. White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (4)
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Portolesi, G.
Pederick, A.S. Rau, J.R.

Majority of 16 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT