Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(1) the House may meet in a manner and form not otherwise provided in the standing orders with the agreement of the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, with the manner in which Members may be present (including for the purposes of achieving a quorum) to be determined by the Speaker; and

(2) any consequent changes to the rules and orders necessary to enable such a meeting to commence may be determined by agreement of the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business.

The two motions that we, the government, move, are both being moved with the support of the opposition and are being moved to ensure that the parliament retains the necessary flexibility to respond to any upcoming challenges that it and the nation may face. The first motion that I have just read relates to the proposed change to sessional orders, whilst the second motion will seek to amend standing order 47(c)(ii).

In light of the current circumstances I thought it would be relevant to provide a short explanation of the context and potential purpose of the motions for the benefit of the House. Today's proceedings have been somewhat unconventional but very effective and conducted with great cooperation. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation in the procedural conduct of today and for his and the opposition's cooperation, assistance and suggestions in the drafting of the two changes that I am now addressing.

The unconventional aspects of today were required and necessary because of the extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances that have arisen by way of the health effects and subsequent economic and administrative changes that have arisen in response to the onset of the coronavirus in Australia. Indeed, the form of today's proceedings would not have been anticipated nor considered necessary a matter of only two weeks ago.

The Governor-General has made a human biosecurity emergency declaration under section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015. It is possible that a human biosecurity emergency period could be extended beyond its initial three-month term. Although it is not possible to know each and every contingency for which our nation and our nation's parliament will now need to plan, we do know that we need to plan for uncertainty. The only rule of planning that remains certain in the presently uncertain environment is that it remains a consistently sound approach to plan to achieve the best outcome while also planning to mitigate and cope with worst-case scenarios.

The operation of parliament, its endurance and resilience, has in large part been anchored in its flexibility within the known parameters of proper and necessary procedure to cope with and adapt to changed circumstances. Accordingly, these two motions are a measured and sensible approach designed to provide in the most tempered way the requisite degree of flexibility that may reasonably be required. Further, without altering in any way the accepted or statutory requirements of matters such as the number of members constituting quorum or altering any of the clear and accepted requirements regarding a meeting of the parliament, these changes are designed simply to provide a mechanism by which agreement between the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, with the concurrence of the Speaker, might provide for the sort of flexibility we have observed today, by allowing for the alteration, for a period, of the standing orders, or orders to the extent that may become necessary to allow for the proper functioning of our parliament in what might be greatly changed circumstances, without being able to anticipate every single limiting circumstance that may arise while the period of biosecurity remains in force.

I might just add that, having spoken very briefly with the crossbench about these matters, they are meant to be facilitative. They are anticipating a set of circumstances where we may not have enough members for parliament, rather than intending to exclude any member of parliament, which would of course be unconstitutional. It is impossible, and not in the anticipation nor intent of government or the opposition.

See this speech in context