Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I'll be very direct on this point, and I want the House just to listen carefully to what I say because it might surprise some people. It won't surprise the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business—or, for that matter, the Leader of the Opposition, who's had both roles over the years.

Mr Joyce interjecting—

Deputy Prime Minister, I am trying to deal with a serious situation for the House. It is not a time to interject. In all seriousness, you risk not being here if there's a vote, which I suspect there will be at some point.

I've outlined my views. I've listened to the views. I understand the cases that are being made; even that last point, I've heard. But let me be very candid: before amendments are drafted, advice is sought, things are considered, and certainly the issue of standing order 160 as a risk has been raised. I obviously disagree with the question of leave, and I've explained that; I won't go through that again. I understand the House clearly wishes to make a decision on this. The Leader of the Opposition made it very clear he'd just like to see a vote. I understand that. But that doesn't mean the standing orders can be ignored.

So what I'm going to do—and please hear me out on this, because it's important for all members—is: I am ruling that these amendments breach standing order 160. That's certainly my considered advice, and that's my ruling. But I am going to say to the House that the House can seek to make a different ruling. The House can move dissent from my ruling. And let me make clear: in doing so—and this is not well known—that is in no way a reflection on me as Speaker. It is not any question of confidence. This is often misunderstood; it really is. But Practice makes it really clear that, on an issue of a ruling like this, it is in no way a question of confidence, and, as Speaker, it would not in the slightest, in my mind, be any reflection or judgement if the House took a different case. So if a motion of dissent was moved it would be seeking to make an alternative ruling.

What I'm really saying to the House is—and I want the House to listen to this—that I believe the amendments breach standing order 160. If the House decides otherwise, that's fine—and I can go through all the precedents, if you want—but it would just mean the House was taking responsibility for the matter. That's what it would mean. Now, is that clear to everybody? You don't need me to go through all the historic examples?

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context