Thursday, 18 June 2020
Resolutions of the Senate
COVID-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry; Consideration of Senate Message
The Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:
The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it has been more than three months since COVID-19 physical distancing rules effectively shut down the arts and entertainment industry overnight;
(ii) hundreds of thousands of workers in the arts and entertainment industry have been impacted; and
(iii) the Morrison Government has not announced any specific industry assistance for arts and entertainment; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to detail and deliver a recovery package for the arts and entertainment industry.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words 'That the message be considered immediately.'
It has been a fortnight since the Prime Minister announced a package would be coming for the entertainment industry—
Yes, but until that question, as I said yesterday, has been moved, seconded and then I have stated that it is the question before the House, it is not the question. The question before the House is the original question. It's made very, very clear in the House of Representatives Practice, with all the precedents, that a closure motion can be moved during the moving of an amendment, the seconding of an amendment, until such time as that seconding is complete and I say, 'The question is that the amendment be agreed to.' Up until that point, the closure applies.
I know the member for Melbourne has raised this a number of times. I suggest that he has a close look at the page in Practice with all the precedents.
That being the case, it would be appreciated if you could restate the actual question that is before us, because it's my understanding that if there's a no vote on the question that's now before us it would have the same impact as the amendment would have had.
It does exactly what the motion says; it's an order of the day for the next sitting. I hope that clarifies things for the member for Melbourne. I will send around the page; it's probably easier if I do that. So the question is that the motion moved by the minister that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting be agreed to.