Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Brand from moving the following motion immediately:

That the House calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.

This Prime Minister has stood by while the member for Bowman has been permitted to have a pay increase, work and continue to chair this standing committee in the midst of him treating women badly, trolling people on Facebook and continuing to behave badly. It is an absolutely outrageous position that the Prime Minister continues to support the member for Bowman. He should be discharged immediately from his position on the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Brand be no further heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Canberra be no further heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Brand be disagreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This would be a good point—last evening, with respect to these motions, I said I wasn't making a ruling but that I'd reflect on the same-motion rule. Obviously that has some components—motions can't be identical in wording. That's the most basic thing, and these motions certainly haven't been, but what the standing orders make clear, and specifically standing order 114(b), is:

… the Speaker may disallow any motion or amendment which he or she considers is the same in substance…

That is, it's the same question that the House is being asked to determine. I pointed out yesterday that the Practice referred to a number of examples. Not many, I have to say, which is why I wanted to reflect on it and have a look at them. They are 1947, 1954 and I think 2009, and that's about it. So, I'm not going to take you back to 1947, I promise you.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, if you want me to, that's okay. I have reflected on it and I have, as you'd expect me to do, looked at those examples. What I'm going to rule on is that these motions have been to suspend standing orders, so the question that's been before the House for members to determine is, given there's an order of business for the day, should standing orders be suspended or not to deal with this matter? That is if the substance of the issues that would be debated if standing orders were suspended have not been considered by the House. So my attitude—and I think it's best to make this clear-cut for the certainty of members—is the suspension motions can keep being moved, although not more than one a day, because the House has the opportunity to weigh the business of the House against any suspension. So that, I think, is okay given that it's a motion to suspend standing orders. If standing orders were suspended and the substance of the motion was then debated—that is, debated for a period of time where members of the House were able to consider the arguments of each side—that would then allow the House to make a decision. Then, once that was done, those motions couldn't be entertained any more on the matters that are there. So if there were differing matters in the future that would be a separate question. I hope I've made that clear. As I said, there are only three examples, so the Speaker, I should say, has used that power quite sparingly. But I think that is a fair attitude for the House.