Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that, in accordance with standing order 78(3), Senator Pratt has indicated her objection to a withdrawal of the motion called on earlier today and has had her name put on the motion. At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:

That Schedule 2 to the National Health Legislation Amendment (Opioid Dependence Treatment and Maximum Dispensed Quantities) Instrument 2023, made under the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed [F2023L00843].

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, President. I note the minister has moved the motion on behalf of Senator Pratt. Firstly, there are two points that I wish to have clarified for the benefit of the chamber, please. The first is that the effect of the notice of transfer is that Senator Pratt is now moving the motion to disallow the government's policy and regulation in relation to the change to dispensing rules for community pharmacies. Can I firstly just have clarified for the benefit of the Senate and senators that the effect of this is that a Labor senator, Senator Pratt, is now moving the motion to disallow the government's own policy?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That's correct, Senator Birmingham. And your second point?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that clarification, President. With that—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, Senator Birmingham; you will need to resume your seat. I need order in the chamber.

Senator Cash, I just called for order in the chamber. That includes you.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With that in mind, can I seek an understanding, President, from you, that Senator Pratt therefore needs to vote for the motion that she is moving?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not correct, Senator Birmingham. The principle was established in 1991 that the senator is free to vote either way. Is this a further point of order?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a further point of order. I know you've just received advice from the Clerk about a 1991 principle, but this is quite an extraordinary and preposterous situation where we have a Labor senator—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, this is not—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

who—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, I'd like you—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Wong, I'm going to allow Senator Birmingham to immediately get to the point of order.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asking for some more detail. It's a 1991 precedent without any reference to the detail of it, as to what type of motion it was, the circumstances of it or the grounds upon which a ruling was made allowing a senator to move a motion and then vote the opposite way and against their own motion. It's completely preposterous!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, you asked me a specific point in relation to Senator Pratt as the mover of the motion. I indicated to you a longstanding rule of the chamber that it was completely in order. I am once again informed by the Clerk that it's completely in order, and, unless a division is called by that senator, the senator is free to vote either way. So I'm going to proceed, and Senator Wong has moved a motion.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, on a point of order, I would just ask you to reconsider the ruling you made before in relation to Senator Pratt's ability to vote against the motion that she herself moved.I have had time since to find the 1991 precedent that was referred to in Odgers', which states:

A senator is not obliged, however, to vote for a motion which the senator has moved, the rationale being that even the mover may be persuaded against a motion by the debate; or the motion may have been amended in a way unacceptable to the mover.

President, there was no debate on this motion because the government gagged and guillotined any and all debate on the motion. There were no amendments to the motion. Therefore, the rationale given in Odgers' as to the grounds upon which a senator could come to move a motion and then vote against their own motion does not stand. The rationale given in Odgers' does not stand for why it is that Senator Pratt, a Labor senator, should have been entitled to move to disallow a Labor government policy but then vote against her own disallowance motion. I suggest, President, that the application of this ruling on this occasion was an incorrect application and that the vote should be recommitted, with Senator Pratt expected to not vote against her own motion.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am further advised by the Clerk that the rationale does not change Senator Pratt's ability to vote either way on that motion, so the ruling stands as given by me earlier.