Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

Mr Speaker, the House has recalled you because there is a dispute over the continuation of the vote. The closure had been taken before 6 o’clock. That was disputed in several points of order, and then, when I commenced the voting, that was contested.

There is a step missing in that sequence as it has been reported to you, Mr Speaker. There was a point of order on a procedural matter that I took prior to the putting of the closure motion. We had about a minute to go until 6 o’clock, many of us had been in the House until 5 a.m. this morning, and tempers were perhaps a bit frayed. Some of us were in a fractious mood and looking forward to our dinner break. I sought clarification on the fact that there were two discrete votes. In other words, the House could take the closure vote only, which would mean that we would not have to vote right through the dinner break. The Chair indicated to me that that was the case, and that there would not be a problem. At that point we acquiesced, with the expectation that we would then suspend the House, have our dinner break, and come back at 7.30 to take the vote. At that point, the Chair said, no, the rules had changed, what she had indicated to me was wrong, and we therefore had to continue to vote through the dinner break. I thought that was a rather extraordinary situation to be placed in. I attempted to remonstrate and, at that point, sought leave to recall the Speaker.

Standing Order 140, “Effect of carrying of closure”, states: “(1) When the question for the closure is agreed to, the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” The question under debate at that point was clause 2 and the amendments to that. It was put immediately, and, in following that Standing Order, it has been the practice of this House that the subsequent motions are all put and continue through till the House rises, or if the number of amendments is sufficient to get past 7.30, the Committee simply continues on to the next item of business in the Committee stage.

I wanted to raise a further concern on behalf of Opposition parties. It is a parallel to the events that caused a great deal of disorder last Thursday when the House rose at 6 o’clock, which relates to the reluctance from the Chair to take points of order as we approach a dinner time in order to try to rush through a vote, as though the Chair has some interest in the vote being progressed at a particular pace. It seemed as if the way in which the Chair conducted the matters that were raised by my colleague Mr Ken Shirley would have been quite different had he raised the same point of order at 5.30 or at 5.45, solely because there was a rush to have a particular motion put before the House by a particular time. That, and the neutrality of the Chair, is of serious concern to the Opposition parties.

I would just like to respond to the reference by the Leader of the House to Standing Order 140(1). I believe he is quite right when he says: “When the question for the closure is agreed to, the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” I was not moving an amendment or debating that issue. I was seeking a point of order to clarify the procedural matter of whether the two steps were discrete, which would allow us to then have the dinner break and come back to vote at 7.30. The Chair indicated to me that that was the situation, but subsequently changed her mind.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am bound by the Standing Orders. I refer members to a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling: Standing Order 51, “Interruption deferred when vote in progress”, and Speaker’s ruling 54/5, made by Mr Speaker Gray in 1991, which covers the situation. That states: “[Standing Order 140] on the closure requires that a closure motion, once accepted, be put forthwith without amendment or debate. If the motion is carried the main question and any properly proposed amendments tabled before the closure are also put forthwith and decided without further amendment or debate. The Standing Order does not allow the closure to be moved only on an amendment, followed by further debate or amendment to the main question. To do so would defeat the purpose of the closure.” I rule that the closure had been properly put, and that we must now therefore proceed to the voting on this particular clause.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 2 Commencement (continued)

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 2(1) be agreed to.