Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It may be appropriate for you to take advice from the Clerk about the motion that has just been moved, because I think it is incorrect. I point out that the Opposition has been denied an opportunity to participate in the second reading debate. If you recall—and Minister Tizard had just indicated this—that after she spoke last week in the second reading, I stood and had about a minute and a bit of a response, as the senior Opposition member on this bill. The House then adjourned, during my contribution.

💬 Brent Catchpole: That’s correct.

That is correct, as Mr Catchpole confirms. The appropriate order would have been for the Speaker to say: “Interrupted debate on the second reading, and the Hon Tony Ryall has 3 or 4 minutes to complete his speech.” The Speaker did not say that. In my discussion with the Clerk, as the Speaker was leaving the Chamber, he indicated there was no record of my having taken that call last week. The Opposition wants to participate in a report-back debate on this bill, and I ask you to take the advice of the House, because I believe we have moved into the Committee stage inappropriately.

I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The House has moved into Committee, so we cannot go back now. We need to progress with the Committee stage.

My recollection of proceedings is that the Minister moved the second reading, and then you called the Hon Tony Ryall, but he had barely got to his feet, when the House adjourned. He did not get a chance to even get into his speech.

We have moved beyond the second reading, the vote has been cast, and there the matter ends. Now we need to progress. I say to the member that we have moved on—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, and what I am saying—

I have made a decision and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 17/3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to make two points. First, will you draw this matter to the attention of the Speaker, because my rights, as a member of Parliament, have been denied because of a clerical error in the Clerk’s Office? Frankly, it is not good enough, when every other member of the House who participated in the debate, knows that the Clerk’s Office has denied the Opposition its right to participate. I want to know what you will do about fixing that. Secondly, will you therefore give us a more generous opportunity to express our views in the Committee stage, given that the Clerk has denied our rights to participate in a second reading debate?

Can I say to the honourable member that if he wishes to draw the issue to the attention of the Speaker, then it is his right to do so, and he should do so. As for the other matter, I will always consider the issue when it comes to the Committee stage and ensure that people are given adequate time to make their point of view known.

💬 Brent Catchpole: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

I have already suggested to the member on my left that he should look at Speaker’s ruling 17/3. I am going to say the same to the member. He should look at that ruling, because it basically states that members have a right to raise points of order, but once the chair has made the decision, then for the member to continue, after having been asked to desist, is highly disorderly. That leaves me very little alternative about what I can do. I will hear the member, but that will be it.

I suggest that we recall the Speaker and have him reassess the situation. We have been denied a second reading of this bill. I have not spoken on the second reading. Tony Ryall was given the call on the second reading, and he did not have a chance to even deliver his speech. The only person to speak on the second reading was the Minister, and the rest of the House has not had an opportunity. If we need to have the Speaker recalled, then I will move in that way.

The member is perfectly entitled to move that that be done, but I say to the member that the reality is that the vote has been taken. Therefore, it is not possible to relitigate the matter.

We can resolve this quite rapidly. Mr Speaker called the second reading quite clearly. People were communicating with each other and not paying attention. That is why we are now in this situation. I sat here and said “Aye” in response to Mr Speaker’s prompts. It is not the fault of the person in the Chair that members on the other side of the Chamber were not paying attention. If you go back and look at the record, you will see that that is exactly what happened.

I ask members to reflect on what is actually happening here. The reality is that the vote has been taken. I have already said to members that I recognise that they want to make contributions during the Committee stage, and they will be given adequate time to do that. Because the vote has been taken, and the Speaker has agreed to it, the matter rests there. I would now like to move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hear the point you are making. If we look at Government orders of the day, under this bill it states that this is an interrupted debate on the second reading. In my view that means that 11 speeches remain—that is what it states—and because Mr Ryall had started to speak in the previous debate the Speaker should have offered him the opportunity to continue with his debate. In fact, Mr Ryall was never given that opportunity to continue with his debate. The Speaker went straight to the Minister, and that is where it progressed. Because Mr Ryall had already spoken and not taken up his allotted time, the first call should have gone directly to him. That is the issue that the Opposition feels aggrieved about. Mr Ryall was only a minute or so into a 10-minute speech, and he was not given the first call today. That is the issue.

💬 Jill Pettis: He wasn’t even called.

The junior Government whip might say that the member was not called. She is also interjecting on a point of order while I am bringing forward a very important point. The Speaker should have given the call to Mr Ryall, because he had started his debate. Although you have said it is too late to do that, it is our view that the correct process was not followed, and Mr Ryall should have been given the call, not the Minister.

This is outside my jurisdiction. The second reading has been agreed to. I ask that we all be sensible in recognising that fact and that we progress to the Committee stage. Members will be given adequate time to put their case to the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I draw your attention to the commencement of proceedings today. We have an unusual situation whereby the Speaker is in error, but, of course, according to the Standing Orders the Speaker is not to be challenged. When we commenced proceedings this morning the Speaker rose and declared that we were commencing the interrupted date on the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and he stated: “When the House rose Mr Ron Mark was speaking and had 5 minutes 30 seconds remaining.” That is precisely the procedure that should have been adopted a few moments ago. The explanation made by the junior Government whip—that people were not paying attention—is irrelevant, because the Speaker did not repeat those very same words with regard to the second reading of this bill, so there has been an error in procedure.

The problem we are left with, as you quite rightly acknowledge, is that members are aggrieved that their speaking rights have been curbed. We have a breach of the Standing Orders, failure to comply with procedure, and failure to follow the legislative procedure. That is in error. Unless the Government whip can come to some understanding with Mr Ryall that redresses his grievance, then I am sorry, but Mr Brent Catchpole has already indicated that he will move that we recall the Speaker. That is the only way in which we can get out of Committee and back into the second reading of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have not heard from the senior Opposition whip, the honourable member John Carter, and I intend to listen to him.

If there is a motion to recall the Speaker, having just spoken with the senior Government whip, then the most expedient thing is to recall the Speaker, and I think we can resolve the issue.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Does the honourable member Brent Catchpole still intend to seek the recall of the Speaker?

💬 Brent Catchpole: Yes, I do.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member like to put the motion please?

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled