Employment Relations Law Reform Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not hear what the member for United Future actually wants to do. While we are not objecting to leave being granted—that is why the House has resumed—I wonder whether you could explain what the member wants to do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call on the member Judy Turner to explain exactly what the position is.

I think I confused the votes procedurally and the vote for the bill. United Future is opposing the bill, but we are happy to support the procedure, and I think I got those around the wrong way. I want to change our vote from eight in favour to eight opposed.

We are now all confused because there was no procedural vote. What I think the member was saying—if she does not mind my helping her—is that the United Future party was prepared to vote in favour of the amendments from the select committee, but then wanted to vote against the whole bill. I do not know how she voted on the first question, but that would mean that she ought to vote with the Ayes on the first vote and with the Noes on the second.

I wondered whether you, Mr Assistant-Speaker, could tell us what the votes were, or whether the Clerk can let the House know exactly what the votes were. [Interruption] We know what the totals were, but I am particularly interested in what the United Future member voted, because that is what we are going to reconsider. So can you tell us what the votes were for each party, or, more specifically, what the vote was for United Future so that we know which way United Future members voted?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think that what we need to do in this case is for the honourable member Judy Turner to take a call and explain to the House exactly what she wishes to do with the votes that have been cast. Then we can seek leave of the House to do so.

United Future is opposing the bill in its entirety. I think I mistook a vote as being for a procedural thing and voted eight in favour when I should have voted eight opposed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The voting list can be corrected. That is done under Speaker’s ruling 66/4. Is the member seeking leave to change her vote?

Yes, I am.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which vote are we talking about? Two votes were taken, as Mr Prebble has identified. There was the vote on the amendments, and then the vote for the second reading. So which vote are we referring to?

I think I can help. I think the United Future member confuses the House when she talks about procedural votes. There were not any. But I have had an opportunity to have a quick chat to her, and the position is that United Future actually wants to be recorded as having voted against both motions. I know that on the second one it certainly voted in favour, which somewhat surprised me, but I do not know how it voted for the first. What the member needs to do is make sure the record shows that the United Future party wants to be recorded as being opposed to both motions. I do not think anyone will object to that.

I want to back up Mr Prebble because I think he is exactly right. What United Future members are trying to do today is vote against the bill but facilitate its passing, so they want to vote against it but help the Government and pass it through any procedural issues. So they want to be seen as voting against it but as helping the Government pass it through any procedural issue. It is a godly way.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the honourable member Judy Turner whether Mr Prebble is correct in what he stated.

Yes, he is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member wants those votes to be recorded as Noes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To clarify and to get back to square one it might pay if we recommit both votes again so that we can go through and take any uncertainty out of what the process should be.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Quite frankly, the House is the master of its own destiny, and that can only be done by leave. If the member is seeking leave, then I will put it.

I so seek leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Judy Turner from United Future has made it abundantly clear what it is that she wants to do, and Mr Prebble has made it abundantly clear in explaining the situation to the House. I am sure the Clerk knows exactly what to do. We do not need to go through the farce of another vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am actually not clear. I understand what Mr Prebble said and that Judy Turner said that she agreed with that. However, I am interested to know whether Mr Sowry’s point of order described what Judy Turner intended to do as well. Could she clarify whether she agrees with Mr Sowry’s point?

As I understand it the member has asked that her vote on the second reading where she voted Aye should in fact be No. Is that correct?

💬 Judy Turner: That is correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. The member sought leave to change the votes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The Ayes are 63, the Noes are 57.