Legal Services Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled by the Labour Opposition on the basis that I prematurely accepted a closure motion when the previous speaker before accepting the closure motion was the Minister in the chair. I had indicated prior to the Minister speaking that I would take one more call, which had gone to a Labour member. This debate has gone on for 1 hour and 15 minutes, and there have been 12 Opposition calls and one Government call. I believe that accepting the closure motion is the prerogative of the Chair and I acted accordingly, having first indicated that I would take one more call, which was given to Labour at the time. Then the Minister responded to some of the questions that previous Opposition speakers had brought up. I believe that accepting the closure motion was within the Chair’s discretion, and I acted accordingly.

I thank the Chairman for his very fair summary of the matters relating to the motion that led to your recall, Mr Speaker. The reason for seeking a definitive ruling from the Speaker on this matter was as a result of the circumstances of the debate, when, as the Chairman has said, he indicated that there would be one call remaining. But after that call the Minister in the chair chose to take a further call in reply, and it was clear from the matters that were raised in the Minister’s reply that new matters were raised, in respect of which members on this side of the Chamber wished to deal by way of further reply. The Chair failed, in my submission, to give the Opposition the entitlement to take a call in response to the new matters raised by the Minister, and indeed there was not even a reference by the Chair to the Opposition attempts to seek a call. There was simply a nod to the Government member who sought the closure motion. So in my submission it would be certainly consistent with precedent and normal good practice, on behalf of the Committee of the whole House, if, in the circumstances that I have described, a right of reply were acknowledged to the matters raised in the Minister’s address.

Members on the other side of the House have failed to raise any particular Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling to refer to as a precedent for what, in my opinion, is an unnecessary recalling of the Speaker. I believe that the Chair at the time had indicated quite clearly how he would proceed with the process, and then proceeded to use his discretion, which he quite rightly has in this process. I ask that you rule on this matter, Mr Speaker.

There are a couple of matters. Without wanting to be too critical of the Chair today I make as a first submission the fact of a Chairman saying he is prejudiced about a further contribution from a Labour member—as he did, before that member gave that contribution—because the Chair is required to consider a closure on its merits and based on the contribution that had come from the previous speaker. To indicate that effectively no matter what is said, the Chair will hear only one more contribution, in my submission, is not appropriate, because the relevance of what is said by the member, and the matters that are brought up by the member who is to speak, are matters that should be considered. In indicating that only one more contribution would be taken, the Chair might have thought that he was being generous in giving Labour another call but I think it indicates a prejudging of a matter that was not yet before members.

The point I would like to make is that although there is no doubt that the Chair can call anyone he wants when he is in the Chair—when we are not in a set-piece, ordered debate where the order from the Business Committee has been set—it has been a very longstanding practice that in the Committee of the whole House, where members are calling from alternate sides of the Chamber, the practice is to alternate calls. I can accept that the Chairman has the right not to do that; he can call anyone he likes. But the custom and practice of the Committee has been to alternate calls, and certainly I do not think that in the time I have been in the House I have ever seen a movement, while four or five Opposition members have been going for the call, going straight from a Minister in the chair—who made a controversial comment and one that a number of members opposite thought contained an error—to someone who was a designated hitter, if you like, as far as the closure motion was concerned.

So there are a couple of matters for consideration. I restate them from my perspective: the first is whether in fact there should be an indication of prejudice on the part of the Chairman about the number of further calls, which means, effectively, that he is not prepared to take into account what has been said by members; and, secondly, whether the normal custom and practice of the Committee of alternating calls should be breached in this particular way.

It is unusual, I know, but as a number of comments have been made about the Chair I wonder whether the Chair himself would like to make any further comments.

I do not believe that by indicating to the Opposition that I would accept one more call was prejudicing what might be said at a later date. As I indicated earlier, there were 12 calls by Opposition members and one Government call. The debate had gone for well over an hour. I believe that I acted with discretion, that to seek a closure motion following the Minister was right and proper, and that I acted accordingly.

The thing I am now getting really anxious about is the indication from the Chairman that he sought a closure motion. The Chairman should never seek—[Interruption] I am sorry; I think that is what the Chairman said. What did the Chairman say?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): We are not having a debate.

I do not want to debate, but that is what I thought the Chairman said—that he had sought a closure motion. That, of course, would be very wrong.

I did not seek a closure motion. Government members moved closure motions on many occasions, and I did not accept them. Mr Quinn moved a closure motion. I looked at Mr Quinn, and I accepted his closure motion. That was when the honourable member first raised a point of order, and subsequently there was a motion by Charles Chauvel to recall the Speaker. I did not seek a closure motion. It is not my role to seek a closure motion.

I apologise to the Chairperson. I thought he said something that he obviously did not say. I apologise, because I think I reflected on his integrity, and that would be wrong. I hope the Chairperson knows that we think he is a person of the utmost integrity.

Thank you. I hoped that was what the member was thinking, because I certainly did not hear the Chairperson say he had sought a closure motion. That was not what I heard him say. I am pleased that we have clarified that.

I start by saying it is entirely usual for the debate to flow backwards and forwards, and for calls to be taken from one side and the other. That is a longstanding practice. However, having said that, I say the rules are very clear. The question of who gets the next call is at the sole discretion of the Chairperson—no one else. It is not a matter on which any correspondence can be entered into. It is at the Chairperson’s sole discretion, and that must always remain the case. The second point is that if members go through the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, they will see that overwhelmingly previous Speakers have ruled that the Chairperson is the sole judge on whether a motion of closure ought to be put to the Committee.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am not arguing about that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I just want to make sure that that is at the Chairperson’s sole discretion. No Speaker has overruled a Chairperson on that issue, and this Speaker is not doing so. I make it clear that that is the Chairperson’s decision. It has also been the case that the Chairperson is the person who listens to the ebb and flow of the debate, and is the person best placed to see whether the Committee is of a mind to accept a closure motion. A closure is not the Chairperson’s decision; it is the Committee’s decision. We all know that although those may be the rules, the reality is usually somewhat different. If a closure motion is not accepted, we know the consequences that flow from that as well, so it is unlikely that a Government will vote against its own closure motion. I accept that. I say to members that as far as the Speaker is concerned, the decision to put a closure motion to the Committee is the Chairperson’s, and the Chairperson’s alone, and I accept the judgment of the Chairperson in this particular case.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Legal aid (continued)