End of Life Choice Bill

Mr Speaker, the Speaker has been recalled. The member, the shadow Leader of the House, has suggested that there are still too many people seeking the call, that there are people—he maintains there are people who have Supplementary Order Papers who wish to speak to those and has contested the closure motion that I accepted.

In defence, I would say we have been debating this bill now for some time. I think it started around 5 o’clock. Since I’ve been in the Chair, I’ve made every effort to ensure that anyone that had a Supplementary Order Paper has had the opportunity to speak. There are people still seeking the call. I think, from my knowledge, all but one have already had calls and the debate has become more and more repetitive. I seek your judgment.

Is there any anyone else who wants to add to that?

💬 Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

No. Mr Brownlee?

Mr Speaker, while I accept that the presiding officer has made a decision based on her view from the Chair, one of the problems that you have in a bill like this that is so divisive, perhaps the most emotionally charged bill that has been in the House, certainly any time that I’ve been here—

💬 SPEAKER: Can we focus on the ruling?

Yes, I will. What we do end up with is two calls made now to close the debate from members who are supporting the bill, and, ultimately, a decision that looks like it is also supporting the bill.

This is a life and death bill. To have only three hours’ debate while there are others still wanting to talk seems to me quite unreasonable. It doesn’t seem to me a fair thing that if people have points to make—and there are 10 substantial Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on this. No one has tried to put in a whole lot of SOPs dumped on the table, bits of paper left, right, and centre. It’s been conducted in a very seemly manner. Everyone has followed a good process. It now only seems reasonable that there should be enough time for all of those who want to make a contribution, often to the SOPs that they’ve been part of writing, to be able to do so. [Interruption]

No, I’m prepared to rule. It’s a very simple matter. The Speakers’ rulings on this are very clear on page 61. I’ll quote from Statham, reinforced by Burke, “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not”—it does say “he” but in this case I’m sure it means “she”—“ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it [is] … entirely in his [/her] hands.” It is a matter for the House to decide. I have been following the debate. I was following the debate at the time when the Chairperson started to put the motion. The consistent rulings over many years have been that once that is started, the process is not reversible, except if the House votes in the negative. That’s my ruling.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)