|
representatives vote 2017-08-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-09-03 15:43:43
|
Title
Bills — Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p><i>(In division) </i>The Leader of the House, on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-08-15.88.2) to "put" the question. In other words, they voted to stop debate on this subject and just take the vote already.
- The debate related to a motion criticising the Government's actions on the Great Barrier Reef, which was [subsequently voted on](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2017-08-15/6).
<p>As the sides changed from no to yes and yes to no and, therefore, members moved, I think that that should be a four-minute bell, because a lot of people are confused about it. This was also a mickey division. Given that the sides changed, we'd usually ring the bells for four minutes, and I request that that be the case.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>What I've been doing is ringing the bells for one minute when the sides change but doing a full count. But I'm very happy to have a four-minute division if people felt confused by it.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>There's just some confusion, because a lot of people would've been looking at the channel and seen only three members on the other side for that division. Because it was so quick, I think a lot of people have not come.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Okay.I think that's quite reasonable. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The point that we're at right now is: when the ruling was made that it be one minute, no objection was taken. You've now locked the doors. Having locked the doors, we should now do a count on the number of members who are here. If the Leader of the House has an argument that people were caught through misadventure, then we will listen to that and respond responsibly. But, right now, the doors have been locked, the division has been called and no objection was taken at the time to your ruling. All points of order, under standing orders, must be taken at that time.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>What I'll say to the Manager of Opposition Business is that the standing orders make very clear that, in the event of confusion, there can be, obviously, an opportunity to revisit that issue. I think it would be cleaner—this cuts both ways—if a one-minute division has immediately been called on what's called a 'mickey division', meaning that not everyone has to be here for that, to simply ring the bells for four minutes. I think that would be cleaner. But I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Prior to you making that ruling, if the government wants to move an amendment to standing orders to the effect that you just suggested, I can indicate now that the opposition would look at that amendment favourably. But, right now, under current standing orders, the doors have been locked and the moment to litigate how many minutes the division should be has passed. I indicate, in a way that we will commit to regardless of the outcome of this division, that, if the government makes a claim of misadventure and they want to subsequently recommit the same question, we will assist the government in that.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his comments. As Speaker, how the Manager of Opposition Business presents that in that event, obviously, is a matter for him. But my interest is in members being able to have their say in a division. I think there is a difference between a successive division where everyone's been in the House and has voted as distinct from a division that does not result in a count because there are fewer than five members. I don't want to detain the House for any great point of time. The doors are locked. I've said that what I'd prefer to do at a practical level is simply ring the bells for four minutes. That's what I'd prefer to do. But, if the Manager of Opposition Business insists on a count, I think he's right. On one point, I say to the Leader of the House that no objection was made until the doors were locked, and I think that that is a reasonable point. So let's proceed with the count, rather than delay things any longer, and, in the event that there's a need to revisit this from some members in the House, we can do that.</p><p>I do want to be practical on this. Specifically, I think the Manager of Opposition Business is referring to standing order 132, where there can be a new division in the case of confusion, error or misadventure. I imagine that is what he is inviting if members have been confused, and I think that would be reasonable, as I tried to outline, just given the nature of the fact that members did not all have to be in here once it was obvious there was not going to be a count. I think that is the difficulty some members would have. What I imagine the Manager of Opposition Business is suggesting is that he'd cooperate if leave was sought on such—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>That's very good—been watching Annabel Crabb!</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p><p>The members on my right can cease interjecting because, as I said, I want to address the House. It's not too late to be ejected under 94(a), I can assure members. I'm very capable, given the last two question times we've had, of doing a significant job lot. Now we've completed the division, let me just say very plainly to the House that I think the point that the Leader of the House made was valid. If anyone had raised with me the practicalities of that one-minute division following on from a division where a count didn't occur, I would have, during that division, absolutely changed to four minutes partway through, and there are many precedents for that. So I certainly take my share of responsibility for the confusion that has occurred.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>Whoever it is up there that's muttering can stop muttering, or they can do it outside the chamber. It's the member for Lilley, is it?</p><p class="italic">Mr Swan interjecting—</p><p>I thank the member for Lilley. As with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, it takes both to cooperate in this place, so I do take the overtures of the Manager of Opposition Business seriously and, as I said, the standing orders do make provision for this, where members are confused or the Speaker is sometimes a bit quick off the mark. So I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for making that point. I call the Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the House divide again.</p><p class="italic">Mr Burke interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>You can speak to it.</p><p class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>You want to speak first?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Leader of the House can speak.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>Are you going to speak?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>You can.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I want to get on with it. I'm not speaking.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Mr Speaker, to explain to the House what the opposition will do—</p><p class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the motion be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is the motion be put.</p>
|