|
representatives vote 2021-11-25#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-11-26 13:43:05
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Let a vote on the integrity commission take place
Description
<p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question now is that the motion be agreed to.</p>-
- While the majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-11-25.12.2) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let a vote happen, this particular motion required an [absolute majority](https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Glossary) and so it did not pass.
- An absolute majority requires at least half of all MPs plus one more to vote in favour, which should be about seventy-seven votes (half of the 151 current MPs, plus one). Due to current travel restrictions across the country, it's unclear whether it is even possible to achieve an absolute majority during the pandemic, which is a point made by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), who introduced the motion.
- Notably, Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) seconded the motion, despite her party's opposition to it. She also went on to [cross the floor](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/crossing-the-floor/) to vote in its favour.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent:*
- >
- > *(1) the private Members' business order of the day relating to the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 standing in the name of the Member for Indi being called on immediately and passage of the bill through all stages taking priority over all other business during periods of government business until its completion;*
- >
- > *(2) a maximum of 2 hours being allocated for the second reading stage with a maximum of 10 minutes per Member speaking; and*
- >
- > *(3) if consideration of the bill has not been completed by 1 pm, any questions necessary to complete the House's consideration of the bill being put to the House immediately and without debate.*
<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>There is a standing order asking you to state what that question is. For clarification for members, because it's a significant moment, could you state what the question is that you're putting to the House?</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by the member for Indi to suspend standing orders be agreed to. There needs to be an absolute majority on this question. The member for Menzies, on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>I submit to you that the question we've just voted on is the question which was before the House. It didn't have an absolute majority and therefore it fails.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Mr Speaker, I similarly submit that the point of order that's just been raised by the member for Menzies needed to be raised before you declared it for the noes. You have, in fact, declared this motion as the noes position having been carried. That declaration has been made from the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>The vote required an absolute majority, which was not achieved. The normal practice in this House, as I understand it, is for you to declare the vote as you have, Mr Speaker, but to note at that point that, given an absolute majority had not been achieved, the motion moved by the honourable member does not carry.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The points that have just been raised by the Leader of the House would have to have been raised before the declaration had been made as to what the outcome was. What the Leader of the House has referred to is a process where the count is announced and a statement is then made, but what the Speaker has done is declared the outcome. Therefore, if the Leader of the House wants to dissent from that decision, that's an option before the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>That is an incorrect interpretation—I'll put it politely. I'm sure there's at least some shred of genuineness to it, but the reality is that it is within your prerogative, Mr Speaker. I know that there's advice from the Clerk, but I put it to you that it's within your prerogative under the standing orders to clarify the situation and to, in my respectful suggestion to you, adhere to that practice which would see a statement along the lines that I outlined earlier.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Mr Speaker, if you would want to go down that path then there would have to be a seeking of a recommitting of the question.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>Sorry, I didn't hear that?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>If there's a request for the question to be recommitted, then what the Leader of the House has proposed would be able to be done. But, short of that, it's been declared.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The position in relation to the first motion stands, and that was the numbers that I read out earlier. There needs to be an absolute majority, and the next question is that the motion be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye.</p><p>An honourable member: Which motion?</p><p>On the suspension of standing orders. All those of that opinion say aye.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>Clearly a lot of us are very confused. I'm one of the dumber ones, so I'm really at a loss.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>Is there a point of order? No point of order. The member for Indi has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I'm not confused. What clearly has to happen is we need to get on with the debate. We're spending so much time right now trying to understand the procedures.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|