|
representatives vote 2023-09-06#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-12 10:59:24
|
Title
Motions — Dissent from Ruling- Motions - Dissent from Ruling - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>PEAKER (): The minister is in order to make sure that—are you seeking the call again, the Manager of Opposition Business?</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from under standing order 87.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>I'll hear from the Leader of the House who's seeking the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I'm raising a point of order concerning what's just happened. You can't move dissent when no ruling has been made. When a point of order is raised, sometimes in response to a point of order a speaker will make a ruling. Sometimes in response to a point of order a speaker will give guidance to the House or to the person who is speaking or will simply indicate what will happen next. On the occasions when a speaker gives a ruling then dissent can be moved. But it is pretty hard to move dissent in a ruling when a ruling hasn't been made.</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order, members on my right.</p><p>The Minister for Social Services will cease interjecting.</p><p>The Minister for Social Services! The Minister for Social Services is warned. Yes, the Manager of Opposition Business, I'll give you the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>Speaker, the situation could not be clearer. I asked you for a ruling as to whether the minister was in order. You responded: the minister was in order. I then proceeded to move dissent in your ruling, as is specifically authorised under standing order 87.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Is it in writing?</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>Order. Order. Well, so everyone is clear: I was in mid-sentence and I got out that the minister was in order, but I wasn't allowed to finish my sentence before the manager sought the call.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>Well, that's what happened. The Leader of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Mr Speaker, it is now the case—and I don't know whether you've decided that that was a ruling or was guidance, but, in any event, what has now happened is: even if that was properly moved, he's now sat down without giving a speech and without providing it in writing. So there is—</p><p>Honour able members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. Order.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>After you move something, once you resume your seat, the speech is over. That's how it works. This is not new.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order!</p><p>Order. The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p><p>Members on my right. The House will come to order.</p><p>The minister for industry will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I'll just remind the House of the wording of standing order 87:</p><p class="italic">If a Member dissents from a ruling of the Speaker, the objection or dissent must be declared at once.</p><p>Done.</p><p class="italic">A Member moving a motion of dissent must submit the motion in writing.</p><p>Done.</p><p class="italic">If the motion is seconded, the Speaker shall then propose the question to the House, and debate may proceed immediately.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. Order!</p><p>Order, the Leader of the Opposition. I want the House to come to order so we can deal with this matter. The opposition is entitled to move a dissent. I understand that and I respect their decision to do so. So I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>What has happened here is very clear. The opposition has asked an extremely tightly-worded question of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The minister has, in a number of ways, sought to evade answering what is an extremely direct question. We, on this side of the House—both the Leader of the Opposition and I—have sought clarification from you. We've sought a ruling from you. A ruling has been provided. We've indicated that we disagree with the ruling. And what we are now doing is moving dissent. The reason that we are moving dissent is that you made a ruling that the minister was in order, and what we are putting to the House is that the minister was not in order because she was not being relevant to what was a very tightly worded, narrowly defined question. So that is the basis on which the opposition is moving dissent, as is permitted under standing order 87.</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. There's far too much noise. Is the motion seconded? Order. I give the call to the member for Canning. The member for Canning has—</p><p>Order. The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Hastie</p><p>I do second the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. It goes to the simple question that was asked of the minister for infrastructure. It was a tight question, as we've made very clear, and she was not relevant. She did not answer the question, and you made a ruling—</p> <p class="speaker">Government Members</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order, members on my right! The ministers will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Hastie</p><p>You made a ruling, Mr Speaker, and we disagree with that ruling. She did not answer the question, she has not been relevant to the question, and it was a very, very tight question. The questions so far put to her throughout this question time, 'Did the minister or her office have any communication with the outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, or any representative of Qantas regarding the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways before the minister made her decision to reject the application?'—that was the first question, put by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. She did not answer that question. We then asked it a second time. The Leader of the Nationals asked: 'Did the minister or her office have any discussion with the Prime Minister or his office concerning the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways before the minister made her decision to reject the application?' Again she failed to answer the question.</p><p>We then had a question from the member for Riverina, where he asked whether or not the minister had spoken to Alan Joyce. Again she failed to answer the question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the question: 'Are you working in the interests of the Australian people?' And it's very clear you're not. Australians are paying more for their flights because of the protection racket that you have put in place.</p><p>The questions continued, getting tighter and tighter by the question. The minister has failed to explain how her decision to reject the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways will benefit Australian consumers. The point I'm making, Mr Speaker—</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order, members on my right! The member for McEwen, the Treasurer and the member for Lalor, I can't hear what the member for Canning is saying and, believe it or not, I want to hear what he's got to say.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Hastie</p><p>Mr Speaker, the theme of this question time has been very clear, very clear indeed, and it's that the minister is running a protection racket for Qantas and she is making it a lot harder for Australian consumers, who are paying more for their flights. On this side of the House we stand up for Australians who are going through a very tough cost-of-living crisis. Interest rates are spiking under this government. Food is more expensive. People are having to cut corners everywhere in their family budgets. And, just when they need relief through flights, what do you do? You establish a protection racket with Qantas. This side of the House will always stand for the Australian people, for consumers. We will work to get a better deal for them. And the reason why we're dissenting, Mr Speaker, is that we want the minister to answer the questions.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order on my right! The minister for health! I'm issuing a general warning because there is far too much noise. The question is that the dissent from the ruling of the Speaker be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>This is a 30-minute debate, and I hope it runs full time because there is a very important question for this parliament, for this chamber, to contemplate. It is clear not just today but in previous days; it has been documented not just in this House but across the nation, in newspapers—the <i>Fin Review</i> has run a very significant commentary in relation to this important issue, and that is about whether or not this government has made an appropriate decision, and the actions of the minister—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Leader of the Opposition will pause. This is not a general debate about the issue. The question before the House is dissent from the ruling of the Speaker—not the broad issue, not the topic. It is to state the reasons why you believe the ruling was not in order.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>I fully understand that, Mr Speaker, and I've given you the background as to why this issue needs to be dealt with in this chamber, why the question needs to be answered appropriately by this incompetent minister. The ruling that you've provided, Mr Speaker, should be dissented from because it allows this minister to continue to escape proper scrutiny in this chamber. She's a member of the executive. She refuses to say, in response to questions, whether or not she met or spoke with Mr Alan Joyce.</p><p>The relationship between Mr Alan Joyce, the Prime Minister and this minister is well documented. This is a murky situation at best. The minister's integrity is seriously in question. The Prime Minister had to come back into this chamber yesterday to correct the record when he misled this parliament. And why we need to move dissent in your ruling is obvious, because the question could not have been tighter. The circumstances could not be clearer. And the minister could not be more evasive. We need to hear from this minister, in a very direct way, whether or not she met with or spoke with Alan Joyce prior to making a decision to stop Qatar flying into our country which was of commercial benefit to Mr Joyce and to Qantas, and clearly to the detriment of the Australian flying public.</p><p>This government—and this is why your ruling needs to be dissented from—is costing, through this decision, Australians thousands of dollars through their airfares when they seek to travel internationally. Not just internationally, Mr Speaker. As we have seen from Virgin, who have an alliance with Qatar, if those inbound international flights are coming in and feeding the Virgin network, you will see a reduction in domestic airfare prices as well.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat for a moment. I have given him plenty of leeway. I'm just going to ask him to return back to the question before the House and to not bring other material into the debate. I give him the call now.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Dutton</p><p>Mr Speaker, the standing orders of this parliament are sacrosanct. We need to make sure the integrity of our Westminster system is upheld, and the requirement to do so falls squarely upon your shoulders. You are a decent Speaker. You're an honourable Speaker. But you have been put into the most difficult position by a minister who is trying to escape reality. You would not be put in this position that forced our hand to move dissent in your ruling if the minister had not been so evasive.</p><p>Australians are demanding answers from this government. The Prime Minister's off on another overseas flight, and you've got this minister who refuses to answer questions in his absence. I don't think the Australian public are seeing a level of transparency, and that is why this minister has put this House into disrepute. And this is why, with all due respect to you, Mr Speaker, you should have upheld our point of order, moved that the minister was not in order, moved that the minister was not relevant to the question being asked, instead of the ruling that you made.</p><p>This is a serious issue, and the precedent here is important because, to be honest, this is not the first occasion where we have contemplated whether we move dissent because of the way in which the government has put you into a difficult position. Today is a red-letter day for this minister because the minister has a clear question before her. Will she answer it honestly? So far she hasn't, and the Australian public demand nothing less of her.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-09-06.74.20):
- > *That the question be put.*
- In other words, they voted to end debate on the matter and instead [vote on it straight away](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2023-09-06/4).
-
-
|