|
senate vote 2014-09-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-11-13 16:11:40
|
Title
Description
- The majority [agreed](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.95.3) that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) should immediately be able to introduce [his motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend the [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) that would have stopped Senator Lazarus from doing this.
- ###What will the committee do?
- The select committee will inquire into and report on:
- * what the [Queensland Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Queensland) has done with funds given to them by the [Federal Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia) since 26 March 2012 (which is when Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office);
- * [judicial independence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence) and [separation of powers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers);
- * the approval process for development projects related to exporting resources or services;
- * whether the Queensland Government's policies are consistent with Australia's obligations under [international law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law), including [environmental law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_law) and [human rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law) instruments; and
- * how appropriate it is for the Federal [Minister for the Environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_the_Environment_%28Australia%29) to delegate his approval powers to the Queensland Government under the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999).
- But! Because of Australia's [federal system of government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia), the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.
Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus), who introduced this motion, explained that he believed the motion was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his [full explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1)).- Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) explained that he believed the committee was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his [full explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1)).
- ###Background to the motion
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) managed to [amend](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5) the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) and therefore include former Labor Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s government.
- Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down [without a division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944)).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-11-13 16:10:06
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.95.3) to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html), which was introduced by Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus). This means that the standing orders will be suspended so that Senator Lazarus can move that [his motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration is given precedence.- The majority [agreed](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.95.3) that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) should immediately be able to introduce [his motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend the [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) that would have stopped Senator Lazarus from doing this.
_Background to the motion_- ###What will the committee do?
This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has sought to introduce a motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration that relate to Commonwealth government affairs. The motion sets the period of time to be covered by the inquiry to begin from 26 March 2012, which is when Queensland Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office.- The committee will inquire into and report on:
The first time this motion was introduced, on 23 September 2014, it failed after Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) successfully amended the period of time covered by the inquiry so that it began from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) (see the division on that amendment [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5)). This would have included former Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s previous Labor government administration into the inquiry. Following this successful amendment, the motion lost the backing of its Labor Party supporters and it was voted down without a division (read more about when a division occurs [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur)). Read more about the failure of this first motion on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944).- * what the [Queensland Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Queensland) has done with funds given to them by the [Federal Government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia) since 26 March 2012 (which is when Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office);
- * [judicial independence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence) and [separation of powers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers);
- * the approval process for development projects related to exporting resources or services;
- * whether the Queensland Government's policies are consistent with Australia's obligations under [international law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law), including [environmental law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_law) and [human rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law) instruments; and
- * how appropriate it is for the Federal [Minister for the Environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_the_Environment_%28Australia%29) to delegate his approval powers to the Queensland Government under the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Protection_and_Biodiversity_Conservation_Act_1999).
When first introducing his motion, Senator Lazarus explained that he was motivated by the fact that, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for the full explanation).- But! Because of Australia's [federal system of government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia), the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.
- Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus), who introduced this motion, explained that he believed the motion was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his [full explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1)).
- ###Background to the motion
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) managed to [amend](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5) the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) and therefore include former Labor Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s government.
- Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down [without a division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944)).
|
|
senate vote 2014-09-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-10 15:50:06
|
Title
Motions — Suspension of Standing Orders- Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Suspend standing orders
Description
<p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion circulated in the chamber to establish a select committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.95.3) to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html), which was introduced by Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus). This means that the standing orders will be suspended so that Senator Lazarus can move that [his motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-30.104.3) to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration is given precedence.
- _Background to the motion_
- This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator [Glenn Lazarus](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/glenn_lazarus) has sought to introduce a motion to establish a [select committee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_committees#Select_committees) on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration that relate to Commonwealth government affairs. The motion sets the period of time to be covered by the inquiry to begin from 26 March 2012, which is when Queensland Premier [Campbell Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Newman) took up his office.
- The first time this motion was introduced, on 23 September 2014, it failed after Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) successfully amended the period of time covered by the inquiry so that it began from [21 March 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2009) (see the division on that amendment [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-23/5)). This would have included former Premier [Anna Bligh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Bligh)'s previous Labor government administration into the inquiry. Following this successful amendment, the motion lost the backing of its Labor Party supporters and it was voted down without a division (read more about when a division occurs [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/help/faq#division-occur)). Read more about the failure of this first motion on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/palmer-hopeful-despite-failed-bid-for-inquiry-into-newman-govt/5764944).
- When first introducing his motion, Senator Lazarus explained that he was motivated by the fact that, "[o]ver the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-23.96.1) for the full explanation).
<p>The Australian Constitution states that there must me a clear separation of powers between the parliament, the executive government and the judiciary in Australia. The separation of powers and functions ensures that no single body is able to exercise total authority or to misuse power. The system is considered to be one of the fundamental elements of a fair, democratic and honest government.</p><p>In my home state of Queensland our parliament consists of one house, the lower house. There is no upper house to provide the critical checks and balances needed for open representative and transparent governance in parliament. Over the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, quarry approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation, and various other matters. In fact, on 9 September, at only a few minutes to midnight, the Queensland government moved a last-minute amendment to the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 to remove the rights of land owners to object to mining on their property.</p><p>The Commonwealth allocates significant funds to the state of Queensland, and Australian taxpayers need and deserve clarification in relation to the appropriate use of these funds by the Queensland government. I constantly receive many phone calls from Queensland residents who are crying on the phone and desperate for my help to stop the terrible things that are happening in my home state of Queensland.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>You should see what Newspoll says!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>The people of Queensland feel abandoned and threatened. They feel as though their voices of desperation, worry and absolute and utter frustration are not being heard. They are worried.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Only by your leader!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order on my right.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Lazarus</p><p>Today, I am calling on the Senate to ensure that the people of Queensland are heard. This inquiry must happen. It must go on. The Commonwealth has an obligation to ensure that the funds supplied by the Commonwealth are being used for appropriate purposes. The select committee will consult with the Queensland community to undertake this assessment. I urge my colleagues to support my actions to ensure that the motion is considered by the Senate. As I have already said, this inquiry must happen and it must go ahead.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>The government opposes this second attempt to breach the fundamental conventions that surround the Westminster system. The last time we debated this, which was just a few days ago, I pointed out what Odgers had to tell us on page 77 about the comity between parliaments and how singularly unwise it is for one parliament or one house of a parliament to seek to inquire into another.</p><p>I thought we had that debate and common-sense prevailed. Clearly, common-sense has not prevailed and we now are confronted with this, quite frankly, personal vendetta by the leader of the Palmer United Party to pursue Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland. We heard from Senator Lazarus just then that there were concerns about judicial appointments in Queensland. Guess what? If you are concerned about it, run for the Queensland parliament. Use the Queensland parliament and its forums, because if you think that you can use the federal parliament's forums to overcome what you consider to be shortcomings in the Queensland parliament, guess what? The Queensland parliament can then start adopting exactly the same tactics against Palmer United, Senator Lazarus or anyone else.</p><p>Is this the way we want to trash our democracy? Democracy is a fragile flower. It does require convention, it does require precedent and it does require people to remain within their bailiwick. We could have a situation where technically you could have the Queensland parliament having resolutions about the Senate and then, when any senator arrives in Queensland, they could be picked up by the Queensland authorities and be brought before the bar of the Queensland parliament to answer questions. That is what can happen and that is the route we are going down.</p><p>Way back in 1996, this was attempted in relation to the Victorian parliament in relation to a casino licence. Common-sense finally prevailed and that inquiry, quite rightly, did not go ahead. I would have thought the lessons of history should be learnt. As I said last week, I can understand that the Palmer United Party is relatively new to this place and is not fully across all of the precedent and all of the practice. But I say to those colleagues opposite, especially from the Australian Labor Party, that you know the precedent and you know the embarrassment that you got yourselves into in 1996 with the Victorian casino inquiry. That went nowhere. Why? For exactly the reasons that will confront this inquiry.</p><p>Chances are, lawyers will make some money out of it and the High Court may well be entertained as well. I might add that Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland, is doing an excellent job. If Newspoll is any guide, the people of Queensland are now saying that he in fact is doing a good job. As he has taken the tough decisions, the people of Queensland are now accepting what has occurred under that government as having been within their best interests.</p><p>When we start using one parliament to fight another parliament, we get into a territory that is singularly foolish and singularly designed to bring these institutions of parliament into disrepute. I do not lay that charge on Palmer United, because I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; albeit that benefit is shrinking by the moment, given all that was said about this just last week. But those opposite in the Australian Labor Party know the folly of this move and they know that this should not be entertained.</p><p>Interestingly, when this motion failed last week there was a collective sigh of relief around this place, knowing that the right thing had been done by this parliament and its institutions. Now, one assumes that some dirty deals have been done behind the scenes, which allow this matter to be re-ventilated. It will be interesting to see if it is the Australian Greens or the Australian Labor Party who have done a backflip in relation to this. Whichever party it is, they have done a great disservice to this place. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, I do not have the standing order; but perhaps I could seek your assistance. This motion was dealt with just a week ago. This seems to me, on my very quick reading, to be exactly the same motion. Is it possible for senators to raise the same motion day after day?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator Macdonald. This is actually a procedural motion, so the provision of the standing order that you are correctly referring to does not apply to this particular aspect, which is a suspension motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a further point of order. I was aware that this is a procedural motion. But what is the point of dealing with this if there is a provision in the standing orders—which in the back of my mind there is; I just cannot refer you to the actual standing order—that prevents this substantive motion from being dealt with. If that is the case, then the procedural motion is also irrelevant.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator Macdonald. It is standing order 86, for your reference. There have been rulings on this in the past, and <i>Odgers </i>does make mention of it. It indicates that this rule is rarely invoked—that is, the same question rule—simply because generally with the passage of time and changing circumstances it could happen that the same text could refer to a different question. Senator Macdonald, in this instance in relation to the suspension motion, it will not apply; but, post the suspension motion, that might be another question.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Mr President, could I indicate that the motion has actually been amended and is not in the same form as was debated last week. Can I turn to the arguments put forward by Senator Abetz. This is a government that has trampled on every single convention that you can imagine. It has called royal commissions to pursue its own nasty political vendettas. We have had a waste of taxpayers' money that will be over $100 million by the time they are all finished. We have had two royal commissions with no other purpose than to try to smear, abuse and vilify the former governments. This is a government that knows no decent bounds whatsoever. Do you want to know what the final arbiter of that decision would be? Even former Prime Minister John Howard has said, 'I wouldn't have called those royal commissions.' When Senator Abetz stands up here and talks about the decent and right thing to do—</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The motion that we are debating is a motion to suspend standing orders to permit debate of a motion to establish a Senate inquiry on the terms circulated by the Palmer United Party. It has absolutely nothing to do with a royal commission that is currently in progress into the subject of trade union corruption.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator Brandis. As is the general nature of suspension of standing orders, the debate does venture into the topic which the suspension of standing orders relates to. I allowed that with the previous speaker, and I will allow it with Senator Conroy.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I thought Senator Abetz roamed widely in his particular contribution. He spoke extensively about what is the decent and right thing to do. Let us be clear: $100 million is being wasted by those opposite to pursue their political opponents. This is an absolute abuse of process. These royal commissions are nothing but a stunt. Senator Abetz said that we have a convention whereby we do not investigate each other's chambers. This is not an investigation of a chamber. This is an examination of the conduct of a government—not the chamber and not the institution of parliament in Queensland. It is looking at a thoroughly corrupt bunch of individuals in Queensland and their conduct behind the scenes.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You cannot accuse members of another parliament of corruption.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I said a group of individuals.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>You said a government—the Queensland government. As you know, all members of the Queensland government are members of the Queensland parliament.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Conroy, I draw your attention to the standing orders. You have the right to continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>I can understand why those opposite, particularly those Queensland senators who have turned up now en masse to try and defend those up in Queensland, do not want any scrutiny. They won a large majority. You would have thought, Mr President, that, after winning a large majority, you would not have to behave in the nasty and vindictive way in which that government has behaved. You have wiped out the opposition pretty much. You have only got the one chamber. You would have thought you could have behaved decently—yet, the Campbell Newman government has behaved anything but. This motion says, 'Let us have a law—</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is one thing to have a debate in relation to what is happening here, but the point of order is that the senator continues to make aspersions against another government. Section 193(3) of the standing orders is very clear where it refers to imputations and personal reflections on those members of other houses. The standing orders refers to it in one of the only places it does as 'highly disorderly'. The senator should be reminded of the order and should abide by it.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Conroy, I did give you a warning on the previous point of order. You cannot reflect on the good character and reputation of another parliament or a member of another parliament. Senator Conroy, continue your remarks but be observant of the standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I will confine my remarks to the conduct of the government as a whole rather than any individual to save you having to respond to total furphies from those opposite. The conduct of the Campbell Newman government is something that deserves scrutiny. In Queensland, where Sir Joe Bjelke-Petersen described press conferences as ’feeding the chooks', there is a long history of such behaviour by Queensland National Party members of parliament, and some of them went to jail. What we are seeing is the beginnings of the conduct highlighted by the terms of reference that are before us today. Those opposite are very sensitive—and they should be very sensitive!</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order on my right!</p><p class="italic">Senator Brandis interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Oh dear!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order! Senator Conroy, you have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. We can see how sensitive a button you have touched, Senator Lazarus, with this motion. You can see just how sensitive the Queensland Liberal-National Party machine is. They will do anything. They will smear anybody. They will put up any furphy whatsoever to defend their mates in Queensland.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|