All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2020-06-18#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2020-07-24 10:47:14


  • Business Senate Temporary Orders
  • Business - Senate Temporary Orders - Speed things along


  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to move a motion pertaining to the subject matter that has just been dealt with in general business notice of motion No. 705, relating to the conduct of the chamber and the ability of crossbenchers to move motions with formality and debate them in the normal practice.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion]( to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of a motion:
  • > *That the question be now put.*
  • <p>I'm going to look to the Clerk, and I am happy to be corrected. I am looking at standing orders 86 and 87. Standing order 87 states:</p>
  • <p class="italic">An order, resolution, or vote of the Senate may be rescinded, but not during the same session unless 7 days' notice is given&#8212;</p>
  • <p>Amongst other requirements, and standing order 86(1) states:</p>
  • <p class="italic">A question shall not be proposed if it is the same in substance as any question which has been determined during the same session, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such question was determined more than 6 months previously or has been rescinded.</p>
  • <p>Paragraph (2) refers to disallowance of instruments, which I don't deem as relevant. So, I do not consider such a motion to be in order, Senator Waters. I am happy to be corrected by the Clerk. But I consider that standing order 87 prevents the consideration of that without notice. The Clerk has, very happily from my perspective, concurred with my on-the-run interpretation.</p>
  • <p>Leave not granted.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>
  • <p>Noting that, pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p>
  • <p class="italic">That so much of standing orders, including the one you have just referenced, be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to discuss matters pertaining to the cross bench doing its job to hold this government to account, in the normal course of business in this chamber.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>You are seeking to suspend the standing order I have just relied upon. I do consider that motion to be in order; however, I will, after this consideration, foreshadow that, as I have done on previous rulings when the Senate has, on a number of occasions, expressed a will on a particular matter, it is within the realm of the chair to refuse to entertain further disruptions to the program of business to reconsider the same matter. On this issue I do consider that motion to suspend standing orders, on this occasion, to be in order.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p>
  • <p>I move the motion be now put.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>The question is that the motion be put, moved by Senator Cormann.</p>