Tuesday, 30 April 2024

Standing and sessional orders

Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (12:24): I move, by leave:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be –

Leave refused.

Sam Hibbins: On a point of order, Speaker, in relation to the ruling that a mover of a motion or someone seeking leave to move a motion has to stop speaking immediately after the government refuses leave, I think we have now demonstrated the impracticality, to say it politely, of such an application of that rule. I ask you to reconsider the application of that rule so that members can actually put forward what they are moving prior to the government simply and immediately shutting down any speeches.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On the point of order, Speaker, I ask that you rule the member’s point of order out of order as there was no point of order.

The SPEAKER: It is clear in Rulings from the Chair that any member can say no at any time during the giving of that notice. It is not for me to determine when that ‘no’ would be said.

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, can I refer you to standing order 104, ‘Member’s right to speak’. I would put to you that the standing orders make it very, very clear that a member has a right to speak. How can a member put forward a proposition that a government can deny if the member is unable to even have the right to speak which is provided in the standing orders? I think that it runs contrary to standing order 104.

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, maybe these are matters that can be taken to the Standing Orders Committee.

Michael O’Brien: On a further point of order, Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business just referred you to the standing orders. In my respectful submission, Rulings from the Chair should be read in light of the standing orders, which clearly provide for members to have the right to speak. I would urge you to consider whether Rulings from the Chair should be revised in light of that – that standing orders come first and Rulings from the Chair are read subject to and in light of the standing orders – because I can see this Parliament becoming fairly unworkable and fairly undemocratic if this practice is to continue.

The SPEAKER: I refer members to standing order 104, which the Manager of Opposition Business referred to – that members may speak to any point of order that has arisen; propose his or her own motion or amendment; speak to any question before the house, including proposed amendments; and speak on a matter of privilege that has suddenly arisen. There are options available. However, having said that, I think we have canvassed this enough right now. I think this is something that might be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, I would also refer you to standing order ‍106, ‘Motion that a member be no longer heard’. I put to you that what the government is doing is effectively moving motions on members that they be no longer heard, which is against the spirit of standing order 104. I do not think it is tenable, frankly, for a committee at some point in the future to perhaps consider this question; I think what we are considering right now is the right of members to actually speak in this chamber today.

The SPEAKER: I will take these matters back and discuss them in my office with anyone who wishes to speak about them with me after we have continued on with government business.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, I am seeking clarification, please. When leave is sought, is it your practice to ask the house whether leave is granted before you will determine whether leave is granted?

The SPEAKER: A member stands and requests leave. At that point anyone can agree to leave or not agree to leave – at any point.