Tuesday, 5 March 2024

General business

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (13:22): I move, by leave:

That the following general business take precedence on Wednesday 6 March 2024:

(1) order of the day 24, second reading of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (No New Oil or Gas Activities) Bill 2022;

(2) notice of motion given this day by Mr Somyurek on ASIO and their finding that a foreign spy unit had recruited a former federal member of Parliament;

(3) order of the day 1, listed for a future day, resumption of debate on the second reading of the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024;

(4) notice of motion 313, standing in Mr Davis’s name, referring the appointment of Jeroen Weimar as deputy secretary of housing implementation to the Ombudsman for investigation and report; and

(5) notice of motion 292, standing in Mr Davis’s name, on the Melbourne Youth Orchestras funding.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, President, I draw your attention to some concerns I have about the motion that Mr Mulholland has proposed today. My specific concerns relate to the attempt to bring on the Bail Amendment (Indictable Offences Whilst on Bail) Bill 2024 on Wednesday. As many people in this house will recall, we dealt with a substantive government bill which passed this chamber on 5 October 2023. I would be interested in your views in relation to whether the bringing on of this bill is in contravention of standing order 7.06 in relation to the same question rule, which states:

No question will be proposed in the Council which is the same in substance as any question which has been resolved during the previous six months in the same Session.

Effectively the bail bill that the government brought in repealed the offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. There was an amendment proposed by the opposition. I think Mr Mulholland’s words were, ‘The changes dealt with in our amendment will change it back.’ The effect of the amendment proposed by the opposition was to not have that offence repealed. That amendment was defeated and the bill passed with the support of the opposition. I am also interested in standing order 7.09(1), which states:

No amendment will be proposed if it is the same in substance as an amendment already determined to the same question, or would have the effect only of reversing an amendment already agreed to by the Council.

I am not sure how that rule plays out in a private members bill, but on the face of it I think there is potential contravention of both of those standing orders, and I would be interested in Mr Mulholland’s views in relation to the timing of this debate given the standing orders.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, I understand the point the member is trying to make, and her point about 7.06 is around the same question rule, but that misses the point that the context is now different. The bill has passed, people in the community have been able to examine what this might mean more broadly and certainly the opposition has had input from a number of people that this is a problem.

Jaclyn Symes: It has not even been enacted.

David Davis: No, that is right, but the bill has passed.

The PRESIDENT: I think, Mr Davis, you are debating the previous bill.

David Davis: Further to 7.09, raised by the minister, which she says reverses an amendment agreed to by the Council, it is open to members – a different member – to bring a matter forward. It is open to a member to bring a new matter forward. The question also would be the timing of the debate.

The PRESIDENT: I think the crux of the same question rule is that the chamber do not spend time debating something they have already thoroughly – or maybe not thoroughly – debated in the previous months and therefore time used in this chamber could be time debating other matters. I will put it to the chamber that I would prefer not to put Mr Mulholland’s motion until maybe after members statements, if it is okay with the house, so that I can digest if it is a fair point of order that it is the same question.