Motion (by Dr Kemp) proposed:

Mr SPEAKER —Order, it being past 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Have we put the third reading?

Mr SPEAKER —If the Manager of Opposition Business had referred to the Notice Paper, he would have been aware of the fact that the motion said:

I have allowed that to happen. The motion has been proposed, but it has not been put.

Mr McMullan —Thank you. I am happy with that ruling—

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Members on both sides of the House! Particularly when a statement is being made from the chair, at least the courtesy of silence might be extended.

Mr McMullan —The reason I am on my feet is with regard to a ruling about which the opposition is not happy. It relates to the one-minute bell. At least eight members—from both sides—were not here to vote and were not recorded in that division. I think they would not want their constituents to think they did not care about the procedural outrage that was being performed. I ask you to reconsider and to consult with the Deputy Speaker about such arrangements in future.

Mr SPEAKER —I am happy to respond to the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is better aware than most in the House—and I say that because I recognise his familiarity with the standing orders—that the question before the chair was that the motion be put. There could be no intervening debate, so the Deputy Speaker's suggestion of a one-minute division was entirely appropriate. If any members were denied the right to attend the House, I also remind the House of the member for Prospect's rightful intervention when she said that the doors had not been locked. If anything, they were advantaged rather than disadvantaged in the process.