Mr MURPHY (3:32 PM) —Yes. I would like to support the member for Moncrieff—

Mr SPEAKER —I would prefer the member for Lowe to ask me a question in this context or seek indulgence.

Mr MURPHY —The question is: with regard to the issue of one of those doors being closed, that is true because I was immediately behind the member for Moncrieff—and I will not name the member who muscled his way in front of the member for Moncrieff—and we courteously remained behind because we thought we would get through the door, as did the member for Lyons, who certainly could not be described as a diminutive figure, and the member for Calare. We were of the view that we would be allowed into the chamber to vote on the division. The issue that we are asking you to resolve is that the attendants did their job—we have no criticism of them—but one door was closed, and I have never missed a division in the time that I have been here and I did not want to miss this one.

Mr SPEAKER —I have extended a courtesy to the member for Lowe; the very least he could have done was frame some sort of question or sought indulgence. I will respond to the matter, but I do not expect the standing orders to be abused in that way. This matter was reported to me by the Deputy Speaker—and I am in no way critical of the Manager of Opposition Business—who happened to be in the chair when I came in and had only just taken over from the member for Franklin. I make that point because the Deputy Speaker also reinforced the view that the member for Franklin had acted in an entirely responsible way and in a way that all members would feel was becoming of an occupier of the chair.

I reassure the member for Moncrieff that the member for Franklin would in my experience have only called `lock the doors'—and I will discuss the matter with him—after the sand had run through the glass and so far from effecting a premature, in any sense, locking of the doors, he was doing as the standing orders oblige him to do. I will speak to the Serjeant-at-Arms and to the attendants to ensure that both doors are open or that there is an easy flow into the chamber. Of course it would be a general understanding that it is only reasonable for members who are at the chamber door—I do not mean rushing to it—and unable to enter should be able to enter if they would have entered had the doors not been locked. It is a preferable arrangement to ensure that both doors are open, as is quite obvious.

I would also stress to the House that standing order 208 ensures that, had in fact members been unreasonably denied access to the House, there would have been an opportunity to recommit the vote to ensure the House's real intent was recognised. The indication is that some people were denied access to the House, as outlined by the member for Lowe. For that reason, I will take the matter up with the member for Franklin, but I believe that a conversation with the attendants and the Serjeant-at-Arms will probably resolve the matter.