Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Page: 87


The SPEAKER —I now put the question on the motion moved by the Leader of the House.


Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The SPEAKER —The House has just resolved that the motion be put.


Mr Tanner —I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am entitled to raise a point of order. The point of order is: I would ask you to rule on the meaning of the term ‘without interruption’ in the motion. Does this mean that the Prime Minister is able to make any accusation, any claim, without the right of a member to make a point of order or to demand a withdrawal? Is that the meaning of the term ‘without interruption’ in this motion—to protect him from the kind of the treatment that the Leader of the House put out to the Leader of the Opposition while he was speaking?


The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I say to the member for Melbourne: until the motion has actually been put and agreed to, that is a hypothetical question.


Mr Tanner interjecting


The SPEAKER —Member for Melbourne, I have a motion before the chair; I have to deal with it.


Mr Tanner interjecting


The SPEAKER —I have taken note of the member for Melbourne. The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The question is that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister speaking without interruption for 10 minutes on the question that the words proposed to be omitted by the Leader of the Opposition stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.


Mr Tanner —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to rule as to the meaning of the phrase ‘without interruption’ that has just been passed by the House, as to whether that means that if the Prime Minister makes any accusation against a member that member is unable to respond and if the Prime Minister makes any claim nobody can raise a point of order. Is that your interpretation?


The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne will resume his seat, and I will respond to his question. My interpretation is that ‘without interruption’ means no points of order. If another member wishes to move a further motion—


Mr Tanner interjecting


The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. If another member wishes to move another motion in response to anything that may be raised during this debate then of course there are procedures of the House. I call the Prime Minister.


Mr Tanner interjecting


The SPEAKER —I have called the Prime Minister, and the member for Melbourne will resume his seat.


Mr Tanner interjecting


The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne will resume his seat or I will deal with him.