Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Barker Rick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9206] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Speaker we have had 2 hours and 40 minutes of debate on Part 2. National for the third time moved a closure motion which I was about to accept. The Opposition members sensing the mood of the Chair decided to raise a number of points of order and as a consequence of the rulings I gave on their points of order they wish to dispute my decision. 
One point of order was about the place of Mr Bennett who stood to move the closure from a seat other than his own. The Opposition claimed that Mr Bennett could not move a closure motion from a seat other than his own. I ruled that a member could for two reasons: firstly the convention is generally in this House that people can move about and give speeches from various places other than their actual allocated seat; and secondly Mr Bennett was in one of the whips’ chairs and it is not unusual for both party whips to be out of the Chamber and for another party member to conduct the party vote and to do so from a whip’s chair. Without that practice it would be a very difficult situation; a member would have to retreat to his or her seat in the Chamber and then start to cast the party vote. That has never been the practice and I felt that in this particular situation the convention was well established no one had disputed it and I was perfectly happy for Mr Bennett to move his motion from the whip’s chair. 
The second point of order that was raised was that Mr Bennett had prefaced his motion with “Mr Chair”. After having called “Mr Chair” and being given the call he said: “Mr Chair I move that the question be now put.”—and then said some other words—“Mr Chair thank you.” The contention from the Opposition is that by adding those words Mr Bennett had changed the nature of the resolution and was therefore not strictly compliant with the rules set down in the Standing Orders. I have ruled that Mr Bennett’s being courteous in addressing the Chair appropriately and in thanking the Chair was to be applauded and I was not going to rule against him on that. 
The third point of order is that Mr Bennett had moved the motion previously. Mr Bennett is entitled to four calls. He had moved one closure motion before; I had declined to accept the closure motion. He then took a second call and moved the closure motion for the second time. That complies with the rules in that he is entitled to four speeches. Each closure motion is a speech; therefore he had used only two calls and he was entitled to two further speeches. 
But I think the more pointed point being made by the Opposition is that Mr Bennett having moved a motion previously and having been declined is not entitled to move a second motion. I think the general view that the Opposition would put forward is that if a member moves a motion and the House declines that motion the member is not able to bring that motion back to the House a second time within a period of 12 months—that is my recollection of the Standing Orders. I responded to the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard by saying that the first closure motion by Mr Bennett had not been rejected by the Committee; it had been rejected by the Chair. I in the Chair did not accept it. Therefore the Committee did not have the opportunity to consider the closure motion and to accept or reject it. It was not a decision of the Committee; it was a decision of the Chair. I felt at that particular time that a number of other speakers in the Chamber were indicating that they wished to speak and to be fair I wanted to give them that opportunity. Once they had spoken I felt it was time to accept the closure motion and test the will of the Committee. 
That is my recollection of it and I am happy with all the rulings I have made.