A most extraordinary occurrence has taken place in the Queensland Legislative Assembly which in all my decades of researching political history I can recall no equivalent of.

The following motion, introduced by the Premier of Queensland, David Crisafulli, was carried on 10 December 2024:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing or Sessional Orders, this House orders that:

(a) No bill or amendment seeking to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 is allowed to be introduced.

(b) No motion or amendment seeking to have this House express its views on the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 is allowed to be moved.

The Speaker is to rule out of order any Bill, motion or amendment that offends the order in 1.

The precedent set by this motion is that the government of the day can amend the Parliament’s standing orders to prevent the consideration of laws and public matters which it deems to be oppositional and/or inconvenient. This is a most authoritarian gesture.

The motion’s rigidity is also flawed. It does not account for the possibility that circumstances beyond the government’s control might one day arise and require the Parliament to consider the disallowed matters. Because of the unpredictability of public life, the government may by necessity need to repeal the motion it has introduced, causing embarrassment. Nor does the motion account for the possibility that a future government needing to address the disallowed matters might govern in minority, thereby subordinating the government’s ability to respond to the unpredictability of public life to crossbench members.

I should like only to briefly address the motion’s substance. It is substitutional, in that the motion’s operation might reasonably apply to any act the government might determine necessary. What in this case applies to laws concerning abortion could otherwise apply to mining regulations, the Olympics, First Nations issues, and the economy.

The government’s motivation to introduce and carry this motion can only be said to be introspective. During debate, the Opposition argued that the purpose of the motion was to limit backbench government members from raising the disallowed matters for consideration. This seems true. The motion is in stark contrast to the notional principles of the Liberal National Party, which have historically included free speech and debate, both being viewed as foundational democratic and liberal practices.

Historically, the Australian Labor Party’s conventions have prohibited its parliamentary members from crossing the floor against the party’s formal positions, and so the Opposition’s condemnation of this now-adopted practice by the LNP government is hypocritical. The Opposition is unlikely to refer this matter to the Clerk of the Parliament for investigation because the Opposition knows that it may one day become the government, with a precedent set to for the introduction and passage of similar motions.

The media has reported a variety of views pertaining to the motion’s disallowed matters that are held by government members, and this variety was also raised during debate. Because of this motion, some government members may now feel or in fact be impeded in discharging their duties as elected representatives. Members of Parliament are obliged to represent their constituents as their constituents deem to be represented. Members are also obliged to represent their own views and morals. Another effect of this motion, then, is to undermine the democratic integrity of both the Queensland Parliament as an institution and its parliamentarians.

The Commonwealth government has only recently withdrawn its own bill that sought to combat misinformation. The motion passed in the Queensland Legislative Assembly is cut from the same branch as this federal attempt to censor competing perspectives.

I do not know what will come of this motion. It is most extraordinary, and should be objected to. The sooner it is repealed, the better, for the length of its operation will sharply inform the legitimacy of any precedent it might set.

This article is published anonymously in light of its author’s tertiary employment commitments.