Page 3735 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 23 November 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
motions and change the “calls on” then that somehow is out of order. That is preposterous. That is not the form of this place.
I make the point that the substance of this motion is about outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Canberrans. As the minister and others have said, there are mixed views on whether the voice is the—
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you have made your point. It is a point of order and you have made your point.
Mr Hanson: Yes, but I have got more to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Rattenbury: This is a speech, not a point of order.
Mr Hanson: Well, why not?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it is a point of order. Dr Paterson?
Dr Paterson: I support Minister Gentleman’s call that Mrs Kikkert’s motion is out of order.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Amendment.
Dr Paterson: My motion on the notice paper relates to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Mrs Kikkert’s amendment does not once mention the Uluru Statement from the Heart or the referendum, and I believe that it is out of order.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury.
Mr Rattenbury: On the point of order: Mr Hanson in his remarks—in fact, his speech—has drawn a false equivalence. I think the point of standing order 140 is that you cannot bring a completely new topic in. To take Mr Hanson’s point, where someone moves a motion about a different perspective on the same topic that does not fall within standing order 140. A complete change of topic, I think, is the point that is addressed by standing order 140.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, members. I have been considering this for some time. I refer to the Companion, which suggests that an amendment may not expand the area of relevancy in a debate but that this rule has not been strictly adhered to in the Assembly. I also note that, on many occasions, we have had examples of motions that have been amended, and dramatically amended, on the floor in this chamber, that, if we put through the same prism that Mr Gentleman has put forward, would probably have been ruled out of order. I think the fact that many of those motions were not ruled out of order, as was stated by Mr Hanson, creates a precedent for me to sit in this chair and say, “No; I am happy for the amendment to be debated.”
MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (4.59): I would like to thank Dr Paterson for bringing forward this important motion on this issue to the Assembly. I am disappointed that we are having the conversation side-tracked by the issue which, while still important, is off topic from the original motion. Mrs Kikkert does raise some very important
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video