Page 1124 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ways. I simply express my concern at the proposition and as to whether or not the decision should be reconsidered.
MR DUBY (Minister for Finance and Urban Services) (4.25): Mr Speaker, I, too, rise to speak against this motion. First of all, I have grave doubts as to whether leave is required at all when the house, per se, is not sitting through that period of time. That may be a technical point, but I cannot see why leave of absence should be granted to a member by this Assembly for absence during a period of time when the house is clearly not scheduled to sit. It is just as if I was planning to go down to the coast tomorrow and I got up and stood and sought leave of the Assembly that I should have leave on the off-chance that the house may be called tomorrow.
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; I think Mr Duby does not understand standing order 22, that "leave of absence may be given by the Assembly to any Member on motion without notice". This is to be read in conjunction with standing order 23 where, "A Member shall be excused from service in the Assembly, or any committee". I just want to clarify it.
MR DUBY: Well, I am going to answer that point of order for you, Mr Speaker. Standing order 23, from my understanding, says:
A member shall be excused from service in the Assembly ...
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; that is fairly presumptuous.
MR SPEAKER: I believe it was frivolous comment, Mr Berry. Please proceed, Mr Duby.
Mr Berry: Well, it was only frivolous on that side.
MR DUBY: There was certainly no intent of presumption on my part, Mr Speaker, and if it was taken I apologise. It says quite categorically that "a member shall be excused from service in the Assembly". Clearly, "service in the Assembly" refers to periods of time when the Assembly is sitting.
Mr Berry: Or any committee.
MR DUBY: My understanding is that the committee itself has already given leave of absence to Mr Moore on this matter. If the committee has not given leave of absence to Mr Moore for this matter I think it is rather presumptuous of him to be going on a trip without having sought permission from the committee involved in the first place.
That brings us back to the main point. The main point of objection to this proposed granting of leave, on my part, follows upon the line of argument that was developed by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .