Page 964 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, was it an environment Act or was it not? I can answer that question, Mr Speaker - - -
Mr Moore: Standing order 51, Mr Speaker, states that:
A member may not allude to any debate or proceedings of the same calendar year unless such allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion.
It is simply not relevant.
Mr Collaery: It has already been ruled.
Mr Moore: It is a different standing order. I did it under a different one.
MR SPEAKER: Order. Mr Humphries, please resume your seat. Once again, Mr Moore is giving me lessons on the standing orders. Once again, Mr Moore is in error, and I will refer you, Mr Moore, to the House of Representatives Practice, second edition, page 483.
Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, on a point of order; standing order 275 states that we only refer to House of Representatives Practice when there is no standing order provided in the standing orders. What I am saying is that there is a standing order provided and that is standing order 51 - or 52.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Moore. Please understand that we use House of Representatives Practice to interpret the standing orders, which are very brief.
Mr Moore: No, Mr Speaker, that is not allowed by standing order 275.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Moore, for your observation. Please do not reflect on debate previously brought before the house tonight, Mr Humphries.
Mr Moore: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, if that were the case that ends my speech on this matter. I am sorry; I dispute the ruling. It clearly is the case that adjournment debates have no requirement to relevance. Every speech in the house tonight has been about debate earlier this evening. Why am I not allowed to reflect on that earlier debate?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .