Page 1629 - Week 06 - Thursday, 3 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with former friends in the Residents Rally than anything else. We still seek further time to consider this matter, but as a matter of principle we do not oppose referral to the privileges committee. We think that the matter should be held over in some way until such time as we are able to look at it more closely.
MR SPEAKER: Do you wish to move an amendment to the motion?
MR BERRY: Is it proper for me to do that?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, and you can also just move that the debate be adjourned.
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, there is one other issue that I might raise from House of Representatives Practice in relation to the issue which might be helpful to you and to other members of the house. On page 722 of House of Representatives Practice, under the heading of raising a matter of determination of a prima facie case, it talks about how the Speaker should reach his decision in relation to the matter of precedence. According to the book, the giving of precedence is dependent on two important conditions: that the Speaker is of the opinion that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out, and that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Speaker, I will not question your judgment in relation to the prima facie case - that is a matter for you to decide - but, in relation to the matter being raised at the earliest opportunity, I point out that it has been around for some time. I think it is quite clear and a matter of record that this matter has not been raised at the earliest opportunity.
Ms Follett: It could have been raised yesterday.
MR BERRY: Yes, it could have been raised yesterday. The referral is beginning to look petty and like a joke and I think there needs to be some careful consideration of it. I would be looking to the Government for support for a deferral of this issue by way of an adjournment of consideration of the matter to a later time and perhaps some discussion with the members of the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
EXECUTIVE BUSINESS
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.16), by leave: It was recorded in Hansard this morning that we would bring forward in this Assembly proposed amendments to the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill 1990, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors (Amendment) Bill 1990 and the Truck (Amendment) Bill 1990, which were presented this morning. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .