Page 2569 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Objection to Ruling
MR BERRY (11.44): I move:
That the ruling be dissented from.
I hear what the Acting Speaker has said in relation to precedents and I think it is time that this Assembly made some constructive and positive decisions about how those precedents should affect our operations in the future. Mr Acting Speaker, you did put as one option to me that I should argue the dissent motion on the merit of the legal question that has been raised. I do not intend to do that because I do not think that that is the issue that is at large here. The issue at large is whether one can move a motion of dissent. At the risk of boring members opposite, I intend for the purposes of this debate - and I think it is necessary to do it again - to go through those issues which concern the question of moving dissent in this place.
First of all, I refer again to standing order 275 of our own standing and temporary orders, which says:
Any question ... shall be decided according to the practice at the time prevailing in the House of Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
That is, of course, questions which are not dealt with directly in our own standing orders. I turn again to standing order 100 of the House of Representatives, which says:
If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent to be submitted in writing moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith.
I have complied with that requirement. I then turn to page 225 of House of Representatives Practice and refer again to that paragraph which makes it clear in my view that the House of Representatives permits the moving of a dissent motion. To some extent, it also talks about the House setting its own precedents in terms of its decision making process. From my reading of that, once this Assembly adopts a position whereby it endorses the right to move a dissent motion, then that sets in stone precedents for the future.
I heard from the other side noises of consent to the right of members in this place to move a dissent motion and I think that is really what my debate is about. I have sought leave to allow me to move a motion which allows me to move dissent. If that motion is carried, then this place sets in stone the precedents I suspect for future positions in relation to dissent motions. I heard too, the Acting Speaker's reference to standing order 94 of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .