Page 2575 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
refers us to the House of Representatives' practices and procedures. We take the view that the phrase "practice and procedure" of the House of Representatives must include both the formal standing orders of that House and the informal practice which is developed over time.
Given that there are standing orders of the House of Representatives which allow dissent, our firm view is that dissent is picked up through the avenue of silence in standing order 73 of this Assembly and the reference in standing order 275 to the practice and procedure of the House of Representatives and the standing order of that House allowing dissent. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for this motion to be put. It is a very fundamental right of members of this Assembly that they have the right, exercised judiciously, to move dissent from the rulings of the Speaker when they see fit. In the ultimate analysis, it is a question of who is sovereign over the destiny of this Assembly, the members or the Speaker elected at the beginning of each term of the parliament?
The Opposition view must be put most strongly - and I am sure that members of the Government, when they think about it, would have to agree with this - that the persons who are masters over the destiny and procedure of this Assembly are the members not the Speaker.
The Speaker exercises his powers on behalf of the members, but the members must have the power, at the appropriate time, to differ from the views of the Speaker. Otherwise we have a parliament in which the Speaker exercises unchallengeable powers and in no system of government, I would suggest, is it appropriate to have a person whose powers are beyond challenge.
The Opposition motion, presently before the Assembly, is of fundamental importance to the rights of members and is deserving of support.
MR MOORE (12.07): It seems to me that this issue has, in effect, been raised before and is of great concern to members. But it is of particular concern to backbench members, on the Government side as well as the Opposition, because the notion that we have, of the Executive providing advice for the Speaker and then the Speaker operating on that advice without challenge, presents some difficulty in terms of parliament. The reality of the situation, as I see it, is that private members' business will be affected in such a way that, as far as parliamentary procedure goes, private members will be eunuchs. It is a castration procedure.
I think that it is most important that members of the Government, particularly those not in the Executive, should take this matter very seriously and look, in particular, at the power of the Speaker and the power of the parliament, because it is the power of the parliament that should have the greatest say, rather than that of any individual member. The motion put by Mr Berry has that effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .