Page 2576 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What, of course, happens here is that by a tricky political ploy the Government can, in effect, neuter each of these Bills - the Schools Authority (Amendment) Bill and the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill. Any Bill that is presented by a private member will, of course, cost money simply to print, as Mr Connolly pointed out in his letter. So by extending the situation to the ridiculous, as it may be, we could find that private members have no prerogative, in effect, to put any Bill because every Bill, by its very nature - - -
Mr Collaery: I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I believe Mr Moore is debating another issue - that is, the interpretation of your ruling on section 65 and standing order 200. I believe that is contrary to standing orders.
MR MOORE: I accept that, Mr Acting Speaker.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you for that, Mr Moore. Please continue.
MR MOORE: In closing my comments I would like to draw attention to my earlier comment to which you also replied and that was the reference to officers within Mr Collaery's department. The point I was raising in no way reflects on the competence or the ability of those officers and I apologise if anybody took it that way. It certainly was not meant in that way. It was meant in terms of a principle about how power relates and how Ministries exist. That was certainly not meant in a personal way to any officer and I am quite pleased with the competence shown by that department in all the dealings that I have had with it.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Moore, and I am sure that the officers up the back will be pleased to hear that!
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (12.11): In the short time available I just want to say that I think the Opposition is trying to have its cake and eat it. It seems to agree with the notion of referring this matter to the Administration and Procedures Committee, but it also wants it to be settled by a vote in the Assembly today. Those two things are incompatible.
If we think that the matter should be referred to a committee to look at, it should go to that committee without any vote in this Assembly today. If Mr Berry would listen I think he would realise that is a sensible point.
This theory of accretion that Mr Connolly keeps talking about seems to have some superficial attraction, but it ignores the reality that we, as an Assembly, a new parliament, have the right to develop our own practice and our own procedures in this place. In fact, it is clear that we have developed a practice already in respect of these matters. This has been decided before, and it is a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .