Page 2945 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY: I am raising this matter, Mr Speaker, for the simple reason that I am trying to show the relevance of this whole debate itself. The Opposition could not even get that bit right, let alone an important matter of business like a censure motion. The simple fact is that House of Representatives Practice shows quite categorically that a motion of want of confidence in a Minister - - -
Mr Berry: On a point of order: we are - I withdraw that. He was on the two hours again, I am sure; but, anyway, I withdraw that.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Please be seated.
MR DUBY: I am referring to the general provisions on a motion of a want of confidence in a Minister. I think we need to get this right. A motion of want of confidence in a Minister is treated in the same way as any other private members' motion, including the speech times applicable to an ordinary motion of private members' business, and in this house that is two hours. That is the first point.
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Duby has obviously trailed off onto matters irrelevant to this debate, and, Mr Speaker, he was wrong as well. He should have a look at our own standing orders, because they do in fact refer to the time of debate for this particular matter.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr Duby.
MR DUBY: Having established that point, Mr Speaker, I would like now to go to the issue of the motion that we are actually debating today. I would like to move an amendment - I am not really sure of the wording, since you ruled against the use of the word "deception" in regard to the Labor Opposition. I accept that ruling completely, and I would like now to amend Mr Collaery's original motion in a way that I think will satisfy all the requirements of parliamentary language, Mr Speaker. I move:
Omit the words "Opposition for: (1) its deception and inconsistency" and substitute "Party for: (1) its deception and inconsistency".
So, that is that. We have got that fixed.
MR SPEAKER: I believe that is acceptable.
MR DUBY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, that is the way this debate is going, Mr Speaker. Now, let us start from the beginning. We have heard a lot of waffle from the other side of this house today relating to this motion - - -
Mr Berry: That means Bill Wood gets to speak again.
MR DUBY: Yes, it probably does. I must say that the original motion referred to the attack by the Minister for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .