Page 3166 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
time. We do not support the suspension of standing orders; we are at one with Mr Kaine on that. It is unnecessary and pre-emptive and would set a dangerous precedent. When Mr Moore moves his Bill, the Labor Party view will be that we will oppose the substance of the Bill; but we think the Assembly ought to be able to debate it.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.32): Mr Speaker, I was not going to contribute to this procedural debate; but I have to, I think. I support, of course, Mr Kaine's comments. They represent the most sensible way of proceeding. I am sure that Mr Moore has absorbed the wisdom of those views, and may well act accordingly.
I have to point out, though, Mr Speaker, to put the record entirely straight, that Mr Connolly is quite at liberty to say that the Labor Party in opposition opposed the use of section 65 or standing order 200 to block private members' Bills which affected the expenditure of money; but it is not fair to say that the Labor Party has been consistent in this matter. I remind Mr Connolly, because he was not present in the chamber at the time, that the Labor Government in 1989 did use section 65 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act to prevent debate on legislation. I am referring particularly to Mr Stevenson's Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff) Bill at that time, which Ms Follett expressly shot down with section 65. Do not be too hypocritical about this; it cuts both ways.
I think the Labor Party might well quickly decide where it stands on those two particular provisions. Are they in favour of private members bringing forward legislation that affects money Bills, or are they not? It would be nice to know just where they stand on an ongoing basis. At least we on this side of the house can say that we have been consistent throughout our time in this chamber.
MR JENSEN (11.34): Mr Speaker, a couple of points need to be made. As I understand it, the issue of standing orders 200 and 201 is still before the Administration and Procedures Committee, which has yet to provide a final report to this Assembly. I do not think there is any argument that standing orders in themselves are non-justiciable. I do not think there is any argument about that. However, what we are talking about is legislation - legislation which is not controlled by this Assembly - which effectively is the constitution for the ACT Legislative Assembly and the self-government of the ACT.
In case members have forgotten what section 65 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act quite clearly provides, I think it appropriate that I read it into the record. Section 65, headed "Proposal of money votes", says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .