Page 5867 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
substantive motion before the house. I ask you to rule that Mr Duby is out of order with this motion. His motion, Mr Speaker, makes a mockery of the processes of the legislation and the processes of this house. His motion, Mr Speaker, is an abuse of the processes of this house. He has stood up on the basis of a prima facie substantive motion and he has now said that he has no intention of bringing about what he wishes upon this house, the decision.
I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to May's Parliamentary Practice, which clearly indicates, somewhere around page 400, that a motion is in two forms. One is a substantive motion, and a substantive motion has to be accompanied by the substantive argument. Mr Duby has no intention of arguing his motion. He is arguing against his motion; therefore, his motion is out of order as well because it is not expressed in the manner in which he seeks a decision from this house. I ask you to rule on that, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter in the history of the proceedings of this Assembly. This is an abuse of process.
MR SPEAKER: Just before we proceed Mr Collaery, you mentioned "around page 400". I found something on page 310 that contradicts your argument. If you could give me your reference, I would be prepared to look at the matter.
Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order. I do not think there is any substance to Mr Collaery's objection. He referred to some abuse of parliamentary process. I think that what he is really miffed about is that Mr Duby has cut him off from doing exactly what he is accusing Mr Duby of.
As I understand it, he intended to move a disallowance motion of his own; but he intended to move it in such a way that if this one failed today he could move another one next week and further aggravate the parliamentary process which he claims now to hold so dearly. I think that Mr Duby is quite in order. As he said, he has put this motion on the table so that the matter can be debated, and it is a matter that needs to be debated. It needs to be dealt with before this Assembly goes into recess. Now is the time and we should not allow ourselves to be diverted by Mr Collaery's red herring.
Mr Duby: Mr Speaker, all I was going to say was that I do not believe that I have stated that I am totally opposed to my motion. My recollection of what I said is that I introduced this motion so as to bring the matter on so that the Assembly may decide. If having the Assembly as a whole decide on a matter of great public importance is contrary to standing orders, perhaps the standing orders need to be changed.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, the substantive motion that May classifies is that which is a self-contained proposal drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the house. Mr Duby has a prima
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .