Page 6152 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery: I will argue that at the detail stage it does not have to be relevant.
Mr Connolly: You cannot just piggyback your bright idea in the shower on the general legislation, Bernard. I would like you to take advice on that, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: I would ask that the matter be allowed to proceed to the detail stage because I am not sure - - -
Mr Connolly: I will ask, as a point of order, that you take advice on this. The other day, by agreement with Mr Collaery, the Government did permit a matter that was not relevant to a Bill to be piggybacked onto a Bill for the purposes of debate. But there is a principle that is important here, and that is that you cannot just generally broaden the subject and decide that, because we are debating the Magistrates Court in relation to cancellation of motor vehicle registrations, we can talk about the rights to access to transcript in criminal cases, with no notice to the Government, and move it as an amendment.
The standing order is there for sensible reasons, and I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to take advice from your senior officers as to the background for this or similar standing orders in the Federal Parliament and give a ruling as to the extent to which members can come up with amendments that have nothing to do with the Bill that is before the house, which relates to procedures for motor traffic cases, and come up with general reforms to the criminal law.
MR SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Mr Collaery, the thing that I would remind Mr Connolly of is that under normal circumstances I would certainly take that on notice and get back to the Assembly with a ruling; but, under the circumstances of this being our last sitting day, for the Clerk and me to have to go through the whole Bill and the importance of the amendment, I think, would drop the whole issue of debate today. Your point of order is valid, but if you want to go ahead with it - - -
Mr Connolly: I do want to go ahead with the point of order. I do not think it is appropriate on the last day of sitting for a member to come up with something like this with no notice and say, "I want to move this as an amendment to the Bill in relation to traffic fines". It has nothing to do with speeding fines or motor traffic. It is a general proposal to amend the criminal law to provide a substantive right to transcript, presumably paid for by the Government, to all defendants in criminal cases. It is worthy perhaps as the subject of an extensive debate in a future Assembly, but in no way is it relevant to the matter that is under debate. I think it is not a proper procedure, and that is why I am seeking a ruling; that is why the standing orders are there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .