Page 6245 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the amendment which has been circulated has not been signed, but I am not particularly worried about that point of order. If the amendment that has been circulated, and not signed, directly duplicates a Bill standing on the notice paper as order of the day No. 14 - private members' business, Mr Collaery's proposed Audit (Amendment) Bill - he is again attempting to tack onto a government Bill a private members' Bill, and I would take the same point of order that I took this morning; that is, that, under standing order 181, the amendment must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill before the house.
The Bill before the house is the amendment Bill, not the substantive Act. The amending Bill, as explained in the explanatory memorandum, goes to issues such as moving money around. Mr Kaine's amendment clearly is proper because it goes directly to the detail of the matter before the house. Mr Collaery's amendment, on the other hand, is clearly attempting to pick up a totally separate point, which was the subject of the Audit (Amendment) Bill tabled in this place by Mr Collaery on 25 November, and to tack it onto our legislation.
Browning makes the point clear at page 395 of House of Representatives Practice, saying that "an amendment which is outside the scope of the bill is out of order". He refers to May, and the most recent edition of May, at page 491, again says:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill ...
And "the scope of the bill" is the scope of the Bill before the house, to be determined by you, Mr Speaker, essentially by looking at the Bill and the explanatory memorandum. I would remind you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling that you gave on this matter only some hours ago, this morning.
Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, I am no lawyer, of course; but I do not know that I agree with Mr Connolly on this point. The Government's amendment Bill in fact deals with a number of points and it purports to amend several sections of the principal Act. That being so, one can hardly focus on one issue and say that that is the substance of this Bill. In fact, just reading from the explanatory notes, it has to do with borrowings, financial exposures, guarantees, variation of appropriations, and the increase of annual appropriations as a result of Commonwealth payments. It covers a whole range of issues. So, since the principal Act is being amended in a number of ways, I suspect that, in this case, it is hardly inappropriate for a member to put forward an amendment to just another section of the Act. So, I would have to say that in this case I disagree with Mr Connolly's interpretation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .