Page 695 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have already outlined which would have to come under consideration, such as the referral of a matter to an Assembly committee. We do not really want to be waiting for weeks to get that sort of thing up.
I would therefore suggest that this matter needs to be reconsidered. I would hope that it was not the intention of the committee to limit or to stifle debate of Assembly business, but the impression is there if it is going to be locked into a limited 45 minutes tacked onto the end of the Government's introduction of new legislation on a Thursday morning. As I say, I do not believe that it would be the intention of the committee to do this, but I believe that that is the unintentional result. I therefore believe that the matter should be re-examined at least by the committee, unless of course the Assembly members wish to take action on it themselves.
There is obviously some merit in aspects of the committee's report. I have already referred to a number of points, particularly the arrangement whereby the Administration and Procedures Committee should be responsible for determining the order of Assembly business and not the Executive; but, as for the rest of the report, I have grave reservations. I repeat that I believe that the matter should be re-examined.
MR LAMONT (11.03), in reply: I find it somewhat incredible that I need to rise to prevent, hopefully, the adjournment of this matter. I believe that that is what Mr Cornwell is seeking. I speak against it on the basis that - - -
Mr Cornwell: The Liberal Party is seeking that.
MR LAMONT: I thought it was Mr Cornwell. Certainly, the Liberal Party representative on the Administration and Procedures Committee was part of the decision making process which led to the unanimous decision of the committee to make this recommendation to the Assembly.
There are a number of inaccuracies in what Mr Cornwell has said. Those inaccuracies are quite clear. Quite simply, Mr Cornwell has suggested that we are attempting to provide for 45 minutes of Assembly business. All we heard for nine minutes was that we are going to provide 45 minutes. Albeit that he sought the adjournment two weeks ago, Madam Speaker, on no occasion in the last two weeks has Mr Cornwell, through his own representative on the Administration and Procedures Committee, through me, through Mr Moore or, I understand, through you, Madam Speaker, raised the issues that he has raised this morning.
Mr Cornwell: Why should I do that?
MR LAMONT: One would have thought it was just good practice to do so. If that is the way the Liberals wish to do their business - badly - that is their problem and their prerogative. Madam Speaker, I draw his attention to proposed new standing order 77(e) and I quote it for the record:
at the time precedence to Assembly business expires any Member may move that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes and such motion shall be put forthwith without amendment or debate;
Firstly, Madam Speaker, that provides for an hour-and-a-quarter, not 45 minutes. The precedents of this Assembly generally when such an extension is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .