Page 3706 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Standing order 58, I think it is, states that members are not to digress.
MR LAMONT: I thank you for pointing that out to Mr De Domenico about digression. Neither, Madam Speaker, should the current Leader of the Opposition, or the current spokesman for whatever Mr De Domenico happens to be the current spokesman for, expect the members on this side of the chamber to grovel. That, in fact, is what he is suggesting. That in fact is what the current Leader of the Opposition is suggesting; it is exactly what this proposal is.
This proposal creates two classes of non-executive member in this chamber. It creates the three government backbenchers as one class and it creates as another class with greater rights everybody else in the chamber who is a non-executive member. What it boils down to is that the three government backbenchers would have to grovel to the Opposition and/or the Independents, go mealy-mouthed, cap in hand, and say, "Please, sir, can we put in an MPI?". That is the effect of what they are proposing. We do not propose that the current Leader of the Opposition grovel in this chamber. It would be an outrage, as it would be an outrage to expect any of the government backbenchers to do likewise.
In relation to how we have got to this position, it is interesting to note, and I think it has been referred to, that the Administration and Procedures Committee in its deliberations has talked about a review of the standing orders, and Mr De Domenico alluded to this. When Mr De Domenico approached me in relation to the standing orders arrangements - - -
Mr De Domenico: No, about MPIs in particular.
MR LAMONT: - When he approached me about the standing orders arrangements on MPIs, I indicated to him that we would discuss them. Between the time Mr De Domenico made that approach and now, the Administration and Procedures Committee had decided a procedure to deal with the question of the standing orders. I had taken the matter, I quite honestly and freely admit, no further. There had been discussion around the chamber about a method, not necessarily consistent with the standing orders but not technically inconsistent with the way in which MPIs are put in.
I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to some facts that were raised here earlier this year. It was pointed out that over the life of the Assembly to that date, there had been, 11 occasions, I think it was, on 26 sitting days when the Opposition had actually put in an MPI. There had been, I think, four occasions in that same period when either the Independents had put in competing MPIs or their MPIs had got up. I will stand corrected on the exact number of days, but it was in that proportion.
What does concern me is that the MPI arrangement in our standing orders is an opportunity for any non-executive member to raise an issue he or she wishes to have debated. The proposition put by Mr De Domenico is that I, as a member of this Assembly, should have my rights to raise a matter of public importance curtailed on the whim of the Opposition and/or the Independent non-executive members of this Assembly. I think that is an outrage.
Mr Humphries: That is right.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .