Page 370 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Okay; thank you. On your point of order we are taking, firstly, the definition of a sitting.
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MADAM SPEAKER: I take my advice from page 277 of our green book to which we defer. It says:
A sitting of the House is the period from the meeting of the House until the time it adjourns by its own resolution or pursuant to standing orders.
The day that the Bill was introduced we adjourned and we did not take the question in principle on that day; so I am afraid that this is a new sitting, in which case we can address the question "That this Bill be agreed to in principle".
Mr Humphries: Can I put an argument to you on that standing order?
MADAM SPEAKER: On a further point of order, Mr Humphries? Of course.
Mr Humphries: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I would argue that the standing orders in fact do not allow that interpretation to arise. You will see, Madam Speaker, that in standing order 172 reference is made to the phrase "the sitting". I also ask you to compare that with standing order 28. The very last words of standing order 28 are "the next sitting day". I think there is an assumption that in the drafting of these standing orders the words have been used consistently throughout. I argue therefore, Madam Speaker, that a "sitting day" is different from a "sitting". If they were the same thing, presumably we would, when enacting these standing orders, have used the same expression to mean the same thing. They are used in a different sense because they have different meanings. "Sitting day" means a day on which the Assembly sits. A "sitting" is a period of sitting of the Assembly and ought not therefore to be confused with the other.
As far as the standing orders are concerned and as far as the definition of "sitting" is concerned, I would suggest, with respect, that that definition that you have quoted from House of Representatives Practice is a circular one. It reads that a sitting commences pursuant to the standing and sessional orders or in accordance with a resolution of the house at a previous sitting, and concludes with the adjournment of the same sitting. "Adjournment of the sitting" begs the question: What is a sitting? Is a sitting a two-week fortnight, is it a day, or is it a six-month period? I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that in fact a sitting ought to be considered not to be a single day. My support for that view comes from the very next sentence of House of Representatives Practice, which says that the same sitting may extend over more than one day. If a "sitting" means a sitting day, then logically it cannot be over more than one day. But clearly, Madam Speaker, it can. I would argue that this is a matter of some importance and that you ought to consider this advice before you rule on it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .