Page 4179 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think I would be inclined to rule the amendment in order under standing orders 200 and 201; but, because of the unprecedented nature of this and the scope of the potential effect, I propose to take further points of order on the matter. I think that I should hear more of people's views on it before I proceed to rule it in order, because it is such an extraordinary step that is being taken. Would members like to comment on that?
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, I need to take advice on this matter. I would ask whether you might entertain a motion for a short adjournment.
MADAM SPEAKER: I would be prepared to suspend proceedings in order to allow members to prepare their thoughts and then to address me. I could then make a ruling on the matter finally and we could proceed. If members are willing, we will take a suspension and resume on the ringing of the bells.
Mr Cornwell: For how long?
MADAM SPEAKER: Until the ringing of the bells. How do members feel about 20 minutes or thereabouts? We will resume at about 4.00 pm.
Sitting suspended from 3.36 to 4.02 pm
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, I called an arbitrary suspension, but I believe that some people would like more time.
Mr Kaine: We had made up our minds before you suspended the sitting.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is there anyone who wishes to take a point of order on this amendment and my ruling on it?
Mr Humphries: What is your ruling, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: I told you that I was inclined to rule it in order and then listen to any further points of order. If there are no points of order, I rule it in order; and Mr Cornwell can proceed.
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, in moving this amendment to the 1993-94 Appropriation Bill, I state categorically that nothing in subsection 65(1) or (2) of the self-government Act prevents any member of the Assembly from moving such an amendment, in my opinion. The section has been used as an argument against anybody other than a Minister amending the budget. However, a simple reading of the section, particularly subsection (2), indicates that, while there are very definite limits placed upon members, these limits are restricted to increases in a budget in respect of the amount of public money to be disposed of or charged. I remind members that subsection (2) states:
Subsection (1) does not prevent a member other than a Minister from moving an amendment to a proposal made by a Minister unless the object or effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of public money ... to be disposed of or charged.
Mr Stevenson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It is a very important debate and it is difficult to hear, particularly for people in the gallery, I would think.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .