Page 467 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Suspension of Standing and Temporary Orders
MR LAMONT (11.38): Madam Speaker, I move:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Lamont from moving the motion of disallowance relating to approved Variation No. 5, North Watson, that he has given to the Clerk, forthwith and that this motion have precedence over all other business until any question relating to the motion has been resolved by the Assembly.
I have moved this motion as a result of the 35-minute filibuster by Mr Moore.
Mr Moore: If I was filibustering I would have gone through to 12.30 pm.
MR LAMONT: Not even you, speaking under water, could last until 12.30 pm, Mr Moore. The simple fact is that the time for Assembly business, where the disallowance motion tabled by Mr Moore yesterday appears, expired this morning at 11.33. I would be generous and suggest that Michael might not have known that it would expire at 11.33 am and that automatically his disallowance motion would take its position on the notice paper during the next sitting period. The quite simple position is that the time for Assembly business has expired.
Mr Moore: We are in private members business.
MR LAMONT: I understand that; but if you read your temporary and standing orders, Mr Moore, you would realise that at this time Assembly business finishes because executive business takes precedence. You are aware of that, I understand. Mr Moore has just read his standing orders, and he is aware of that. It would mean that this disallowance motion, which was put on the notice paper yesterday with the expectation of being dealt with today, would not be dealt with today. The proposition to suspend all temporary and standing orders would allow the motion for disallowance that I have handed to the Clerk to be moved. The effect is therefore the same - that the question of disallowance will be debated this morning and determined today.
Madam Speaker, as chair of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, in the negotiations that occurred about the recommendations, it was quite clear that during the period of disallowance - within the five sitting days of the period of disallowance - we believed that it was appropriate for the Access Economics report to be tabled and for this matter to be determined. That is a view that I strongly hold to. Nothing Mr Moore has said in his previous discussions this morning has swayed me from the view that, similar to the views enunciated last week by his colleague Ms Szuty when this report was tabled, there is nothing in either Professor Neutze's comments or the Access Economics view that would lead me to believe that this variation should not proceed. Madam Speaker, that is the reason why I have moved for the suspension of standing orders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .