Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3743 ..

MR SPEAKER: Within the 30 days.

Mr Whitecross: This motion is a motion that the Assembly take note of the Minister's explanation of why he breached standing order 118A. That is the issue that Mr Berry is debating. That is the issue before the Chair.

MR SPEAKER: You could have fooled me.

Mr Whitecross: Mr Speaker, in the context of debating the question of the Minister's explanation of why he has breached standing order 118A, it seems to me that it is perfectly in order for Mr Berry to allude to other occasions on which this Minister and other Ministers in this Government have also breached standing order 118A. If the Government do not like the medicine, then they ought to give some consideration to complying with standing order 118A, and then we would not be able to debate these motions. If the Government complies with standing order 118A, it will be impossible for any member to move this motion.

MR BERRY: This example of where the Minister has not complied with the standing order and replied to the question within 30 days - - -

Mr Kaine: I raise a point or order, Mr Speaker. Could I ask on what basis Mr Berry is on his feet? Is he taking a point of order? Is he engaging in some debate that does not exist? Why is he on his feet?

MR SPEAKER: I am amazed at the length to which this debate is running, considering that Ministers in the past from both sides have missed complying with the 30-day rule. This is becoming farcical, members. The undertaking has been given by Mr Humphries, as I understand it, to provide Ms Horodny with an explanation as to why the 30 days rule was not complied with.

Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There is a motion before the Assembly. It is not up to you to determine how members respond to a motion, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, it is not for you to determine what we will debate. We have a motion before the Assembly. Mr Speaker, it is entirely proper for Mr Berry to debate that issue. That is why the motion is before the Assembly. It is grossly unfair for the Government to keep interrupting that debate.

MR SPEAKER: The motion is that the Assembly take note of the explanation.

MR BERRY: No, Mr Speaker; wrong - the paltry explanation.

Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like you to reconsider your comment that it is farcical for this Assembly to be debating within our standing orders a motion moved within our standing orders, a motion which we all understand. It is not a matter of whether you personally agree to the debate or not. Nor do I believe it is up to you to refer to members so debating within our standing orders as farcical. I think you should reconsider that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .