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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3424 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

In discussion with colleagues, it has been suggested that the motion may be clarified if it refers to Subordinate Law No. 23. I seek leave to amend the motion by inserting the words "as amended by Subordinate Law No. 23 of 1999" after "Subordinate Law No. 15 of 1999".

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: Again, we return to the issue of women's rights on termination being trampled by narrow moral views in this chamber. I make the point at the outset of this debate that the - - -

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Berry has moved to disallow Subordinate Laws No. 15 and No. 23 of 1999. Members will recall that we had a debate only a few weeks ago in this place about Subordinate Law No. 15. Mr Berry now seeks to debate that and another subordinate law, one which, incidentally, I think he would say improves Subordinate Law No. 15. Standing order 136 says:

Neither motion has been rescinded, Mr Speaker. The issue, I would argue, is substantially the same. In fact, as far as Subordinate Law No. 15 is concerned, it is extremely similar. The whole of the schedule is to be removed, according to Mr Berry's amendment, and substantial parts of the regulation that makes the schedule are also removed. Apart from just a couple of sentences, the effect of the motion is the same as the motion that Mr Berry moved back in June of this year. I would argue that this is in breach of standing order 136.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, can I respond to that?

MR SPEAKER: No. Mr Berry, just excuse me for a moment. It has been drawn to my attention that there may be a problem with this matter. It is up to me. It is at my discretion. I would just like to make a statement to the house.

Standing Order 136 does give me discretion to disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question which, during the current calendar year, has been resolved in the affirmative or in the negative. The key question is whether the motion to amend the subordinate law would have a different effect to the previous motion if it had been agreed to. Should the Assembly agree to the amendment proposed by Mr Berry to the regulations, substantively, it would provide that the Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, copies of documents containing only approved material are made available free of charge.

The issue of the application of the same question rule in this case is difficult to determine. However, in the circumstances I am prepared to use the discretion provided by standing order 136 to allow debate to proceed. You may proceed, Mr Berry.

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