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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2569 ..

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted-

Ayes 9 Noes 8

Mr Berry Ms MacDonald Mr Cornwell Mr Smyth

Mr Corbell Mr Quinlan Mrs Dunne Mr Stefaniak

Mrs Cross Mr Stanhope Mr Hargreaves Mr Wood

Ms Dundas Ms Tucker Mr Humphries

Ms Gallagher Mr Pratt

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Standing order 136

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne asked me for a ruling earlier this afternoon. She raised a point of order concerning the application of the same question rule to order of the day No 3, Ms Gallagher's Medical Practitioners (Maternal Health Amendment) Bill 2002.

Standing order 136, which is the same question rule, gives the chair a discretion to disallow any motion or amendment the same in substance as any question resolved in the affirmative or negative during that calendar year.

Order of the day No 3, Ms Gallagher's bill, is not the same in substance as order of the day No 1, which we have just passed, or order of the day No 2, which it specifically applies to. But it does reinsert certain provisions which are very similar to certain of those contained in the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act, the act that Mr Berry's second bill seeks to repeal.

In addressing the application of the same question rule to bills, House of Representatives Practice, at page 343, states:

In using his or her discretion in respect of a bill the Speaker-

in this case the Deputy Speaker-

would pay regard to the purpose of the rule, which is to prevent obstruction or unnecessary repetition, and the reason for the second bill.

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