Page 1055 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But I would say to Mrs Dunne through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is important to stress that the workability of this is very much in the hands of the Assembly itself. Certainly, whilst the standing order says that the standing order can be dispensed with by leave of the Assembly, there are also mechanisms for an absolute majority in this place to dispense with that standing order, should there be dispute. For example, if a majority of members believed that a matter was urgent but a minority of members did not and they did not grant leave, there would still be scope for suspension of standing orders to occur to permit the standing order to be dispensed with on that occasion. I do not believe it creates a deadlock situation in the Assembly or a situation where a small number of members—certainly not a majority of members—can hinder the debate on amendments that are perceived to be urgent, technical, minor or in response to comment made by the scrutiny committee itself.
I do not envisage there being much dispute about when an amendment is proposed by the government in response to comment by the scrutiny committee itself. I think that is going to be able to be quite clear to be able to identify. Equally, I think minor and technical amendments, generally speaking, are not going to be areas for much dispute, although potentially more than in the first instance. I think where there will be perhaps greater level for dispute is whether a matter is considered to be urgent and governments and others may have different views about what is urgent. But, as I say, this is a matter that will need to be worked through, and I trust that the Assembly conducts itself and applies the standing order in a sensible fashion. The government will closely monitor that.
As I said also in my introductory comments, the real issue here is that, if it is good parliamentary practice for government amendments to be scrutinised by the scrutiny of bills committee, then it is good parliamentary practice for all amendments to all bills to be scrutinised by the scrutiny of bills committee. That is something which I have said that we need to think about further. It is not something that entered into the discussions in preparation for this amendment, and that is why I have not sought to make that change at this time. But I do flag again that the government is likely to suggest at some point later this year that this standing order apply to all amendments to all bills. As I said, if it is good practice for the executive, it is good practice for everyone who is suggesting changes to the ACT statute.
With those comments, I thank Mrs Dunne for her contribution and I also thank Mr Rattenbury for his comments. I have been pleased with how we have been able to negotiate all of these changes to the standing orders. The standing orders of this place are the rule book, and it is important to try, wherever possible, to get changes to those rules through a process of discussion and collaboration. I think we have overwhelmingly been able to achieve that very well. I thank all parties for their cooperation in that. As I say, the government is willing to support Mrs Dunne’s amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .