Page 916 - Week 03 - Thursday, 28 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendments proposed to bills during the debate stage of those bills. The provision requires that amendments be presented a day prior, or 24 hours prior, to the sitting day that they are due to be debated.
There has been some confusion in relation to the application of the 24-hour rule and what is the cut-off time for its application. You, Madam Speaker, have indicated that you will interpret the rule as meaning 10 am the day before the sitting that the bill is due to be debated. This is a reasonable interpretation of the standing order given the lack of clarity in the standing orders.
However, it is my view and that of the government that a better time for the cut-off period should be 12 noon on the day prior to the sitting at which the amendment is proposed to be moved. The government takes the view that this is the more practical time insofar as it will allow sufficient time for notice of amendments to be provided to the Clerk’s office and then circulated by the Clerk’s office to members prior to the next day of sitting.
We have some concerns that the 10 am time frame makes it logistically difficult for the Clerk’s office to circulate amendments to members in time. Indeed, it may result in somewhat of a rush of proposals coming in in the starting hours of the day rather than the midday period.
These are matters of interpretation but we argue that this is a more practical application of the rule and one that will allow for its more efficient enforcement. I commend the amendment to members.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.20): It is interesting that the manager of government business should be saying this is a more practical application of the rule when, in fact, it is a new rule, an amendment to the rule. The standing order, as put forward by the minister last year, said “24 hours”. It did not say a day. It did not say the day before. It did not say the sitting day prior. What it said was 24 hours.
It is for that reason I think, Madam Speaker, that your ruling that it should be before 10 am on the sitting day before is quite reasonable, quite practical and, indeed, is a true reflection of the intent of the standing order. I understand that that may not be practical for the government. In fact the opposition foreshadowed that it would not be practical for the government, that it would not be practical for anybody in this place.
It is for that reason that I said at the time that we did not think it was reasonable or possible. I said:
If this amendment gets up, we will not be readily granting leave to the government to suspend standing orders because this is unworkable.
I still stand by those comments. I think it is going to be unworkable, albeit with the new time line. However, it is an improvement. At least there is a little bit more certainty. So the opposition will be allowing Mr Corbell’s amendment to the standing order to go through. However, we once again highlight that we do not think the standing order is in the best interests of the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video