Page 3717 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 18 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be introduced by the executive. It is not an enactment for the appropriation of public money of the territory—section 65(1) self-government act and standing order 200.
Once the betting tax bill becomes law and commences, public moneys raised by the imposition of the tax will be paid into consolidated revenue. The moneys so raised may only be expended in accordance with the appropriation under section 6 of the Financial Management Act.
The amendment to the betting tax bill proposed by Mr Parton purports to effect an appropriation of public moneys raised by the tax. As such, it is contrary to section 65 of the self-government act. It is for this reason and based on the advice of the officers I have referred to in this statement that I have ruled the amendment to be out of order, and that ruling is maintained.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.23): With your indulgence, if I might ask, does your power to rule this amendment out of order come from the self-government act or from the standing resolution of this Assembly?
MADAM SPEAKER: My power to rule this out of order comes from advice based on the self-government act, section 65, which was reflected in the standing orders. I have made the ruling. It was questioned this afternoon. I have maintained that this amendment is out of order.
MR COE: I understand that you maintain it is out of order but what I am getting at is that I am not sure that the self-government act gives you the power to rule the amendment out of order. What I think gives you that power is the standing orders, in particular the continuing resolution. Therefore, if it is simply a continuing resolution, we would have the ability to seek that standing orders be suspended in order for that amendment to be moved and voted upon.
I understand that the Assembly would have to go in with our eyes open as to whether we were to vote for this amendment but, just in the same way as we voted as an Assembly for the gay marriage bill—we went in with our eyes open in that debate—we do the same here. And in the event that that amendment were passed, it would then be open to challenge perhaps if a jurisdiction chose to challenge it; or if it did not get up, then of course there would be no further consequence.
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, please give me a moment. I think the premise of your question, what you are asking me, is: by what powers am I saying this is out of order? This Assembly in many ways is determined through its standing orders. On page 45, if you look at 200, 201, 201A and if you look at the footnote, it does reference section 65. Our standing orders are empowered by or reflect the self-government act under section 65 and they give me the power to say whether something is or is not in order. And I have determined that it is out of order.
MR COE: That is the same for everything, though. It is all discretionary. It is all discretionary until a court determines otherwise.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video