Mr ADAMSON - 1994-09-01
Mr Speaker, yesterday a considerable amount of the Assembly's time was taken up with a vital issue for all Territorians - the procedures involved in the adjournment debate. In that light, can the Chief Minister provide the House with recent examples of occasions when a minister or the Leader of Government Business has moved that the Assembly adjourn and then exercised a right of reply?
Mr Ede: Simply because it has happened does not make it right.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 132
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, yesterday, obviously the Leader of the Opposition was totally unaware that it has been a regular practice in this Assembly for the mover of the adjournment to exercise a right of reply. In fact, he said that it 'has never happened in this way'. He accused you, Mr Speaker, of being incompetent and said that you do not know your job. Referring to himself, he said:
Others of us who have been here as long as that have spent a little time getting to know the rules of this place.
He was taken by surprise and took a great interest when one example was pulled out during the debate. He rushed across the Chamber to obtain the relevant Parliamentary Record to check that we were right about that example. The member for Wanguri interjected that we had to refer back 5 years to find an example. I have had the Parliamentary Record perused to obtain some other examples because members on this side are well aware that it has been a regular practice. Indeed, it happened as recently as March this year.
It was not necessary for us to refer back 5 years to find an example. The first occasion I found was in 1984. In fact, it was the second sitting day in this House for the Class of '84, of which I understand that the Leader of the Opposition probably is a member. Page 125 of the Parliamentary Record indicates that, on 29 February 1984, the adjournment was moved by Mr Dondas. Page 131 indicates that he spoke in reply closing the adjournment debate. In those days, the Leader of the Opposition was that stickler for rules, Mr Collins. However, he did not bat an eyelid or take any exception. That occurred on the second sitting day that the now Leader of the Opposition was in this House.
The next occasion that I found was on 26 May 1988 when, at page 3429 of the Parliamentary Record, Tom Harris moved the adjournment and, at page 3447, he closed the debate. Mr Hatton moved the adjournment and spoke subsequently, closing the adjournment, on 22 November 1989. On 27 February 1990, Mr Hatton moved the adjournment and spoke in closing. Mr Setter moved the adjournment on 21 August 1991 and spoke in closing. On 10 October 1991, Mr Setter moved the adjournment. In fact, on that occasion, Mr Ede was the first to jump to his feet ...
Mr Ede: No, I was not.
Mr PERRON: ... after the adjournment was moved and Mr Setter spoke in closing the adjournment. Mr Setter moved the adjournment on 20 November 1991. On that occasion, Mr Bailey was the first to jump to his feet and receive the nod. Mr Setter closed that adjournment debate. I did not have to refer back 5 years to find an example because, on 1 March 1994 ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that he is misrepresenting my position which is that the rules of this House were being broken. As he well knows, rules take precedence over precedents, if I can put it like that.
Mr Reed: You have been asleep for the last 10 years.
Page 133
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr PERRON: If the Leader of the Opposition consults Hansard, he will see quite clearly that he referred to 'practice'. He said that it had not been the practice of this House for the mover of the adjournment to later speak in that debate. I am sorry, but it has been the practice.
Mr Ede: I based it on standing order 77. Anyway, that was not what the motion was all about.
Mr PERRON: That was the entire basis of your argument yesterday. I quote from page 5 of yesterday's unrevised Hansard. You said: 'It has never happened'.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This is a little difficult because my understanding of standing orders is that we are not supposed to refer back to previous debates. However, if we are referring back to previous debates, the Chief Minister knows that that was a motion of dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. I attempted to make it quite clear that he would not allow me to have a reply in closing debate. I attempted to make it quite clear at the end that the point was ...
Mr Finch: This is a personal explanation. You can make it later.
Mr EDE: It is not, Mr Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr EDE: It is a matter of the standing orders in relation to the previous debate. The previous debate was whether you yourself should have closed it or whether it should have been left to the House to decide on the matter of expungement. Mr Speaker, I would like your ruling as to whether we have the ability to continue in this way to refer back to that debate and decide what was ...
Members interjecting.
Mr EDE: ... or whether that contravenes standing orders.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to make a personal explanation if he so wishes at the proper time. There is no point of order.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I would like to draw to the attention of the Chief Minister, who has been a member of this House for 20 years and should be aware of it, that it is a breach of standing orders to quote directly from the uncorrected Hansard.
Mr Coulter: He qualified it by saying that.
Mr BELL: He qualified it, and then he did it!
Mr Coulter: Yes.
Page 134
Mr BELL: Are you saying that that is not a breach of standing orders?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Once again, it has been a practice of both sides of this House to quote from the uncorrected Hansard, and I am aware of a number of occasions when that has occurred.
Mr PERRON: I have made my point. Mr Speaker, I table a list of the occasions to which I referred, together with the relevant page numbers in the Parliamentary Record so that members opposite can check to ensure that I have not been incorrect in any way. My point is that it has been a regular practice for at least a decade in this House.
Mr Ede: It is still against the rules.
Mr PERRON: Indeed, that demolishes the opposition's outrageous motion of dissent from the Chair yesterday because that was exactly what it was based upon.
Mr Ede: No.
Mr PERRON: It had no other foundation than the fact that it has never happened before and that the Speaker would not rule to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr PERRON: ... expunge an adjournment debate where ...
Mr Ede: The Speaker does not rule to expunge it. That is done by way of a motion. I attempted to obtain leave to move a motion.
Mr PERRON: The statements against you, Mr Speaker, and the abuse that you received yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition were absolutely and totally unfounded, and this demonstrates it.
Page 135
Mr Ede: Simply because it has happened does not make it right.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 132
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, yesterday, obviously the Leader of the Opposition was totally unaware that it has been a regular practice in this Assembly for the mover of the adjournment to exercise a right of reply. In fact, he said that it 'has never happened in this way'. He accused you, Mr Speaker, of being incompetent and said that you do not know your job. Referring to himself, he said:
Others of us who have been here as long as that have spent a little time getting to know the rules of this place.
He was taken by surprise and took a great interest when one example was pulled out during the debate. He rushed across the Chamber to obtain the relevant Parliamentary Record to check that we were right about that example. The member for Wanguri interjected that we had to refer back 5 years to find an example. I have had the Parliamentary Record perused to obtain some other examples because members on this side are well aware that it has been a regular practice. Indeed, it happened as recently as March this year.
It was not necessary for us to refer back 5 years to find an example. The first occasion I found was in 1984. In fact, it was the second sitting day in this House for the Class of '84, of which I understand that the Leader of the Opposition probably is a member. Page 125 of the Parliamentary Record indicates that, on 29 February 1984, the adjournment was moved by Mr Dondas. Page 131 indicates that he spoke in reply closing the adjournment debate. In those days, the Leader of the Opposition was that stickler for rules, Mr Collins. However, he did not bat an eyelid or take any exception. That occurred on the second sitting day that the now Leader of the Opposition was in this House.
The next occasion that I found was on 26 May 1988 when, at page 3429 of the Parliamentary Record, Tom Harris moved the adjournment and, at page 3447, he closed the debate. Mr Hatton moved the adjournment and spoke subsequently, closing the adjournment, on 22 November 1989. On 27 February 1990, Mr Hatton moved the adjournment and spoke in closing. Mr Setter moved the adjournment on 21 August 1991 and spoke in closing. On 10 October 1991, Mr Setter moved the adjournment. In fact, on that occasion, Mr Ede was the first to jump to his feet ...
Mr Ede: No, I was not.
Mr PERRON: ... after the adjournment was moved and Mr Setter spoke in closing the adjournment. Mr Setter moved the adjournment on 20 November 1991. On that occasion, Mr Bailey was the first to jump to his feet and receive the nod. Mr Setter closed that adjournment debate. I did not have to refer back 5 years to find an example because, on 1 March 1994 ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that he is misrepresenting my position which is that the rules of this House were being broken. As he well knows, rules take precedence over precedents, if I can put it like that.
Mr Reed: You have been asleep for the last 10 years.
Page 133
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr PERRON: If the Leader of the Opposition consults Hansard, he will see quite clearly that he referred to 'practice'. He said that it had not been the practice of this House for the mover of the adjournment to later speak in that debate. I am sorry, but it has been the practice.
Mr Ede: I based it on standing order 77. Anyway, that was not what the motion was all about.
Mr PERRON: That was the entire basis of your argument yesterday. I quote from page 5 of yesterday's unrevised Hansard. You said: 'It has never happened'.
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This is a little difficult because my understanding of standing orders is that we are not supposed to refer back to previous debates. However, if we are referring back to previous debates, the Chief Minister knows that that was a motion of dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. I attempted to make it quite clear that he would not allow me to have a reply in closing debate. I attempted to make it quite clear at the end that the point was ...
Mr Finch: This is a personal explanation. You can make it later.
Mr EDE: It is not, Mr Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr EDE: It is a matter of the standing orders in relation to the previous debate. The previous debate was whether you yourself should have closed it or whether it should have been left to the House to decide on the matter of expungement. Mr Speaker, I would like your ruling as to whether we have the ability to continue in this way to refer back to that debate and decide what was ...
Members interjecting.
Mr EDE: ... or whether that contravenes standing orders.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to make a personal explanation if he so wishes at the proper time. There is no point of order.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I would like to draw to the attention of the Chief Minister, who has been a member of this House for 20 years and should be aware of it, that it is a breach of standing orders to quote directly from the uncorrected Hansard.
Mr Coulter: He qualified it by saying that.
Mr BELL: He qualified it, and then he did it!
Mr Coulter: Yes.
Page 134
Mr BELL: Are you saying that that is not a breach of standing orders?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Once again, it has been a practice of both sides of this House to quote from the uncorrected Hansard, and I am aware of a number of occasions when that has occurred.
Mr PERRON: I have made my point. Mr Speaker, I table a list of the occasions to which I referred, together with the relevant page numbers in the Parliamentary Record so that members opposite can check to ensure that I have not been incorrect in any way. My point is that it has been a regular practice for at least a decade in this House.
Mr Ede: It is still against the rules.
Mr PERRON: Indeed, that demolishes the opposition's outrageous motion of dissent from the Chair yesterday because that was exactly what it was based upon.
Mr Ede: No.
Mr PERRON: It had no other foundation than the fact that it has never happened before and that the Speaker would not rule to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr PERRON: ... expunge an adjournment debate where ...
Mr Ede: The Speaker does not rule to expunge it. That is done by way of a motion. I attempted to obtain leave to move a motion.
Mr PERRON: The statements against you, Mr Speaker, and the abuse that you received yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition were absolutely and totally unfounded, and this demonstrates it.
Page 135
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016