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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3176 ..

Debate resumed from 28 August 1997, on motion by Mr Kaine:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Motion (by Mr Humphries) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

MR CORBELL (5.50): Mr Speaker, I raise an issue that has caused me some concern. I communicated to the Manager of Government Business, Mr Humphries, late last week that the Labor Party had made a decision in relation to pairing and how we assist the Government and the Government assists us when members are absent from this chamber. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Government and the Opposition cooperate by pairing members so that a member from one side does not take part in divisions if a member from the other side is absent for some bona fide reason. I communicated to the Manager of Government Business late last week that the Labor Party room had made a decision not to honour pairs for the purposes of procedural votes; that is, votes in the chamber where an absolute majority - nine votes - is required.

I made it very clear to Mr Humphries that this in no way meant that existing pairs were being dishonoured or that we would not honour pairs on deliberative votes in this chamber - votes on Bills, votes on matters of no confidence and the like. We would, of course, honour pairs on deliberative votes. Our decision related to votes where an absolute majority is required. I am sure members can recall that about two months ago a majority of groups in this Assembly decided that they wanted to bring business on contrary to the will of the Government. A motion to that effect fell one vote short of being carried, because a pair was in operation, even though a clear majority of the Assembly wished to bring that business on. I also indicated to Mr Humphries that, if he had any concerns and wished to discuss this matter further with me, he could do so. I did not hear anything from Mr Humphries - not a word. I presumed that when the communication was delivered to his office last Thursday he understood the party's position and would take it into account in his planning for this sitting week.

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