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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1800 ..

MR SPEAKER (continuing):

I apologise for the matter coming up this late, but the amendments have been tabled and I think that it is important that we deal with the issue. Standing order 181 states:

An amendment may be moved to any part of the bill, provided it is within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and otherwise conforms with the standing orders.

House of Representatives Practice, to which we are linked through standing order 275, provides examples-I direct members to page 362 of the fourth edition-of amendments that have been ruled out of order because they were held to be not within the scope of the bill, not consistent with the context of the bill.

The long title of the bill is "A Bill for an Act to amend the Gaming Machine Act". The bill has four clauses, with the first three being the standard clauses of the title, the principal act and the commencement clause. The explanatory statement to the bill indicates that the main provision of the bill, clause 4, amends subsection 23A (2) of the principal act by changing the expiry date of division 2A of the principal act.

It goes on to explain the provisions of division 2A of the principal act, stating that it relates to the restriction on the number of gaming machines permitted to be licensed in the territory. The presentation speech to the bill states that it is a very simple piece of legislation that extends the current restrictions on the number of gaming machines that can be licensed in the territory.

The question arises whether amendments proposed to be moved by Ms Dundas and Mr Stefaniak are within the title or relevant to the subject matter of the bill. The long title is fairly broad and one could make the assumption that, because the bill amends the principal act, any amendment that also amends the principal act would be in order.

However, the practice of the Assembly has been not to allow amendments that are outside the scope of the bill. Examples could be, for example, where the long title of a bill was "A Bill for an Act to amend the Motor Traffic Act 1937"and the bill dealt with speed limits outside schools. If our practice were followed, an amendment dealing with the weights and dimensions of articulated vehicles would be ruled out of order, even though it was within the long title of the bill.

The basis of such practice and rules is to ensure that "business, especially legislation, is conducted in an orderly, open and predictable manner devoid of surprise, haste or sleight of hand". I refer members to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 10th edition, page 19. Even if other members were alerted to the amendment, it could not be guaranteed and it would be hard to assume that community groups or other interested parties would be aware of such a proposal contained in an amendment.

That is particularly relevant in this Assembly because we have a unicameral Assembly and there is no house of review or place of review in relation to legislation passed here. The question then arises whether the amendments are relevant to the subject matter of the bill. The subject matter of the bill would appear to be the extension of the operation of division 2A of the principal act from 30 June 2003 to 30 June 2004 and the issue of what will be the number of gaming machines that the cap should be set at.

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