Page 4911 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
MR SPEAKER (Mr Rattenbury) took the chair at 10 am and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Education Amendment Bill 2009 (No 2)
Ruling by Speaker
MR SPEAKER: Yesterday Mr Doszpot introduced the Education Amendment Bill 2009 (No 2). Immediately after the bill had been presented, Mr Barr raised a point of order seeking my ruling as to whether the bill contravened the provisions of standing order 136.
Standing order 136 states:
Same question may be disallowed.
The Speaker may disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during that calendar year, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution or vote on such question or amendment has been rescinded.
Thus, any motion or amendment that was the same in substance as that considered by the Assembly on 13 October 2009 when it considered the Education Amendment Bill 2009, which was negatived in the detail stage, or Mr Doszpot’s amendments, which were also negatived during the detail stage, would mean that I have the discretion to disallow Mr Doszpot’s bill.
A comparison of Mr Doszpot’s bill with both his amendments and the Education Amendment Bill 2009 reveals that 19 of the 21 clauses of the bill are exactly the same as the bill that was negatived at the detail stage on 13 October 2009, with the exception that the previous bill in one clause provided for a period of 10 days suspension, while the current bill provides for 20 days.
One clause contains a different commencement date. Mr Doszpot’s bill is 1 February 2010, whereas the previous bill was 1 January 2010. There is one clause in Mr Doszpot’s bill, clause 4, which is not in the previous bill which relates to the issuing of guidelines about students returning to school after suspension, as well as requiring the minister to review the first year of operation of the guidelines and present that review to the Assembly.
Having considered the matter, it is my view that the bill, whilst containing some slightly different material, is essentially the same in substance as the bill that was negatived by the Assembly on 13 October 2009. Therefore, I rule it out of order and order it to be removed from the notice paper.
My attention has also been drawn to the fact that Mr Doszpot’s notice of intention to present the bill does not agree with the long title of the bill, thus offending standing