Forms of question on Council amendments (subsection 3) (2002 precedent for S.O.246 of 1994)

(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to):

1. Legislative Council amendments to a bill were being considered in the Committee of the Whole when a member sought to move other amendments to it. The Chairman advised the member that he was out of order as he could not introduce amendments that were not relevant to the Legislative Council amendments and should seek the advice of the Clerks. The member went on the make some general comments about the clauses of the bill.
PD 25/9/02, 5429
Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings
Standing Order 246 of 1994 (Repealed)246. Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either: (1) Agreed to; (2) Agreed to with an amendment or amendments; (3) Disagreed to; (4) Postponed as an Order of the Day or (5) The bill ordered to be laid aside. As to (1): A message shall be sent informing the Council that the amendments have been agreed to. As to (2): The bill shall be returned with a schedule of the amendments to the Council amendments, certified by the Clerk, in a message desiring the concurrence of the Council. As to (3): A message giving reasons for the disagreement shall be sent; the Member in charge of the bill drawing up reasons. As to (4): Postponed by the Member in charge as an Order of the Day. As to (5): A message shall be sent informing the Council that the bill has been laid aside.
2002 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. Legislative Council amendments to a bill were being considered in the Committee of the Whole when a member sought to move other amendments to it. The Chairman advised the member that he was out of order as he could not introduce amendments that were not relevant to the Legislative Council amendments and should seek the advice of the Clerks. The member went on the make some general comments about the clauses of the bill. PD 25/9/02, 5429
2000 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): Standing and Sessional Orders suspended to permit the consideration in Committee of the Whole of a motion in relation to the Dairy Industry Bill "That the Legislative Assembly insists on its disagreement a second time to Legislative Council amendments". Motion to insist on the disagreement to the Legislative Council amendments a second time, agreed to on division; message sent to Legislative Council with reasons. VP 29/06/00, 680
1998 Precedent(In relation to subsection 2 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (2) Agreed to with an amendment or amendments): 1. Legislative Council amendment disagreed to and further amendment made. Temporary Chairman noted that a strict reading of Standing Order 246 does not permit further amendments consequential to disagreement to a Legislative Council amendment. However, it has been the ongoing practice in the committee of the whole since at least 1879 that further amendments are allowed in response to a Legislative Council amendment so long as those amendments are consequential upon rejection of that amendment. That practice has been allowed to facilitate agreement between the Houses on a point of concern. It does not allow the introduction of amendments not relevant to the Legislative Council amendments. VP 28/10/98, 1008-14 PD 28/10/98, 9286 2. Standing Order 89(7) does not permit debate on the message to the Council giving reasons for amendments. PD 28/10/98, 9292
1998 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. The Legislative Assembly rejected a Council amendment because it was of the view that the vote on the amendment in the Council was improperly recorded as neither the Government nor the Opposition supported the amendment. VP 25/11/98, 1144
1997 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. The House disagreed with Council amendments on an Assembly bill and proposed further amendments in the bill, giving its reasons. VP 18/06/97, 1023
1994 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. Message sent to the Legislative Council disagreeing with the amendments made to the Protected Disclosures Bill. The Legislative Council did not insist upon its amendments. PD 2/12/94, 6248, 6289, 6290 2. Message sent to the Legislative Council proposing an amendment to amendment no 2 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (Amendment) Bill. PD 2/12/94, 6278
1993 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. Message sent to the Legislative Council agreeing to an amendment to the Mines Inspection (Amendment) Bill, but proposing a further amendment. VP 28/4/93, 188
1992 Precedent(In relation to subsection 3 [ Amendments made by the Council to an Assembly bill shall be either:] (3) Disagreed to): 1. Message sent to Legislative Council agreeing to Council amendments Nos 1,3,4,5,6,7 and 10, disagreeing to Council amendments Nos 2, 8, and 9 and proposing further amendments to the bill, with reasons emphasising that the proposed amendments are not in derogation of the principles incorporated in the bill and that the Assembly does not desire its action be drawn into a precedent by either House. Council message reported that Council was not insisting on its amendments 2, 8 & 9 and agreeing to Assembly's further amendments Nos 1 to 12 for the reasons given by the Assembly and on the understanding that such agreement is not to be drawn into a precedent. PD 10/3/92, 878, 885, 913, 917, 921, 924, 930. VP 10/3/92 and 11/3/92am, 113, 115-122 and 17/3/92, 126 2. Message sent to Legislative Council disagreeing to Council's amendments to the Swimming Pools Bill because they were too restrictive. Legislative Council did not insist upon its amendments. PD 30/6/92, 4799, 4863


« Return to Precedents index