Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting these amendments, but we will take a closer look at them and, when we have had a chance to look at them properly, we reserve our right to make our decision in the other place.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That amendments (50) to (58) be made:

(50)  Schedule 3, item 1, page 47 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:

1  Subsection 8A(6)

After “or (3A)”, insert “or 93AC(1) or (2)”.

(51)  Schedule 3, item 11, page 56 (lines 23 and 24), omit the item, substitute:

11  Subsection 93A(1)

After “or (3A)”, insert “or 93AC(1) or (2)”.

(52)  Schedule 3, item 12, page 56 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:

12  Subsections 93A(3), (4) and (10A)

After “or (3A)”, insert “or 93AC(1) or (2)”.

(53)  Schedule 3, item 19, page 57 (lines 13 to 16), omit the item and the note, substitute:

19  Section 101A

After “or (3A)”, insert “or 93AC(1) or (2)”.

Note:                The heading to section 101A is altered by inserting “or 93AC(1) or (2)” after “or (3A)”.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: for the purposes of consistency and for the record of the House, I ask you to consider whether under standing order 160 these amendments are within the scope of the message.

Mr Melham interjecting

The member for Banks does not have the call and he knows that interjections are out of order. The question is that the further amendments be agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to rule on whether or not—

That is a fair indication of where I am going!

All right, you have ruled that the amendments are within the scope of the bill?

The question is that the further amendments be agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I will still argue that these amendments are outside the scope of the bill. I do not want to show any disrespect for the clerks. I note of course that our own amendments have been ruled out of order. There is one rule for one side and another rule for the other side. That is nothing unusual, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer was trying to make a big point about which amendments he was moving at any given particular time. How is the opposition supposed to know which amendments are potentially outside the scope of the bill and which are not when they throw 58 amendments at us two minutes before the bill is debated? I note what is effectively your ruling on this matter but I think that it is still important for the opposition to make these points. As I suggested earlier, it could have consequences for the law once enacted by the parliament.

See this speech in context