Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

Respectfully, I disagree on one aspect of that. Technically, that's true, but standing order 160 stands in its own right. It doesn't say that an amendment can't be moved, really. If it's seen to breach standing order 160 it's that it not be put before the House for a vote. That's really what it's saying. Certainly, I would argue, that it's absolutely within the right of the Speaker not only to see the amendment but to hear the justification for why the amendment is being made and to hear the points of order—as we're hearing now.

There certainly have been occasions—not many in my Speakership—where amendments have been ruled out, and I think quite justifiably, but without an opportunity for any debate. They were really ruled out with an iron fist, if you like. I haven't taken that course; I actually wanted to hear from the member for Nicholls, to see whether my view would be altered by any details that he would put forward to actually show that connection.

Let me be very clear about it: I think that the Manager of Opposition Business is trying to say that the House gave leave, and I understand the point he's making. But that doesn't then mean—just by the mere moving of an amendment that might breach 160, if a decision is taken by the chair that it indeed does—just because leave has been granted that a determination can't be made prior to the amendment being voted upon. That's certainly my view. I will happily hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

See this speech in context