Speaker’s Rulings — Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill—Amendment

Before I put the House into committee, I need to rule on an amendment to clause 3 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adams. The member sought advice from the Office of the Clerk on the time the amendment would need to be lodged to meet the requirements of Standing Order 330. She was advised that the amendment had to be lodged 24 hours before it would be debated. In fact, Standing Order 330 requires an amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates to be lodged at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day the amendment is to be proposed. As a result, Ms Adams lodged her amendment at 3.54 p.m. yesterday when the deadline under Standing Order 330 was 2 p.m. While the amendment has been on the Table of the House for more than 24 hours now, it is technically out of order.

Where a member does not comply with the Standing Order in these circumstances—in these very specific circumstances—I do not think they should be penalised to the extent that would occur in this case. An amendment that is out of order cannot be debated or voted on. I am ruling that Ms Adams’ amendment is in order and can be debated and voted on. Of course it is open to the Government to vote against the amendment or to veto it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve just had a half-hour debate about a mistake that was made by another member, despite undertakings that that was not going to be debated. The Government strongly objects to the course of action you have taken. A mistake was made on the other side of the House. They should wear the consequences of that and you should not be unilaterally amending the Standing Orders. It’s not a question of amending a Speaker’s ruling; these are the primary Standing Orders that you are seeking to change, and the Government does not support that course of action.

I thank the member for his comments and I realise that it is a radical Speaker’s ruling that I have made because it does stretch by an hour and 55 minutes the technicalities of the Standing Orders. But having said that, Speakers’ rulings are for me to make, and I am making a decision as a result of advice that was incorrect, given by an agency which is my responsibility, and the Government is no worse off than it would have been if the member had received the proper advice and had lodged it an hour and 55 minutes earlier.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course, as Speaker you have an ability and an obligation, in fact, to make Speakers’ rulings in accordance and consistently with the Standing Orders. The ruling you have just made is not consistent with the Standing Orders. I accept the Opposition were provided with bad advice. Yesterday, the Government was provided with bad advice and we just wore the consequences of that. And I’m afraid where bad advice is provided, those providing it need to tighten their act up, but simply unilaterally changing the Standing Orders is not the way to fix up the problem.

I accept the member’s view that it is undesirable. It is not a good position to be in, but one of my responsibilities—a big part of my responsibility in this House—is to make sure that the minority in the House have the ability to have their say. I think it’s also fair to say that there are not many matters that are much more important than annual taxation matters. The ability to oppose and propose is something which is inherent in our democracy and our Westminster system, and, in my view, the interpretation of the Standing Orders is something which is for me. While I accept that this is a long stretch and one which I hope will not be repeated, and certainly, given the fact that I’ve made this ruling now, it will not be a precedent—it cannot be a precedent—I have made a considered decision, and I will therefore declare the House in committee for consideration of those bills.