HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

DEPUTY SPEAKER'S RULING, DISSENT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:41): I move:

That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be disagreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I dissent from your ruling. I may not have heard it correctly but my understanding is that the mover of the amendment called on the state government to continue to provide services—it may have been 'and facilities'—consistent with the part of the Health Care Plan in respect of chronic pain, etc.

I wish to present to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in dissenting from your ruling on this, that this current motion seeks a review of the facilities and services based on a whole lot of issues that the mover has raised. The mover of the amendment has proposed that we continue to proceed with the same services we have. Madam Deputy Speaker, I put to you that, in fact, that is in direct contradiction to the original motion because the mover has proposed that there be some inquiry into a number of concerns raised but the amendment proposes an entirely different purport than the motion—that is, that everything we have is fine; let's just continue it. That is really not what is being asked by the mover of the original motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, you need to provide the dissent in writing.

Ms CHAPMAN: May I have a copy of the amended motion which was also in writing and handed to you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy leader, have you moved your motion of dissent?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

An honourable member: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case, one speaker is permitted to speak for 10 minutes in support of the motion of dissent and one speaker is permitted to speak for 10 minutes against the motion of dissent.

Ms CHAPMAN: The motion currently before the house is to call upon the state government to review facilities and services available for the clientele that we are talking about, that is, people in chronic pain. The amendment proposed by the member for Morialta (as I read it) calls upon the state government to continue to provide services to those suffering from chronic pain as part of the Health Care Plan, which aims to improve the health care of South Australians.

That is quite different from the purport of the first motion. The mover—to whom I am sure you listened attentively—presented to the house an argument (yet untested) that these are services currently provided by the state government. That is agreed. Everyone knows that. They are provided to people who suffer from chronic pain. What is being asked in the motion is that there be a review of those services, because he has outlined a number of bases upon which he says they are either inadequate, inappropriate or unacceptable. That is what the motion is about.

The amendment is to ask the house to continue to provide the service that is the subject of the motion, which is not in issue. We know that that is happening and that it will continue to happen. No action of substance is being sought in the motion. It does not seek that the service be discontinued or suspended in any way. It is a new motion to ask the house to endorse what the government should continue to do. It is doing that anyway; it is not in issue.

I put to the house that this is, in fact, an entirely different direction and completely removes from the motion the object of it, that is, to ask the house that there be a review. There is nothing specified in the motion of substance as to how that would occur, who should do it, or anything else; only that there are problems and that there needs to be a review. I do not foreshadow any motion in which the mover or I will, in any way, ask for the current operation to be suspended pending that review. If that was the case, it might invite the mover of the amendment to pursue the support of the house to continue the current program, but that is not in issue.

Whilst there is no dispute about the amendment to the motion, it should not be accepted as an amendment to the original motion, because it clearly goes in a completely different direction from the issue of those who suffer from chronic pain and are reliant on the government for the current services. So, I ask you to reject the amended motion. For the purpose of managing the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I foreshadow a further amendment to the current motion when this matter has been dealt with.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (11:50): I would like to speak against the current motion. The amended motion that stands is a sensible way forward and was, in fact, endorsed by the mover of the original motion. I am sure that if we check Hansard we will see that it was supported by the member for Fisher.

Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order, I note that, in speaking in opposition to me on the motion of dissent, the mover of the amendment has opened by addressing the subject matter with her intention to oppose the principal motion. That may be her choice, but—

Ms Simmons: No, it's your motion.

Ms CHAPMAN: Right; that's clear? I have moved a motion of dissent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy leader, please take your seat. The motion before the chair is that the chair's ruling be dissented from. The member for Morialta quite clearly indicated that she was opposing that motion. The member for Morialta.

Ms SIMMONS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. I am speaking here to oppose the dissent motion that is before the house at the moment. At no time have I suggested that I am going to oppose the motion of the original mover. I would like to say that the amended version was endorsed by the original mover of the motion, the member for Fisher. I think that, if we check Hansard, that interjection will be there, because he clearly said that he agreed to the amended version of this motion. So, I think that stands for itself. I think the deputy leader is really trying to mislead the house because SA Health continues to review and initiate strategies around chronic disease, and will continue to do so. If I had been given the opportunity to speak, that was one of the points that was going to come forward. However, the dissent that we have I believe should not be adhered to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reason for my ruling that the amendment was in order is that it was not a direct negative. It offered the house a choice of motions, not a negative of motions, and it was clearly on the same topic. The question is that the chair's ruling be dissented from.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (15)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. Gunn, G.M.
Hanna, K. Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M.
Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Such, R.B. Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.
NOES (26)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K.
Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. Lomax-Smith, J.D. Maywald, K.A.
McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F. Piccolo, T.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A. (teller)
Stevens, L. Thompson, M.G. Weatherill, J.W.
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (4)
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Rann, M.D.
McFetridge, D. Foley, K.O.

Majority of 11 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT