| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| S.O. 125 of 1994 (Repealed) | 125. The procedure for a motion to disallow a statutory rule or instrument is as follows: (1) The notice, if given within 15 sitting days after tabling, shall be set down on the Business Paper for the next sitting day with precedence. (2) Such motions shall have priority in the order given. (3) The Speaker may put the question when debate has exceeded 60 minutes. (4) Members and the mover in reply may speak for up to 10 minutes. |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. Motion moved, pursuant to notice to disallow the Supreme Court Rules (Amendment No. 380) 2003. Division called for and the Acting Speaker declared the question to be negatived as there were only two members in the minority who had challenged his decision. VP 28/10/2003, p 386 2. Motion moved, pursuant to notice, to disallow an item from the District Court Amendment (Court Fees) Regulation 2003. Question negatived on division. VP 12/11/2003, 441 - 442 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. During debate on a motion to disallow a regulation (for which 1 hour is nominally allocated), a Member sought the call when debate had been under way for 45 minutes. The Deputy Speaker reminded the Member that the mover may wish to speak in reply before the conclusion of debate. Another Member sought the call and the Deputy Speaker warned the Member that, if he spoke, there would be no opportunity for the mover to speak in reply, unless the Chair exercised his discretion. The Member having indicated that he would speak, the Deputy Speaker limited the Member's speaking time to five minutes. PD 24/10/01, 17934
VP 24/10/01, 1557 |
| 1998 Precedent | 1. On disallowance of a regulation being moved, the Minister, That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "That" with a view to inserting instead the following: this House agrees: (1) to postpone consideration of the motion to disallow the Education Amendment (Home Schooling) Regulation 1998 for a period of 28 calendar days, while further consultation on the impact of the regulation in terms of Schedule 1 of the Guidelines for Preparation of Statutory Rules under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 is undertaken by the Office of the Board of Studies with the education community; and
(2) at the end of the 28 days, a report be furnished to Parliament by the Minister, within 7 days, on the result of the consultation. VP 20/10/98, 958 & 9 |
| 1997 Precedent | 1. Speaker confirmed that a regulation could be disallowed in part. PD 17/06/97, 10374 |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. Minor amendment to the Standing Order agreed to. VP 25/9/96, 432, PD 25/9/96, 4585/4586 |
| 1995 Precedent | 1. Motion to disallow a clause of a regulation negatived on division. VP 21/11/95, 414 |
| 1993 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER ROZZOLI informed the House that he had concluded that the notice of motion to disallow a Practice Note of the Supreme Court did not fall within the ambit of the term "statutory rule" as set out in section 39 of the Interpretation Act 1987, as it was not made by the Governor or required to be approved or confirmed by the Governor. The Speaker said that although they may address matters which could be subject of Rules of Court, Practice Notes are not Rules. They are issued by the Chief Justice in exercise of the Court's inherent power to give directions on matters of practice and procedure, a power not displaced by sections 122-124 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 which empower the Rules Committee to make those rules which become "statutory rules". Practice Notes do not have the force of law although they are no doubt persuasive with practitioners in the court. The view expressed to the Speaker that the scope of some recent Practice Notes, including the one subject of this motion have traversed matters of practice and procedure which should more properly be in the form of Rules and therefore subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. The Speaker did not to seek to comment on the assertion other than to say that this Parliament had no power to change the law by resolution. The law relating to Rules of Court is governed by sections 122-124 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. If the Parliament wished to place within scrutiny matters not currently in the Act it was within its province to do so by amendment to that Act. The Speaker accordingly ruled the motion out of order. VP 18/11/93, 580
PD 18/11/93, 5703 |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Motions for the disallowance of amendments to three Regulations agreed to. PD 27/4/93, 1612
VP 27/4/93, 176-178 2. The Speaker ruled out of order a motion to disallow a Supreme Court Practice Note as it did not fall within the ambit of the term "statutory rule" as set out in section 39 of the Interpretation Act 1987. The view had been expressed to the Speaker that the scope of some recent practice notes, including the one the subject of this motion, traversed matters of practice and procedure which should more properly be in the form of rules and therefore, subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. He added that the Parliament had no power to change the law by resolution and that if the Parliament wished to place within scrutiny these matters, then it was within the province of the Parliament to amend sections 122 to 124 of the Supreme Court Act, which empowered the Rules Committee to make those rules which became statutory rules. [Disallowance of practice notes issued on or behalf of the Court is now permitted under Section 124 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 - see Automatic Tabling Scheme notes issued by Parliamentary Counsel's Office on 7 June 1999] PD 18/11/93, 5702 |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. Notice of motion for disallowance of notification under section 18 of the Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1935 ruled out of order on the grounds that it did not fall within the ambit of the term statutory rule as set out in section 39 of the Interpretation Act, that is, it was not made by the Governor or required to be approved or confirmed by the Governor. The Speaker stated that the notification was therefore not capable of being disallowed under section 41 of the Interpretation Act. When the member asked for further explanation, the Speaker advised him to see him in his chambers. PD 30/6/92, 4862 2. Motion for disallowance of Legal Profession Act determination agreed to. VP 18/11/92, 669 |