Protests aren’t just for Macquarie Street – members too can lodge their ‘protest’ against the passing of any bill in a special protest book that has been kept by the Clerk since 1857.
The book records the title of the bill; the member’s reasons for objecting to the bill; and the name of each protesting member. A copy of the protest is then recorded in the Minutes (the official record of proceedings) and forwarded to the Governor, in most cases prior to the bill being assented to.
The very first protest lodged in 1857 occurred prior to formal provision being made in the standing orders in 1860. The lodging of protests became common practice in the ensuing years, before a highly unusual occurrence in 1890 in which a protest was expunged (or struck) from the Minutes.
On 9 July 1890, two protests were lodged against the passing of the Divorce Amendment and Extension Bill. This highly controversial bill was introduced before the House on no less than five separate occasions. It sought to legislate new grounds for divorce, including desertion, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment for at least 7 years, and assault on the petitioner. Some opponents believed that the new law stood at odds with the law of the Church, while others argued that husbands who had mistreated their wives would, if allowed to divorce, go on to mistreat their new wives, thereby multiplying the harm caused by their behaviour.
While the first protest received against the bill was signed by ten members who cited various reasons for their protest, the second protest was signed only by one member, Mr Heydon, a fierce opponent of the bill. This protest was uniquely expunged from the Minutes on 10 July 1890 in response
to a question of privilege raised by Sir Alfred Stephen, the
member with carriage of the bill. Sir Alfred objected to comments Mr Heydon made in the protest which suggested that, while acting as Lieutenant-Governor in the absence of the Governor, Stephen had sent a message of thanks to those who had supported him in the passing of the bill just prior to the final vote – the implication being that he had used his
position to influence members to vote in support of the bill.
Whilst a modern-day Governor would never delay assenting to legislation in response to a protest, the procedure continues to provide members with one final avenue for recording serious concerns with a bill that has passed the House.
The practice of recording protests against bills fell away from 1899 but was revived in 1986 when three protests were lodged against the passage of the Judicial Officers Bill. It then fell into disuse once again, before being revived in 2005 when a protest was lodged against the passage of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Amendment (Preventative
Detention) Bill. The practice has continued periodically since that time.
|
