In Parliament today, Mark made a speech to let other Members of Parliament know that he would no longer be moving to suspend Standing Orders in order to move a motion without notice to disallow Regulations for the growing of GM crops in South Australia. This is because a disallowance motion requires notice to given before it can be brought to a vote.
Over the past couple of days, I have communicated with all members of this chamber, indicating that my intention at this time—at the close of matters of interest speeches—would be to move to suspend standing orders to enable me to move a motion without notice concerning the disallowance of regulations for the growing of genetically modified crops in South Australia. Up until a few minutes ago, that was my intention.
I am grateful to the Clerk for pointing out to me subsection 10(5b) of the Subordinate Legislation Act, which effectively provides that the disallowance of regulations requires notice. Therefore, suspending standing orders to dispense with notice is not something that we can do under our standing orders, because it would in fact be in breach of the act.
Whilst I am very disappointed that we are not about to have a short but telling debate on the disallowance of regulations, I will not be proceeding with what I indicated to members I would be doing. Instead, my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks gave notice earlier today that she would move to disallow the regulations on the next Wednesday of sitting, which, depending on what this council decides, may well be in May. I would urge all members to pay attention to that motion when it comes on.
I thought I would make that explanation. Having told all Members of Parliament I was about to do something and now I am not doing it, I needed to explain why. I again thank the Clerk for pointing out to me something that I think we all now know: whilst we can suspend standing orders for many purposes, the disallowance of regulations is not one of those.