Hon members, before I proceed with the First Order of the Day I would like to make a ruling.
Order! On Thursday, 24 October 2013, during the Decision on the Question of the Second Reading of the Lotteries Amendment Bill, various points of order were raised after hon S V Kalyan requested a division on behalf of the DA and left the Chamber before voting commenced.
On that day I quoted Rule 88, which states that:
A member demanding a division shall not leave the Chamber until the result of the division has been declared and shall vote with those who, in the opinion of the presiding officer, are in the minority.
There's no room for misinterpretation here. The hon Kalyan was, indeed, in breach of the Rules, since Rule 88 compels her to remain in the Chamber when she has demanded a division.
Rule 69 determines that "(a) member may, with the prior consent of the presiding officer ... explain matters of a personal nature". Hon Kalyan has requested an opportunity to do so. Before granting her that opportunity, I want briefly to address a few issues that have had a disruptive effect on the ability of the House to fulfil its constitutional function of passing legislation.
The first is the quorum requirement created by the Constitution. The Constitution provides that a majority of the Assembly members must be present before a vote on a Bill may be taken. In other words, there must be at least 201 members in the House. The onus is on the House to ensure that it is quorate for a vote. The House consists of all members from all parties. It follows, therefore, that the responsibility of ensuring that the requisite number of members are present to constitute a quorum does not rest entirely with the members of the majority party. Constitutionally speaking, that responsibility rests with all members, individually and collectively.
When members are asked to record their presence to establish whether there is a quorum present, and they refrain from doing so, it can be construed as an attempt to frustrate the work of the House. As hon members and public representatives, it would not be appropriate for members to conduct themselves in that manner. Members must therefore record their presence when requested to do so by the Presiding Officer.
The second issue is that of committee meetings during the sittings of the House. Once again, a number of points of order were raised and numerous arguments offered after hon Kalyan explained that some members of the DA had left the Chamber before the vote to attend committee meetings. Though some committees have particularly heavy legislative workloads and may have to meet during sittings, permission for such meetings is given with the express understanding that, when the bells are rung to summon members to the House for a vote, meeting proceedings must be suspended immediately and members must make their way to the Chamber. That was explained on Thursday by the hon House Chairperson, C T Frolic.
Requiring members to be present in the House for a vote does not constrain them when it comes to expressing their support for or opposition to a piece of legislation. Members are free to vote for or against a Bill, or even to abstain should they wish to do so. The Rules are clear, however, that all members in the House, when the question is put, must vote.
That covers all points raised by members in regard to the division on the Lotteries Amendment Bill.
I appeal to hon members to keep in mind that we are taking decisions on behalf of the people we represent, and therefore a vote, whether on a Bill or any other matter, should be approached with thought and circumspection. I now give the hon Kalyan the opportunity to give a personal explanation.