It is intended to take business as on the Order Paper. It might be possible to clear the Order Paper entirely by meeting to-morrow. The discussion on Nos. 2 and 3 involves the same Minister and, to a great extent, the same matters and perhaps it would be agreeable to the House—if it is agreeable to the Chair—that the discussion should take place on No. 2 and that then the question on No. 3 would be put without debate.
Order of Business.
I think we can agree to that, because, as the Leader of the House has said, much the same discussion will take place on each of these Bills, Nos. 2 and 3, and there would be danger of covering the same ground a second time. We, on this side of the House, have no objection to taking the Appropriation Bill together with the Imposition of Duties Bill. It has just occurred to me that, perhaps, it may have been decided by somebody here to refer to matters affecting Government policy that would not come strictly within the scope of that Bill, but would come within the scope of the Appropriation Bill. I take it we will be given full latitude to deal with all these matters on the Appropriation Bill, whether we discuss the Appropriation Bill or the other Bill?
That is the question on which I was asking your own ruling, Sir. I take it that if we take No. 2, the Chair will not object to any matter which might be properly raised on No. 3 being debated and that, when we finish No. 2, No. 3 can be put without debate?
From the point of view of the Chair, that would be eminently satisfactory. So long as the Senators keep themselves in order on each of the Bills they will be at liberty to raise any matter which concerns either the Appropriation Bill or the Imposition of Duties Bill, provided always they do not repeat themselves too often.
We do not repeat ourselves, usually.