Business will be taken as follows: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12. It is proposed to take No. 12 with No. 3. It is proposed to take No. 4 at 7 o'clock, after tea, and in view of its urgency, to finish all Stages to-night, if the House agrees.
Order of Business.
I do not think it is at all appropriate to lump No. 12 —Senator Quinlan's motion on the Common Market—in with the Appropriation Bill. I heard this morning that they were to be taken together. As has been said previously, the House does not meet so often and this extremely important matter should be divorced from the Appropriation Bill. We have heard a great deal in this country about the Department of Finance arrogating to itself the right to dictate what should happen here and there but it is the limit when a motion relating to the Common Market is added on to the Appropriation Bill. It is carrying the thing altogether too far, in my opinion. Moreover, except for the purpose of lumping them together for discussion, there is no connection whatsoever between the two matters.
I was only endeavouring to facilitate the House, in view of the repeated complaints that motions were delayed. I thought it was appropriate to take that motion with the Appropriation Bill, but if there is any objection——
It is a matter entirely for the House.
I am in the hands of the House.
There are six other motions ahead of this one, some of which could be more properly associated with the Appropriation Bill. I do not see why this arrangement should be suggested.
It is a current matter at the moment.
That is not an answer.
It is topical.
I must say I wish to be recorded as dissenting from the proposal to take this matter with the Appropriation Bill.
Senator O'Donovan will be recorded as dissenting.
I would not have any objection at all to having this motion taken out of order. I would not like the mover, Senator Quinlan, to misunderstand me. I would have no objection to its being taken as a matter of importance, a matter of immediate importance, but I have an objection to its being lumped in with this Bill which concerns the whole expenditure of the State for the year, when this is primarily—in fact, entirely—a matter of policy.
The Senator will be recorded as dissenting.
I have no objection to whatever the House decides. I feel it is a matter of urgency and that we should discuss it, but the technique of discussing it is a matter for the House.
Is it not true that even if the motion were not on the Order Paper, Senator Quinlan could discuss the matter on the Bill as it is a matter of policy? If the Common Market were discussed on the Bill, the motion could be taken off the Order Paper.
Exactly.
I take it the House has agreed on the Order of Business.