Legislative Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Legislative Council Tuesday, 6 March 2012 THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. NEW STANDING ORDERS — CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL MATTERS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Welcome back to the first sitting day of 2012 and to the first day of operation of the new standing orders adopted by the house on 1 December 2011. Pursuant to that resolution and the commencement of those new standing orders, I take this opportunity to advise members of a number of consequential and transitional matters arising from this change. Members will note that the new standing orders folders have been distributed in the chamber. The new folders include the revised order of business schedule for the house, the 2012 sitting schedule, the draft non-government business and private members‘ business schedules for 2012, an updated form of words guide that contains the wording of some common motions and questions used by members in the house, and the final copy of the new standing orders. Further to the new standing orders folders, members will also find a copy of procedural note 5 on their desks, which outlines the key changes under the new standing orders. On 29 September 2011, the Deputy Leader of the House tabled the Council‘s sitting schedule for 2012—tabled paper 3927. The details of that schedule are printed on the back of the first page of material contained in members‘ new standing orders folders. New standing order 6 provides that an annual sitting schedule be tabled in the Council, with subsequent variations to that schedule being provided for in part (2) of that standing order. I advise members that I consider the schedule tabled by the Deputy Leader of the House in September last year to be the sitting schedule required under new standing order 6. There are two motions on the notice paper seeking to establish select committees. These are motions 7 and 16, in the names of Hon Alison Xamon and Hon Wendy Duncan respectively. The terms of those notices of motion, as originally given by the members, included a quorum provision and a section that specified that the committees, if established by the house, would operate under the standing orders then applicable to standing committees. The commencement of the new standing orders renders these provisions redundant and, hence, following consultation with the two members, I have directed that the notices of motion be amended to exclude these provisions. Accordingly, the notices of motion appear on today‘s notice paper in that amended form. A further change that has occurred to the notice paper is in the consideration of ministerial statements. As the new standing orders provide that the 60-minute session immediately prior to dinner on Wednesday will be devoted to the consideration of committee reports and that other means will be used to pursue matters arising from ministerial statements, I have directed that the orders of the day relating to ministerial statements be removed from the notice paper. Accordingly, the section commencing on page 12 of today‘s notice paper has been reduced substantially and includes only the orders of the day related to committee reports previously tabled in the house. Pursuant to new standing orders 110 and 111, I am required to table schedules for non-government business and private members‘ business. I have previously distributed draft schedules to the party leaders. I now table the schedules and will call upon the Leader of the House in a few moments to move the consequent motions. Finally, the amended arrangements for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges necessitate the appointment of three members to the committee. The Leader of the House will move a motion in the near future to address that matter. [See paper 4274.] NON-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS — ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE Motion On motion without notice by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved — That the schedule for non-government business be adopted by the Council. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS — ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE Motion On motion without notice by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved — That the schedule for private members‘ business be adopted by the Council. 568 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 2011. 2. Manslaughter Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. 3. Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Amendment Bill 2011. 4. Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011. 5. Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. 6. Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011. CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME Petition HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.09 pm]: I have two petitions. I present a petition containing 20 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia support actions that increase the number of beverage containers recycled in Western Australia and assist in improving the ongoing litter problem we have in our state. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to call upon the Barnett Government to immediately introduce a Western Australian Container Deposit Scheme, similar to the system that operates in South Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. A second and similar petition was presented by Hon Sue Ellery (Three signatures). [See papers 4266 and 4267.] PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT Petition HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.09 pm]: I present a petition containing 8 677 signatures couched in the following terms — PETITION IN RELATION TO THE PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT RE-THINK ESPLANADE DEVELOPMENT To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia, while being strongly supportive of the concept of a Perth Waterfront Plan, are opposed to the current plan for the Perth Waterfront as: the cutting of Riverside drive will have serious impacts on traffic congestion in and around the CBD, throughout South Perth and the broader metropolitan region; the plan does not recognize the cultural and heritage values of the important Esplanade Reserve, much of which would be sold off; the lengthy construction time will disrupt city businesses and tourism; the inlet will have a negative impact on the Swan River; and the huge costs of the current project is a waste of taxpayer’s money. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Legislative Council inquire into these matters before any further work on this project commences And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4269.] Hon KATE DOUST: I present another petition containing 662 signatures couched in the following terms — [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 569 PETITION IN RELATION TO THE PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the current plan for the Perth Waterfront Project as: the cutting of Riverside drive will have serious impacts on traffic congestion in and around the CBD, and throughout South Perth; the plan destroys the heritage listed and culturally important Esplanade Reserve, much of which would be sold off; the overdevelopment of the site will have a negative impact on city businesses and tourism; the project will have a negative impact on the Swan River; and, there are far more important budget priorities for this government. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council inquire into these matters before any further work on this project commences. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4268.] TIER 3 GRAIN FREIGHT RAIL LINES — CLOSURE Petition HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.11 pm]: I present a petition containing 47 signatures. It is couched in identical terms to the petition I tabled on Thursday, 10 November 2011 regarding tier 3 grain freight rail lines closure. [The text of the petition was as follows.] To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the closure of the Tier 3 Grain Freight Rail Lines across the Wheatbelt. We believe that the decision to close the Tier 3 lines will result in a significant increase in truck numbers both in the Wheatbelt and the Perth Metropolitan area as they deliver grain to the Kwinana Freight Terminal. We believe that in determining to close these lines, the Barnett Government failed to consider all of the road safety impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts and the social/amenity impacts of the line closures. We believe the Government has failed to give proper consideration to the CBH Business Case which demonstrates that rail transportation of freight can be competitive with road. We therefore urge the Legislative Council to investigate the Government decision making process for the closure of these lines with particular consideration to the CBH business case. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4270.] PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT Petition HON