T4qatu Aiinmbiu Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
25 T4qatu Aiinmbiu Wednesday, 2 May 1990 THE SPEAKER (Mr Barnett) took the Chair at 2.15 pm, and read prayers. PETITION - TRAFFIC LIGHTS, BEECHBORO-BENARA ROADS, MORLEY PedestrianWalk Phase MR DONOVAN (Morley) [2.20 pm]; I have a petition which reads as follows - To: The Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia, call upon the State Government to instal pedestrian wal-phase into traffic light system controling the traffic lights at the intersection of Beechboro and Benara Roads, Morley. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. The petition bears 48 signatures and I certify that it conforms to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly. The SPEAKER: I direct that the petition be brought to the Table of the House. [See petition No 4.] PETITION - RENAL DIALYSIS UNIT FrernanrieHospitalI MR KIER ATH (Riverton) [2.21 pm]: I have a petition which reads as follows - To: The Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned hereby petition that a renal dialysis unit be established at Frenmantle Hospital, thereby allowing patients ready access to extra life-saving medical services. The Unit centred at Shenton Park is not easily accessible to patients south of the Swan River. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The petition bears 17 signatures and I certify that it conforms to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly. The SPEAKER: I direct that the petition be brought to the Table of the House. [See petition No 5.] REPORTS TABLING - AUDITOR GENERAL'S ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS Ombusdman's Report on Stephen Wardle THE SPEAKER (Mr Barnett): I have for tabling the following reports - Auditor General - Accountability Audit Report of the Government Accounting system, 1989 Auditor General - Annual Report of the Accountable Officer 1988-89 Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations - Investigation into the circumstances of the death of Stephen John Wardle. [See paper Nos 86-88.] 26 [ASSEMBLY] COMMITTEES FOR THE SESSION - PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS COMMITTEE Report Tabling DR LAWRENCE (Glendalough - Premier) [2.24 pmj: I table the report of the Parliamentary Standards Committee. [See paper Nos 89 and 90.] Dr LAWRENCE: I seek leave of the House to make a statement concerning the Parliamentary Standards Commnittee Report on Standing Order No 118. Leave granted. Dr LAWRENCE: I thank the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, Hon Kim Beazley senior, you. Mr Speaker, and other members of the commnittee for the significant effort involved in the preparation of the report's findings and recommendations. Members may be aware that the plans to establish this committee were announced by the former Premier on 20 December 1988. Membership of the committee was drawn from both inside and outside Parliament. Presiding Officers of both Houses sat on the commnittee and the terms of reference were comprehensive. It is the Government's intention that copies of this report will be available to all members so those who wish can participate in a debate on a motion to be put before the House in due course. It is not the Government's intention to act on the recommendations of the report until that process has been completed. Then, subject to the views of members, it will. be necessary for a number of the recommendations to be dealt with by legislative change. That will be the responsibility of the Minister for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform. It may be appropriate to refer a number of the recommendations to the Standing Orders Commnittee for further consideration as to how they can be implemented. Some of the recommendations are within the control of the Speaker and it will be for the Speaker to determine the course of action to be taken. To facilitate debate on these matters I have considered some general responses to the recommendations, but I must stress that the Governm ent does not have a hard and fast attitude on these matters. I begin by using the preamble, which the committee also saw fit to use, from Hon Ben Chifley - Hlonourable members should not forget that in the life of a democracy it is important that the public should respect, not necessarily a party, but the Parliament. Everything we do to destroy that respect deals a death blow to democracy itself. On 29 September last year I appeared before the committee and gave evidence. [ did so because of the concerns which I have previously placed on the record about the way in which Parliament conducts its business. I am sure members on both sides of this House have felt a deep sense of embarrassment and shame to have invited guests, particularly school children, to witness the proceedings of Parliament, only for them to see a disgraceful bout of heckling, name calling and other outbursts which one might expect at a football match, but not in the Parliament of Western Australia, The comittee was faced with the implication and claims that parliamentary standards are declining. Whatever the case, the commnittee acknowledged that Parliament was under greater scrutiny than ever before and that politicians were not held in high regard. I believe it is up to each and every one of us to address this perception. It is in all our interests to do so. Apart from the question of the demeanour with which people conduct themselves in this Chamber, the more important issue is the need to make the use of debating time more relevant and efficient. The committee makes the point, which I draw to members' attention, that Parliament needs the popular respect and support of the wider community. Implicit in gaining this respect is the need for Parliament to be answerable to the community. I do not believe that Parliament necessarily needs to sit for more hours or more days of the year in order to ensure adequate time for points of view to be expressed and for legislation to be passed. [ have never accepted the view that the validity of an argument is increased by the number of speakers stating the same points or the degree of personal invective involved. I firmly believe backbenchers should be given the opportunity to make a greater contribution, and that this contribution should cover a wider range of issues. The Standing Orders of this House cannot guarantee an improvement in the conduct of members or an improvement in the way in which the House conducts its business. The [Wednesday, 2 May 1990] 272 responsibility to do so is personal to each and every member. Parliaments are increasingly accused by political commentators of becoming a less relevant pant of the process of government, with all the major decisions being made elsewhere, yet by allowing itself to degenerate into a forum for cheap political point scoring, Parliament ensures its own irrelevance. As the committee says, "Absolutely fundamental to carrying out these parliamentary roles, including the discovery of corruption or gross inefficiency in any arm of government, is the immunity or privilege which parliament and each member has from any form of legal action or intimnidation over what is said and done in parliament." Again referring to the commnittee's report, people are expressing concern, even cynicism at the abuse of parliamentary privilege and the need for an ethical code for parliamentarians, Turning to the specific recommnendations, I accept the findings of each of the recommendations with the exception of recommendations 10, 11, 15, 18, 21, and 27 in pan, With respect to those recomnmendations not accepted, the details in relation to each is as follows: Recommendation 10 suggests that where a member intends to raise a matter concerning parliamentary privilege the Presiding Officer should determine whether the matter is a prima facie one which is concerned with parliamentary privilege. I believe that if any member is satisfied that a matter is one which concerns the privileges of the House, that member should be allowed to move a motion without reference to the Presiding Officer. Recommendation 10 also suggests that the Presiding Officer should be able to determine the precedence for motions of this kind. These issues should be a matter for the Leader of the House and the Opposition manager of parliamentary business. It folows that we do not accept recommendation 11. Recommendation 14 deals with the issue of whether Parliament should refer matters of privilege to outside bodies such as judges for decision. While [ accept the recommendation that matters of privilege are not subject to the courts, I also support the concept of referral to a specialist body the duties of determining the facts and making recommnendations while the ultimate decision-making power remains with the Parliament. These models have been used in inquiries into the conduct of judges, such as Mr Justice Vasra in Queensland and Mr Justice Murphy in the Senate. The Senate and the Queensland Parliament retained the ultimate decision-making power, but they referred to a specialist body the duty of determining the facts and making a recommendation. The Law Society supports this course of action. I do not support recommendation 15, that no additional or particular opportunity be given to individuals to respond to allegations made under the protection of parliamentary privilege. I support the course of action adopted by the Senate in a resolution providing for a citizen's right of reply. This process allows the Presiding Officers to refer responses to the Comimittee of Privileges, subject to their not being frivolous or vexatious, and that commnittee will decide whether the matters raised in the submission should be reported to the House.