Legislative Assembly

25 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 27 February 2002 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Sessional Orders Days and Hours of Sitting Mr WHELAN (Strathfield) [10.00 a.m.], by leave: I move: That the House take note of the sessional orders and the resolution on days and hours of sitting adopted on Tuesday 26 February 2002. I thank the Opposition for its co-operation yesterday, which was the day Her Excellency the Governor delivered her Opening Speech. The Address-in-Reply debate will continue in this House today. The Opposition's co- operation enabled the sessional orders to be adopted, and I indicated to the Opposition that there would be a take-note debate on the issues today. Clearly, all oppositions—I recall this only too well—do not like the standing and sessional orders of the government of the day. However, the sessional orders adopted yesterday include, importantly, the citizens' right of reply and the code of conduct for members. I am sure honourable members will not disagree that the procedures adopted by the House are important. As I said, it is understandable that some standing and sessional orders will not be agreed to by the Opposition, and I can distinctly recall being in that position. I indicate to the Opposition that there are some issues of concern to me and to the Government, particularly relating to notices of motions and the papers prepared by the Parliament. In the House yesterday I indicated to the Opposition spokesperson that the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee should meet, consequent upon decisions made by Mr Speaker that on private members' days only the first 10 notices of motions for bills and notices of motions for general motions be considered. There were many hundreds of notices of motions in the previous parliamentary session. It was impossible for the Parliament to sit and deal with all those notices of motions. As a result, the use-by date of many notices of motions has expired. Some relate to a time set or an event that has occurred—some notices went back to 1999. I am concerned about the ability of members to submit notices of motions, on behalf of constituents or as a shadow Minister. That is the role of members, whether they are in government or in opposition, and that role should be unfettered. Another concern relates to the needless work being created in preparing the notice paper. I ask that the Clerks convene a meeting of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee to examine the procedures and eliminate the waste of preparing papers, while preserving the right of members to give notices of motions and to have them recorded in Hansard. In my view members should have that right unfettered. Undoubtedly the Opposition will raise some issues. I assume one issue will be the absence of question time on Friday sittings. I will listen and then reply to the Opposition spokesperson's comments. Parliament rarely has a question time during Friday sittings. Friday sittings are used for the purpose of dealing with private members' notices of motions and by the Government for important government legislation. That will continue. I am reluctant, except by concurrence, to push bills through unless a bona fide time period has been given, not only as provided in the standing and sessional orders, so members can research the bill and the information and make a valued contribution to the debate. Ms Moore: Like WorkCover. Mr WHELAN: There are exceptions, such as the petrol tax in 1986. Some matters do arise suddenly, but in the main honourable members would be hard-pressed to find a bill that has gone through the Parliament 26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 February 2002 without everyone involved being fully briefed. In relation to the WorkCover legislation, meetings were held. Opposition members will say that they complained—and they had a right to complain—about the short notice of the bill, but members could consult the committee of experts and staff from the Minister's office who were available. I will reply after I hear from honourable members who will contribute to this debate. Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.07 a.m.]: I move: That the motion be amended by addition of the following paragraph: (2) That it is the opinion of this House that the following sessional orders should not have been adopted: Closure, Restriction on; Deputy-Speaker and the Chairman of Committees; Friday Sittings; Parliamentary Secretaries; Quorum and Division Bells. The Coalition accepted the sessional orders moved by the Leader of the House yesterday because it agreed with the Government that it was inappropriate to debate the sessional orders and the days and hours of sitting while the House awaited the summons to attend Her Excellency in the Legislative Council. However, the Coalition is concerned about a number of the sessional orders. I thank the Leader of the House for providing us with the opportunity this morning to place on record our concern and to move an amendment appropriate to that concern. The Coalition's principal concern is that the sessional orders should reflect the operation of the Parliament as the body representative of the people of this State which, firstly, enacts the laws and, secondly, holds the Government accountable. In fact, the sessional orders do not reflect the two primary themes of having a constituent body and a legislative body in this State. Why is the Coalition concerned? One concern relates to Parliamentary Secretaries. The Government is avoiding compelling Ministers to attend Parliament. Ministers are required to appear in the Chamber for only three quarters of an hour at question time and during divisions. Under the provision in the sessional orders regarding Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers' responsiveness to Parliament is essentially optional. Ministers should come to the House during debate on legislation to answer questions on behalf of the Government. This is especially important in Committee when questions are put and points of view argued. Parliamentary Secretaries simply occupy the Minister's seat and sometimes reply to various points raised in debate by reading the handwritten notes supplied by departmental advisers. There is no interchange between Ministers and members of Parliament. Legislation should be developed through the parliamentary process that brings it to Parliament; it should not simply reflect the bureaucracy for which Parliamentary Secretaries act as spokespersons. This is not a trivial point but a fundamental concern. The Government has ignored this issue repeatedly, and it is now embodied in sessional orders that Ministers will not attend Parliament and reply to debates and that bureaucrats will write replies for Parliamentary Secretaries. We object strongly to that development. We believe Ministers should come to Parliament not simply for pro-forma debates but to answer questions and engage in the interchange that occurs in Committee. The Committee process does not involve formal debate: it is designed to elicit information, pose questions, gain answers to develop an understanding of the rationale behind various parts of a bill and to argue about its operation. This is a crucial concern for the Opposition. We believe the Parliamentary Secretary system does not work and should not be embodied in sessional orders. The Opposition's second concern—in order of priority—relates to Friday sittings of the Legislative Assembly. These sittings do not operate in the same manner as the second chamber in Federal Parliament in Canberra to which members go to make private members' statements or to table second reading speeches. Friday sittings are a programmed sitting of the House and thus should operate under the normal processes of the House. There is one difference: on other sitting days the House rises at 10.30 or 11.00 o'clock in the evening while on Friday it rises in the afternoon so that members can return to their electorates. However, the Government has made Friday sittings operate as a second chamber in the Canberra model at which formal speeches are made and recorded in Hansard. Under this sessional order, divisions, question time and calls for quorums are not allowed. We previously raised the quorum calls issue because we believe the Government's action is unconstitutional, and on that occasion the Leader of the House said, "Well, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court?" Quorums are not called on a whim. The right to call quorums is laid down in the New South Wales Constitution Act, which requires that 20 members be present in the House when business is transacted. Attempting to ignore and seeking to overrule the constitution by way of sessional order is a most contemptuous act. The Government is telling the 27 February 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 people of this State that it believes it can dispose of or disregard the constitution at whim so long as it can pass the appropriate sessional order. The quorum provision is laid down in the constitution. If the Government does not like that provision it should amend the constitution, not seek to subvert it through the sessional orders. Quorums are important so quorum calls should be permitted during Friday sittings. Divisions should also be permitted on Fridays because they reflect and record the views of individual members about legislation, amendments to legislation or issues before the House so that those members may be held accountable by their electorates on polling day. Electors, if they wish—and many do in these days of increased accountability—can read Hansard to see how their member of Parliament voted on a particular issue on a particular day.

Load more