Parliamentary Committees

Standing Orders Committee

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:39): I move:

That the report of the committee be adopted.

I might require a little bit of advice from the Clerk, because I will raise an issue during my contribution and will seek advice as to whether I move it in an amended form or whether I get someone else to move an amendment. We will take advice as we go along.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the report on behalf of the Standing Orders Committee. I cannot remember how long it actually took. It would seem to be at least a year or two ago, I think, when this committee met. The eventual committee membership was you, Mr President, myself, the Hon. Mr Maher, the Hon. Mr Hunter, and originally the Hon. Mr Parnell. He was replaced by the Hon. Mr Simms, and in very short order he was replaced by the Hon. Ms Franks and also the Hon. Mr Hunter was replaced by the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos.

So a number of members of the chamber have served for varying lengths of period on this particular committee and in part were responsible for the recommendations of the report. I would acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Parnell took a particular interest in a number of aspects, and I acknowledge his contribution. Although he is not here to see the fruits of his work, I acknowledge the contribution that he made to the report.

The first point I want to make in relation to this is that I am pleased to see that the longstanding and observed, but nevertheless not lawfully required, convention of the Legislative Council that standing orders are only amended with the unanimous agreement of all groups or representatives in the chamber has been observed in this particular process. I will speak to some of the detail of that during my contribution.

I have mentioned this before, and I think it sets this chamber apart from other chambers around the world. It certainly sets us apart from lower house chambers, including our own lower house chamber in this state, where on occasions governments with a majority have been able to impose changes to standing orders that the majority supported in that chamber but that might have been strenuously opposed by the minority in that chamber.

I have recounted in the past that over my long period in this chamber there has been a small number of occasions when propositions have been put where a majority of people might have supported a particular standing order change and a minority would have vigorously opposed it. My position, whether in government or in opposition, has remained steadfast and that is that I think the convention has served this chamber well and the rules with which we are governed have been agreed by all who serve in the chamber.

I think it would be a slippery road if that convention was breached and at some stage, for partisan purposes, a majority at the time chose to amend the standing orders to their particular viewpoint or advantage, because it just sets up the slippery slope that when the numbers change the standing orders will change potentially each and every parliament, depending on the view of the majority in the chamber.

Whilst it is not lawfully required, it is a convention which has served this chamber remarkably well. It has been observed again in this particular process. I hope that, as new members participate in standing order discussions over the coming years, they will continue to observe that convention which has served us all well, in my view, for a long period of time.

The report of the Standing Orders Committee of the Legislative Council in its initial pages highlights two or three issues, and I will speak directly to those in the first instance before going through some of the more detailed changes in the standing orders. The first one is there was a submission in relation to making provision for the capacity for members to bring infants into the chamber for the purposes of feeding. Another suggestion was members co-sponsoring bills and motions.

The committee is therefore recommending that standing order 448 provide that the President alone shall have the privilege of admitting strangers, not being members of the House of Assembly or the commonwealth parliament, to the body of the council chamber. However, the committee is of the view that an infant being breast or bottle fed by a member should be permitted to the body of the chamber without order or vote.

The committee recommends the council adopts a new standing order giving that effect. There was a submission to the Standing Orders Committee to that effect. It reflected, broadly, practice in a number of other chambers but including our own House of Assembly. The Standing Orders Committee has recommended that particular change.

The second one which was supported was co-sponsored bills and motions. There had been a submission to the committee that various standing orders be amended to allow for co-sponsored bills and motions, noting that the current standing orders did not allow that to occur. We have had recent examples in this chamber where two members, I think, sought to co-sponsor a bill, and that was not technically possible. It was done in an indirect way but not technically as a co-sponsored bill as exists in a number of other jurisdictions. The Standing Orders Committee is recommending that those standing orders be amended to allow for that to occur.

One submission that was made to the committee illustrates, I think, the desirability of all members agreeing to a standing orders change. I know there are a number of members, possibly even a majority of members in this chamber—I do not know—who would support giving the power to the President to direct a member to leave the chamber for a period of time. That is, to impose some semblance of discipline, in particular during question time but at other times as well, that without having to go through the cumbersome process of naming someone and suspending them from the house the presiding member has the power to, in essence, direct a member to leave the chamber for a period of time, as exists in our House of Assembly and as exists in many other chambers, to be fair. That is why the suggestion had been made.

Without going through the deliberations of the committee, the report does note the committee's position was not to recommend that, but I think it is illustrative of an example where possibly in this chamber there might have been a majority of people who might have supported it but a not insignificant minority strenuously opposed it. It is a very good example where, certainly as a member of the government who participated in the Standing Orders Committee, I represented the view that unless we could get a united view in relation to a standing order change then we should not proceed with the standing order change. As such, the Standing Orders Committee has not recommended that particular change.

In relation to a leave of absence for maternity leave, the committee recognised that, pursuant to standing order 33, leave of absence can be given to any member for any sufficient cause to be stated to the council. The committee was of the view that there should be specific recognition of standing orders for maternity leave entitlements for members similar to that available in most industrial instruments.

The committee also views that such entitlements should not be subject to the vote of the council. The council recommended that standing orders 33, 34, and 36 be amended to provide for a 20-week period of maternity leave to members who are pregnant, and for that leave not to be subject to a vote and for that leave not to be forfeited by attending the service to council before the expiration of that leave.

Whilst supporting that—and there was a united view to support that—what I will say is that, again, by convention in this chamber, we have been well served in that we have been very generous, and sensible in my view, in terms of the way we have responded to individual requests from members for, on occasions, extended leave, whether it be for maternity-related leave and parenting or, in a number of cases, as a result of ill health. Some members in the past had very extended leaves of absence, which were never questioned by way of challenge to a vote in this chamber, to allow those members to cope with their own personal circumstances. I think, again, that is a convention which has well served this Legislative Council and it is one through which the operations of this council will be best served with the continuation of that respectful cooperation between the parties in the chamber.

It is also tied to a convention in relation to pairs, and I have to say in the last seven years or so, Mr President, there has been the occasional challenge in relation to pairing arrangements. We, up until that period, had always respected pairs. There have been tensions in this chamber in recent years, as I understand it supposedly as a result of tensions which occurred in the House of Assembly, in terms of the way they handled their business. Now, with great respect, I do not think the House of Assembly would always be a very good role model for the way we ought to be handling ourselves in terms of the Legislative Council.

I think generally the respectful way over the decades we have handled pairing arrangements amongst members of this chamber has served us well and I think, again, whilst it is not lawfully required, the sensible operation of pairing arrangements makes this a more family friendly chamber, but it certainly allows the business to progress and be processed in the way that it should. If there are complications in the House of Assembly at any particular point in time, I do not believe that that should feed across into creating problems in terms of sensible pairing arrangements in our chamber.

So leaves of absence, pairing arrangements are all related. This particular standing order provision does relate to maternity leave, but there will be other pressures and I think, again, the conventions, rather than the strict rulings or what is required or not required, the conventions that have operated in this chamber, have served us well and should be allowed to continue.

Getting now into some of the more detailed aspects of the standing orders, I want to go through some of those. Standing order 14 is proposed to be repealed. That says:

Until the Address in Reply to the Governor's Opening Speech has been adopted, no business beyond what is of a formal or unopposed character shall be entertained.

We almost always make alternative arrangements because on this basis we in the Legislative Council would be doing virtually nothing for a number of weeks whilst we wait for the Address in Reply to the Governor's opening speech process to be concluded. It would make no sense at all, and governments of both persuasions, Labor and Liberal, have adopted practices which have meant that we have not abided by this particular standing order and that is why the Standing Orders Committee has recommended that it be repealed, and it makes sense.

Standing order 51 is to be amended, which recognises the current practice that has existed for a number of years now, which is for prayers and Acknowledgment of Country and the traditional owners, using the same form of words that have been used over recent years, and it is now incorporated in the standing orders as opposed to the daily practice that has been adopted by decision of the President of the day.

Standing order 69 is again a sensible amendment. At the end of question time we have a circumstance where, under the current arrangements under standing order 69, if a question is in the process of being asked the Leader of the Government generally has to interrupt and move a suspension of standing orders to enable the member to complete the question and the minister then to answer the question. Members will be familiar with that process that we have to go through.

This will allow a sensible resolution of that. It will require a firm hand of the President, because it does allow a member to continue with his or her question, and I am sure the President will guide to make sure that is not abused by extending with an excessively long explanation to a question in terms of this process. Again, the standing orders committee is recommending that change as being a sensible change.

Standing order 106 is proposed to be repealed because it has regularly been ignored. There is a standing order that says that a member may not give two notices consecutively if another member has a notice to give. It does not make much sense. If the Hon. Mr Parnell got up with four notices of motion, it would make sense that he got them all off his chest at the one time or consecutively rather than, under the standing order, having to give one and then allow another member to give one and then to go back to him. It was not observed, and it has been recommended to be repealed.

Standing order 131 is being amended: every amendment must be in writing and signed by and in the name of the mover. It probably made sense decades ago, but what is proposed now is that it does not require a signature, it just needs to be in the name of the individual member and we will take that as the bona fides of who is moving the particular amendment.

Standing order 135 again recognises current practice, which may or may not be strictly in accordance with the current standing orders, and that is that, if the President considers a particular amendment in the committee to be an uncomplicated one, the President may just put the question that the amendment be agreed to. That has been observed. It is not strictly in accordance with the standing orders, but it makes sense. There are sometimes complicated ways amendments have to be put in the committee stage.

These changes essentially were deemed to be the low-hanging fruit. Some others are a little more challenging, but there are potentially some less complicated ways of amendments having to be put in the committee stage of the debate. I might leave that as a challenge for the next Standing Orders Committee, but I know that new members sometimes struggle to understand our procedures in terms of the way amendments have to be put in accordance with the standing orders. It may well be that more of the complexity can be removed when the Standing Orders Committee reflects in the future on these provisions. Nevertheless, this is a sensible amendment and it is proposed.

Standing order 167 is the silly one that everyone recalls from decades or a century ago: 'Every member desiring to speak shall rise uncovered, in their place'. We are removing the 'uncovered' provision in the standing order and in standing order 168, which is similar.

Standing order 190, I think, is one of the more sensible ones. I have spoken on this on a number of occasions, I think when I actually talked about the need for the Standing Orders Committee to actually do some work in this particular area. This is the one that basically says—and it made sense decades ago—that you cannot refer in any proceeding of the Legislative Council to any, in essence, evidence that has been publicly taken in a select committee, or in a committee, until the committee has actually reported.

Therefore, if the President picks up a member you have to go through these arcane procedures of saying, 'It has been reported publicly.' You cannot actually refer to the fact that it was actually in a select committee, even though it was clearly in a select committee, regarding what the evidence was. Sometimes members want to pursue a particular issue. They want to be able to say, 'Billy the goose, so and so, gave evidence to a committee and said this. Does the minister agree with that?' or whatever it might be. The current standing order does not actually allow you to refer to that until the committee reports.

It is even more problematic with the Budget and Finance Committee which, of course, has a rolling operation. When I was chairing it we used to occasionally do interim reports and table all the evidence, which eventually allowed you off the leash for a period of time because the evidence and everything had been tabled. I am not sure that we have actually done that in this particular parliamentary session, but this change is a sensible change. It will allow opposition and crossbenchers to be able to refer to evidence if it has been public. If it is confidential evidence, if it is a deliberation of a committee, you cannot refer to it.

If a committee takes evidence in camera and you have a transcript of it, you cannot refer to it obviously. But if it is public, if it has been reported, anyone could have watched it, so it does not make much sense that a member cannot refer to the evidence. I think that is one of the more important ones. Far be it from me to support something which will be very useful for the opposition and the crossbench, but I think it will be very useful for the opposition and crossbench. I think it is sensible.

We are all going to be in the opposition and crossbench at some stage—maybe not the crossbench—in the cycle. Nothing is ever permanent, even though it felt like it was permanent when we were there for 16 years, but nothing is ever permanent. We will all, in terms of government and opposition, experience both sides and that is why conventions are important and actually thinking about what is there for the efficient and good operation of the council as a chamber are important issues for us all to address.

Standing order 203 is the one that, on my reading—I apologise because I was a member of this particular committee—I think we might need to tweak a little bit in terms of the proposed standing order, unless the Clerk has found another way. This actually states:

Any Member, complaining to the Council of a statement in a newspaper [in the media] as a Breach of Privilege, shall produce a copy of the paper containing the statement in question…

We were going to delete 'in the newspaper' and put 'in the media'—so, 'a copy of a statement in the media,' but the remainder of it still refers to 'produce a copy of the paper'. So it may well be that it should read 'a copy of the statement' or something, or whatever it might be. I will have a discussion with the Clerk as we go along to see whether or not I move this in an amendment form or not. On the surface of it, it looks like we might need just to tweak that. Anyway, the purpose of this is to recognise the fact that we have other forms of media, other than newspapers, and we should cover that in our standing orders.

I was happy to agree with standing order 222, but being a traditionalist I was a bit sad to have to go with the majority on this one. This is the two-minute sand-glass kept on the table for the purpose. I love conventions and traditions so I was bit sad to roll over and agree with the majority; nevertheless, I was not going to die in a ditch on the deletion of the two-minute sand-glass. There was some argument as to whether or not the sand-glass was actually accurate for two minutes or not. Some people had been purportedly timing it and it was not always necessarily two minutes, but it is one of those traditions which I am a little bit sad to see go, but nevertheless it is for the younger ones to move on.

Standing order 249 is again a sensible amendment. This is, in essence, going to allow the better processing of transmission of messages between the houses. This will consider a provision for the Clerk to deliver messages to the House of Assembly when the council is not sitting or to the Speaker when the assembly is not sitting. I think the assembly has similar provisions, and this is going to reflect a practice to allow the delivery of messages when either house is not sitting.

Standing order 331 is a sensible proposed amendment from the Standing Orders Committee. This is essentially when there is a disagreement between the houses in relation to amendments, and what we are supposedly required to do, under 331, is provide the reasons for such a disagreement. If and when they are done they basically just say, 'We disagree with them.' There is not much of an argument gone into. The House of Assembly rarely, if ever, provides reasons, so the view was that it really did not add much value and therefore the proposed changes are made to 339.

Standing order 389 provides that the chairperson of a committee shall have a deliberative vote only rather than a casting voice. Again, when we establish the committees we almost inevitably—or always, these days—suspend that particular standing order. This just recognises that that is the case, and when you establish a select committee there will now be no need to move that that particular standing order be suspended.

It is similar with standing order 396. Again, whenever we establish a select committee 396 is routinely suspended so that strangers may be admitted unless the committee otherwise resolves. The proposal is to recognise the current practice. It would mean that we will not have to suspend that standing order when we establish a select committee.

Regarding standing orders 402 and 403, I will not go through the detail but these are not observed these days. It used to be observed decades ago that when you came to do the report of your committee, the chairperson supposedly reads the report to the committee and you go through and vote on it either paragraph by paragraph or page by page. Inevitably that does not happen in terms of select committees, and nor should it, in terms of efficient operation. The standing orders have been modernised to reflect that.

Standing order 410 provides that the report may be read at the request of any member. Again, that does not make much sense. I do not think I have ever seen it occur in my 40 years. If there is an example of it occurring prior to that—there is a shake of the head, so I suspect it has not. Standing order 414 acknowledges that there is no need for a library committee anymore, so we do not need to establish a library committee.

Regarding standing order 420, I think this was one of the passions of the Hon. Mr Parnell: lists of select committees being affixed to some conspicuous place. There was someplace in the lobby or something that did not exist anymore, or you could not access it or something. That is going to be repealed. We have a list of select committees being posted on our website and, being publicly available, the need to post them out the front is no longer required.

There are a lot of other even more detailed amendments to the standing orders, but I think that more than adequately canvasses the more significant elements of the standing orders. I might just pause for a discussion here.

The PRESIDENT: The Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have been taking advice from the Clerk on two issues. In relation to the issue on standing order 203, what I am advised is that what we are being asked to adopt says 'delete "in a newspaper" and insert "published in the media"', etc. and that that will be in accord with what needs to be achieved. It is just that the words that are in the standing order underneath it will be amended as a clerical error, so it will not say 'paper'; it will say 'record of the media'. So in terms of what members have as a report of the Standing Orders Committee, the actual motion they are being asked to adopt will be okay; it is just that the actual in essence purported way that standing order 203 will be there will actually be 'record of the media' rather than 'paper'. So it will be slightly different from that.

I do want to stand corrected in that I have not accurately portrayed one earlier decision of the Standing Orders Committee, so what I will do is read the actual record of what the committee found on co-sponsored bills and motions, so I do correct the record on what I said earlier. This is what the Standing Orders Committee on page 2 reported:

With regard to the capacity for Bills or Motions to be co-sponsored by multiple Members, the Committee notes Standing Orders 269 and 270 provides for a motion to be moved to nominate a Committee of not less than two Members to prepare and bring in a Bill. However, under the Standing Orders, the process for presenting a fair copy and the signing of the Bill is to be assigned to one Member of the Committee. The provision for a motion to nominate a Committee to prepare and bring in a Bill has not been used in decades.

There is no provision within the Standing Orders for co-sponsored motions or for a motion to be moved by more than one Member although Standing Order 100 provides for a Member to give notice for another Member not then present with the names of both Members appearing on the Notice, however only one Member may move the Motion. Members wishing to align themselves with (or in essence 'co-sponsor') a motion may second the motion and be the speaker immediately following the mover.

The Committee notes Senate Standing Order 76(4) is similar to Standing Order 100 and states: 'A senator may, on request, give notice for any other senator not then present, and 2 or more senators may place their names on a notice as movers'. Extending beyond the provision for a Member giving notice for a Member not then present, the Senate's Standing Order provides for multiple Senators to place their names as movers.

That is the actual recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, not, as I earlier intimated, that there was to be a proposed change to the standing orders to seek to go down the path of co-sponsored bills and motions. With that, I obviously urge members of the council to support the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. F. Pangallo.