HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

SITTINGS AND BUSINESS

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:40): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended for this sitting week as to enable the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill and the WorkCover Corporation (Governance Review) Amendment Bill to have priority in respect of government business on the Notice Paper and for the bills' remaining stages to be concluded by 6pm on Thursday 5 June 2008.

I will be brief in moving this procedural motion because, after all, its purpose is to ensure the maximum amount of time for the discussion of the bills on WorkCover. During the second reading stage, we had some of the longest speeches in the history of this place, and I think that it has become clear to all members that, unless we have some reasonable cap on the debate of these bills, other important government business, including Supply, will be delayed.

For that reason I move this procedural motion and point out that the government has indicated to all members of this council that it is prepared to sit until midnight this evening, tomorrow evening, Wednesday morning and Thursday morning, which means that over 20 hours will be available for private members' business and the consideration of these two bills. I believe that that should be more than enough time to complete them.

Unfortunately, the reason I believe that we need a cap of 6pm on Thursday is that it is clear that some members have indicated their intention to filibuster. While the government accepts that members have the right to vote whichever way they like on particular pieces of legislation, it is important that, like any parliament, this Legislative Council allows the government the right to have its legislation considered within a reasonable time frame. Consequently, I move this motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:42): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Leave out all the words after 'Notice Paper' and insert 'and for the council to continue sitting until the bills' remaining stages have been concluded'.

Like the minister, I will be brief. Three weeks ago, when this bill was debated, we saw a willingness from members present to sit beyond 6pm on Thursday night to complete the important second reading stage. It was a very late and long evening. We see no reason to curtail the debate on Thursday night at 6pm, given that members were prepared to sit later three weeks ago. We see it as quite reasonable that we deal with the remaining stages of the bill this week and conclude it after 6pm on Thursday.

We can then move on to the other important bills and business the minister highlighted in his letter to us—namely, important priority bills and the Supply Bill—in the remaining sitting weeks of June.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:43): I oppose this motion unless it is amended, but not amended in the way the Leader of the Opposition has stated. I move:

Delete all words after 'Notice Paper'.

In other words, I wish to delete the reference in the motion to the bills' remaining stages to be concluded by 6pm on Thursday 5 June 2008 and to leave it open-ended.

The first part of the motion is fairly inoffensive. It invites us to accept that the WorkCover bills are the government's priority. We need to ask ourselves why it is going down this path to tell us what its priorities are. The reason is that its normal method of allocating priorities has completely failed. It failed for the three weeks when a different bill was listed as the priority. We were told that it was the serious and organised crime bill on 28 February, 12 March and 4 April. It was only after Gouger Street that we were told that this WorkCover bill was a priority.

The question for us is: whom do we believe? Do we believe the Leader of the Government in this place? Do we believe the Attorney-General, or do we believe the Treasurer? I can understand why the minister wants to put it on the record that WorkCover is now the No. 1 priority. I can accept that that is the case. I think we did the right thing as the Legislative Council to take matters into our own hands and take the government at its word with those three memos and prioritise the serious crime bill over WorkCover. However, now we are into WorkCover.

This motion sets a terrible precedent in relation to the debate on bills in this place. It is absolutely a precedent. I asked some researchers to go back through 50 years of parliamentary records to try to find out whether a time limit had been set in the Legislative Council for the conclusion of a debate. No record could be found, going back to 1958.

I believe this motion also highlights the hypocrisy of the government, because we had senior ministers—the Treasurer and others—telling us we had to sit 24/7. They were telling us we had to sit over the weekend, that we needed to sit on Mothers Day, if you remember, to get their WorkCover bill through. This council has taken a sensible approach and decided not to include extra sitting days when members were overseas, because it would have been very unfair for people who had relied on the Notice Paper to be dragged back for extra sittings.

I also remind members of the video clip found by the CFMEU (people may have seen it on the television news) of the Premier speaking on the steps of Parliament House 13 years ago. The Premier, the then leader of the opposition, had this to say:

You people ask today for a commitment from the Labor Party. Well, I'll give you a commitment. I will give you a commitment, and that commitment is that every single Labor member of parliament will vote against every single clause of the bill.

That sounds to me like his promise was for a thorough committee debate—and we will, perhaps, give members of the Labor Party the opportunity to vote in favour of every single clause of this bill when we get it into committee. The motion also—

The PRESIDENT: I remind the honourable member that each speaker has only five minutes.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I reckon I have a minute or two left, thank you. I will be very brief.

The PRESIDENT: I will decide how long you have left.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr President; I am watching the clock. If this motion goes through, every time a government is embarrassed about legislation, every time it would rather not have a thorough debate in the community—and, in particular, in this parliament—it will bring down the guillotine. The government did it this week last year when I was gagged from talking about greenhouse gases—and the Leader of the Opposition groans with the memory of that occasion. So it has become deja vu; it has become common practice.

It is inevitable that the WorkCover bills will pass, but the debate will come to an end in the fullness of time. It will come to an end when we have asked all the questions and the minister has answered them. It will come to an end when we have moved our amendments and have tested the will of the parliament. However, I do not believe that we, as a Legislative Council, should allow the executive to tell us when we have had enough debate on government legislation. If it says that we are holding up Supply, it can bring the Supply Bill on and we can get it out of the way; but let us not hold the Legislative Council captive because of the government's mismanagement of its business. I urge members to support my amendment.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (14:48): I am very concerned at the precedent the government is creating with this proposal, so I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. If that does not pass, I most certainly will not be able to support the motion in its original form.

I consider that this is part of the role of the Legislative Council. What we are seeing from this government is a case of 'Do as I say and not as I do', because I remind members of the government that when they were in opposition they held up the then Liberal government's legislation for five months—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Sorry; I have 500 days. It was that long. Eventually, as a consequence of the Legislative Council being able to conduct a proper investigation to look at all the issues, the legislation got through in an amended form—and in an improved form. We have seen time and again in this place that when the light is shone by the Legislative Council onto legislation there are almost inevitably government amendments or acceptance of some of the opposition or cross-bench amendments, because they improve the bill. I am almost willing to bet that the same thing will happen in the process of dealing with the amendments that have been tabled in this particular case. I believe it would be an absolute travesty to cut short the debate on this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:49): Family First supports the motion as amended by the Hon. Mr Ridgway. If one calculates how many hours that would allow us for the committee stage of this bill, it is approximately 31 hours, that is, if we are to sit until 5am, as we did a few weeks ago. We are prepared to do that on Thursday if that is what it takes, but we do not believe that the committee stage should go on forever. If 31 hours is not enough time to thoroughly explore the ramifications of a bill, what is enough time? There is other business of this place that needs to be dealt with at some stage. Family First says that 31 hours is plenty of time to fully explore the ramifications of the bill, so we support the motion as proposed to be amended by the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:50): It is not the government's intention to in any way curtail debate on this bill other than to ensure that it finally comes to a finish. We cannot have a situation where members can filibuster on bills so that legislation is never considered. That is potentially always possible under the standing orders of this place. It has not happened before, but we saw at the end of the last sitting week the first attempts at that.

Given the amendment moved by the opposition, which at least puts in a finite cap, and given the numbers, I will not divide on the government motion. I will be happy to accept the opposition amendment, because at least it makes the point that one way or the other we will conclude the debate on WorkCover at the end of this week, whether it be late on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, or whenever. So, I will not divide on my original motion.

The council divided on the Hon Mr Ridgway's amendment:

AYES (18)

Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Evans, A.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

NOES (3)

Bressington, A. Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. (teller)


Majority of 15 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The PRESIDENT: I put the question: that the motion moved by the Minister for Police and as amended by the Hon. Mr Ridgway be agreed to. Those in favour say 'aye' and those against 'no'.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: No.

The PRESIDENT: Because at least one member said 'no' to the question, there must be a division.

The council divided on the motion as amended:

AYES (18)

Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Evans, A.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

NOES (3)

Bressington, A. Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. (teller)


Majority of 15 for the ayes.

Motion as amended thus carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT