HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SITTINGS AND BUSINESS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. P. Holloway:

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, if the council has not adjourned at 10pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, a minister shall move the motion 'That the council do now adjourn.'

(Continued from 12 May 2010.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:26): I rise briefly to speak on this issue. I commend the minister for moving this motion. I think all of us have had discussions from time to time along these lines and it really takes somebody to move a motion to this effect for something actually to happen.

In very succinct terms, we are inclined to support the motion as it stands. I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell has an amendment to this motion, but we are not inclined to support that at this stage. We will certainly listen to the debate and the argument that the Hon. Mr Parnell puts forward in support of his amendment.

The council, of course, has the power to suspend standing orders at any time so that, if there were a particular debate extending into the evening past 10 o'clock, as proposed by the minister, and the council felt that it was appropriate to extend the time allowed for debate on that particular issue, then of course the council is able to do that. For that reason, we are inclined not to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment. However, as I say, we are certainly willing to listen to his point of view and make the final decision after having done so.

I think that all of us have felt that something has to be done about the sitting hours in this place for some time now. I see that the House of Assembly has made quite substantial changes to its sitting hours in recent times. I do not believe that we should mirror its sitting times. I see no reason for that, but I do believe that 10 o'clock is a reasonable time to finish. I am not suggesting that we cut sitting hours any shorter. We are certainly open to earlier starts.

My personal view is that a 2.15pm start is too late. Others will have different views and that is fine. I can see no reason why we should not start at 11am perhaps on Wednesday and Thursday, or perhaps even 1 o'clock on Wednesday and 11 o'clock on Thursday. In any case, we are open to all of those suggestions, although we do not intend to move amendments to that effect. I just signal to my honourable colleagues that we would be inclined to look at such measures favourably if they were presented. We think that 10pm is not an unreasonable time to have a scheduled regular finish but with the option to extend sitting time if something particularly required extra time.

I would just like to raise another couple of issues which I think the chamber could consider if there were support for them and which I have mentioned informally to some members. I see no reason why we could not have speeches during the dinner break but no voting. It is an hour and 45 minutes that we have, which is a very long dinner break, and I see no reason why it could not be shorter. The reason I am often given as to why people do not want to shorten that break is that they have other commitments. Really, to me the priority on the day is the sitting. As to those other commitments, people can get a pair if they need to be absent from the chamber for half an hour, 45 minutes, whatever it might be, and that would not cause too much disruption, I am sure. So I am certainly in favour of looking at a shorter dinner break as well. Like other members, I enjoy having some time for dinner, but I think an hour and 45 is too long. I think something in the order of an hour is probably more reasonable. It is plenty of time to have a reasonable meal and gather your thoughts as you prepare for the evening sitting.

Just returning to the point I was making a moment ago, I see no reason why we could not have speeches—second reading speeches—during the dinner break, with an agreement or standing order that required there would be no voting during the dinner break itself. In short, just to sum up our position, we are in favour of what the minister has proposed, and we intend to support it. Our intention at this stage is not to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, but, as I said, we will not rule that out. I would like to listen to his position.

The Hon. M. Parnell: It will be a good debate.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It will be a good debate. I am sure it will; it always is. As I say, the reason is that the council does have the power to extend the sitting if it is an issue that requires more time. Also, to be fair, we are very privileged in this chamber—I may be howled down by some other members here, but I think we are very privileged—particularly as minor parties, or so-called Independents, in that we do have a good deal of private members' time available to us. I am being open and honest and fully frank—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting President. It was getting way out of hand. I think to be honest and frank, we do have a good deal of time for private members' business in this chamber. I am not saying it is less important. I do not believe it is. I believe on some issues it is very important, but I do believe we are well served for time in that regard in comparison to similar chambers around the country, indeed around the world. So I think we need to be reasonable in what we can expect. I have always found this government—and when the government changes, I am sure it will be the case when the Liberals form government—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I did expect to be howled down, as I said. I would expect them to be equally cooperative. I have never found a problem with getting my issues on the agenda. I think each of us on the crossbenches here would have to agree that that is the case.

So, with those few words I indicate that that is our position. We support the 10 o'clock finish as a general rule. We do not at this stage intend to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments, but, as I say, we look forward to hearing precisely what he has to say on that before making a final decision. As I understand it, there are no other amendments put forward at this time, so it may be simply supporting it as it stands.

I would also like to raise just another quick issue, if I may, and I understand that we are ready to move on with the next item. This whole issue of sitting times raises, of course, the broader issue of reform of the chamber. Now I am not a reformer by nature. I think people would regard that as self-evident, but I do think there is opportunity to make some sensible, modest reforms to the way the chamber works, and I think particularly of items I have discussed with other members with respect to the way amendments are distributed, for example. It can be difficult to know what amendments are on file and which are not on file in this chamber from time to time. I see no reason why amendments could not simply be emailed to members once they are filed by the individual members. That is a reform I would like to see take place for certain. With those few words, I indicate support for the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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