Page65 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 2 December 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . 2020 Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
committees can do. On this side we are perhaps not as against select committees as has been expressed by the government.
My amendment should say paragraph 5, not paragraph 3—the amendment was written against an earlier version of the notice paper and I have amended the version the Clerk has. This is the issue we support—where bills are going to be referred to standing committees and those standing committees then have the option of conducting an inquiry into them. That principle, a new way of doing business, arises from an inquiry that was conducted by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure into the possible structures of the committee system for the Tenth Assembly.
Chapter 8 of that inquiry report is titled “Latimer House review recommendation—greater use of standing committees in examining bills”. It looks at both the Latimer House principles and precedents from other jurisdictions, particularly those parliaments that only have one chamber, as we do—notably Queensland.
I will just quote from that report.
Another secretary observed that referring bills to committees more regularly “could potentially improve the quality and legitimacy of the legislature and increase public trust in the Assembly”.
The Standing Committee on Health, Ageing and Community Services noted:
… in two other unicameral parliaments, namely New Zealand and Queensland, all bills are referred to committees, but … the committees will usually report within six months of the date of referral … Referring bills regularly to committees would also have the advantage of allowing the scrutiny of bills process—which is often very rushed—to be done in a more considered manner.
The Committee notes that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (which this Assembly has rated itself against twice—once in 2007 and once again in 2019) found in its latest review the following shortfall … There is no requirement for legislation to be referred to a policy committee for inquiry and report.
So the principle is there, but, in examining that principle, it noted that the time frame allowed in other parliaments was up to six months. The motion from Mr Gentleman limits it to two months.
I read now from the recommendation of the tripartite committee report:
Should the committee decide to inquire into a bill, the minimum time for the committee to report would be two months and the maximum six months.
This report says that if the committee decides to instigate an inquiry, the time frame allowed is a maximum of six months. Those who sit on standing committees would be aware of the reason for that. I note that many in this chamber have not, but those of us who have understand that by the time you get referral from the sitting week—committees do not sit during sitting weeks—it is a week later, and if you are sitting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . 2020 Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video