Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2738 ..

Mr Berry: You never did it, because you knew it would just extend the sitting somewhere else and you did not want to do any more work.

MR HUMPHRIES: No; it is very easy to pad out time. We could have a lot of padding in members time. You go back to the private members business under the previous Labor Government and you will see that the number of matters dealt with in each day under private members business was less than it has been under this Government. Why? Because you lot used to make sure that every one of your backbenchers and every one of your Ministers spoke on every line and motion, so that an ordinary straightforward motion would take two hours to dispose of. That was your policy every Wednesday morning. Everyone would speak on it to keep it going for two hours. We have not taken that approach. We have said, "There is a matter before the chamber; let us deal with it". We need one speaker or two speakers, occasionally three speakers. We will do that; otherwise we will get on with the business. Mr Speaker, we have played the game fairly reasonably, I think; but, if members wish to extend the time further, that is fine.

Let me put on the record one final concern. I was concerned that the operation of the new standing order would be such that a member other than a member of the government can bring on Executive business. I hope that that will not be used to spring surprises on the government. I would hope that the effect of this new provision, which I suspect is going to be adopted, is that members do consult with the government before they force Executive business to be brought on. I imagine, if this is to be any indicator, that there will be a large amount of non-government business.

Mr Moore: No, that is not the intention, Gary. That could be changed administratively. See how it goes to the end of the year.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is what I have said. That is what I have said to Ms Tucker. We have discussed it and I had an amendment prepared, in fact; but I said to her, "We will leave it and see how it goes". I would hope that surprises are not sprung on us.

Mr Moore: That is not the intention.

MR HUMPHRIES: Fine. Okay. Mr Speaker, I would also hope that the focus will be on quality outcomes with private members business, not simply moving motions for the sake of filling the Wednesday that is now allocated to private members business. It would be most unfortunate if the effect were to be, "We have to fill Wednesday, so let us make sure we fill it".

MR MOORE (5.10): Mr Speaker, some members nearly always take up fully their allocated speaking time, and Mr Humphries would have to be the most notorious; but in this case Mr Humphries did have almost two or three minutes to spare. Mr Humphries made quite a fuss about the point made by Ms Tucker that there is a great deal of private members business on the notice paper. I do not believe the point was made in order to say that you have not been doing any work, or whatever; it was simply to illustrate that at the moment there is a need for extra time to be assigned to private members business in order to get through some of the private members business. When we meet in the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .