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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3834 ..

and speaking purely for the sake of speaking in order to make a point. What we want to achieve is quality, not quantity, of speech. It does not necessarily mean that we would get better quality speeches if debates went on for a long time.

Mr Cornwell: Hear, hear! I have the answer myself.

MS MacDONALD: If the Assembly had set adjournment times I believe that debate would be more concise. I am not surprised that Mr Cornwell interjected as he has long advocated restricting our sitting hours. It was his idea to restrict the amount of time allocated to ministers answering questions in question time. That move, which is a start, should be applauded. If ministers cannot say in five minutes what they wants to say they probably should not say it. The more time that a member has available to debate an issue, the more likely it is that he or she will use that time.

Staff in my office who researched this issue did not find any jurisdiction in Australia with set adjournment times, though there has been some discussion about the fact that Queensland might have some set adjournment times. However, the New Zealand parliament does have set adjournment times. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays the parliament sits from 2 pm to 6 pm and then from 7.30 pm to 10 pm, and on Thursdays it sits from 2 pm to 10 pm. I am not proposing that the ACT Assembly adopt that exact model, but I believe the set adjournment times in New Zealand have some merit.

The Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure could investigate the possibility of the ACT Legislative Assembly commencing earlier at, say, 9.30 am, thus enabling it to rise earlier. Lunch breaks could be restricted to an hour or to 1½ hours. Adjournment times could be set and extensions could be granted only under extenuating circumstances. In that way late sittings would become the exception rather than the norm. After leading the world on working time reduction in the nineteenth century, Australia’s pattern of hours now most closely resembles that of the United States of America. It is now amongst those countries that have the longest average working hours in the industrialised world.

Many people who want to work fewer hours find that their hours are not only longer; they are also more pressured and more demanding. I think all members would agree that their families, their staff and their families could relate to the findings that longer working hours place more pressure and stress on family members and the community. If we decrease and limit the hours the Assembly sits, I believe we can reduce those problems and make the ACT Legislative Assembly a more family friendly and people friendly place. That, in turn, could open the door for many people who would like to begin a career in politics, or who would like to work in the Legislative Assembly as a staff member but who in the past were restricted by family commitments.

We would also have a happier and more conducive workplace and more succinct and valuable debates. I have a single mother working for me in my office. Fortunately, she has an extended family which to an extent is supportive of her. At times we have pressures in the office when Lisa’s little girl is sick, as we have to ensure that she is cared for. That places a great deal of pressure on Lisa. People sometimes say to me, “You do not have a family at the moment. It is hard enough dealing with these hours when you have no children, but what will you do when you have children?” My response

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