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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3840 ..

a responsibility to debate legislation, and I think all members of this Assembly should be aware of that commitment.

There are things we need to explore in making the Assembly a more family-friendly place, but I would like to point out that I do not think a new inquiry into late sittings is needed. As has been pointed out today, and as I am sure Ms MacDonald is already aware, there is currently an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure into our standing orders. I believe the standing orders are the main tool for regulating debate in the Assembly. They talk about the time at which we commence and when our adjournment should be set down. I think that review is the appropriate place to tackle the issue of over-long sittings.

Whichever way this debate goes, I am sure members of the committee are aware of Ms MacDonald’s views. Perhaps a submission to the committee would not go astray, to make clear what Ms MacDonald would like to achieve. We can then look at how we can set the example of predictable working timeframes for members of the Assembly and make the Assembly a more family-friendly workplace.

MR CORNWELL (12.13): Appropriately, I will be brief. This debate is interesting insofar as it is a bit like Parkinson: we do not have much on the paper today, so work is going to expand to meet the time available, I fear. This is a matter that quite properly should be looked at by the administration and procedure committee, not one that is debated five days out from this Assembly’s rising for an election. There are many issues involved in debates in this chamber. The reading of speeches is an interesting one; there is the question of extensions of time; and organisation of the program so we do not end up with two or three very large bills for debate all on the one day. These are small issues, but they should be addressed.

I have been drawn into this debate by an exchange with Ms MacDonald. I substantially agree with a great deal that she has said. I would remind members, however, that this government would not even implement its own five-minute restrictions on answers by ministers; I, in fact, had to do it myself. So it comes with some irony that Ms MacDonald has put this notice on the paper when her government did not implement its own policy at the last election.

The point I am making is that this is a matter that should be looked at by the administration and procedure committee; I do not believe we should be addressing it at this point. I will therefore be voting against the motion. I hope the administration and procedure committee will have very serious concern for and interest in the submissions that have been put forward to the inquiry. I have put forward two submissions on ways that I believe this chamber’s performance could be improved and time saved. I understand that only three members have made submissions but I commend those submissions to the committee. I hope the committee will implement them for the Sixth Assembly.

MS TUCKER (12.16): I have listened to the debate. I understand people are concerned that Ms MacDonald could have raised this before the administration and procedure committee, because they are looking at standing orders. But I think that she perhaps overlooked that process, or it did not come up as an issue for her before; so I do not think we need to be so concerned about that.

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