Page 111 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the last review of the standing orders, and in the discussions we have had about family friendly workplaces, there was never a proposal that we should all up stumps at 6.30 pm, come what may, irrespective of the business before the Assembly and how much more we had to do. Mr Quinlan makes a point that needs some nodding and acknowledgment that from time to time members do get carried away with their own rhetoric, and can be a little on the verbose side, but there are standing orders about that. We would be better off, as was recommended in the review of standing orders in the last Assembly, perhaps enforcing the speaking times rather than putting a stop to debate, as this proposal will surely do.
As Mr Stefaniak pointed out, he can do the math—as they say in other countries—and really what we will resolve to do today is limit debate on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to about 4½ hours. Most of the issues that passed through in the previous Assembly did so, generally, with consensus or with minor amendment. Many bills passed in under an hour but, from time to time, there are matters of significant import where the debate is considerably longer. Just off the top of my head, some debates that took a considerable time, and needed to take a considerable time, in the last Assembly included the introduction of the building insurance indemnity scheme.
That was a very important piece of legislation that took considerable time and where debate went on for some time. It would have been inappropriate, in a sense, to adjourn the debate because “Gosh, we’ve come to 6.00 pm and, union rules, we have to go home now, irrespective of the need.” Legislation to set up the Planning and Land Authority, the education bill, the human rights bill—all were significant pieces of legislation where it was generally not appropriate to adjourn and come back because you would have lost the thread of the debate and we would have ended up with people repeating themselves and having to make their points again. People lose track of who has said what to whom and when and whether it has been said.
This proposal is a flawed proposal. The Liberal opposition will oppose it, because it is a flawed proposal. The only thing it does is provide certainty. I can now say to my family, “We’ll be pulling up stumps at half past six so, yes, you can make arrangements in the evening.” But, for the 40-odd days that we sit, there were very few days when we ever sat beyond 7 o’clock in the previous Assembly. As I said when we had this debate about family friendliness last year, when you stand for election, when you sign up to becoming a member, you sign up to the hours. If you are not here debating, you will be out in the community.
At 6.30 tonight, I am out of here and I am going to community meetings. I will still be doing my work. I still will not be seeing my children; I will be out doing the work of a member of the Legislative Assembly. This proposal does create some certainty. It means members do not need to have pairs, which is often a problem if they are given a dinner invitation or something like that. But the nub of what we are here to do is to debate issues in relation to the welfare of the people of the ACT, to look after the vulnerable, the people who need support.
The message we are sending to the community is that it is just too hard. I want to put on the record that it is not too hard for the Liberal opposition. We are prepared to do the hours. It is really too hard for the Labor Party. They resented having to sit here during
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .