Page 305 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the last term of the previous Assembly—and I use this as an example—I look at the notice paper from Thursday, 28 August, the last sitting day. I will seek leave to table this document. If you look at the number of items which were on that notice paper, from the executive, there were 43 items. For new private members business, there were eight items; and from old private members business, 33 items. So that is a significant amount of work that this Assembly simply did not get to.
I appreciate that there is a new sitting pattern for the weeks and that will add over the course of the year some 70 hours, but when you look at the work that was not looked at, important work that was put forward by the government, important private members business, consideration of reports, that work simply was not done. So how the government can say that there is going to be sufficient time to do the Assembly’s business when in the last Assembly that did not happen just does not add up. The extra pattern that we have got, the extra 70 hours, will not be sufficient.
When you consider that the open debate that we will have now, considering extra reports from committees and the fact that many debates in the last Assembly were gagged and which will not be gagged in this term, you will find that we will have more to debate, more work to do in the Assembly. I see, at the end of the term, what will occur is that we will have a notice paper that is that thick. Instead of the disappointing report that is here, it will be even worse.
In conclusion, I have moved an amendment and the amendment lays out a pattern that does not conflict with executive business. It is a small increase of two weeks. I think it is more than reasonable, given, as I have laid out, the examples, both nationally and internationally, and the ease with which we could sit and the importance of the Assembly and the primary role in the function of the Assembly. I have moved that the amendment be adopted by the Assembly.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.59): In relation to what has been mentioned already, the federal Senate sat for 14 weeks in 2008 and plans to sit for 14 weeks in 2009. So I think that is important to note. The number of sitting weeks for the Assembly in 2009 will be 14. So the sitting hours will be equivalent to the Senate’s.
Until now, the Assembly would sit for two hours in the morning from 10.30 till 12.30, and then 3½ hours in the afternoon from 2.30 until the adjournment debate at 6. This added up to between 5½ and six hours per sitting day. Altogether, this would add up to 18 hours of sitting time per week. Contrast this with the amount of time that this Assembly will sit during this term as a result of the Greens-Labor agreement.
Under the new sitting hours, the Assembly will now begin half an hour earlier in the morning, at 10. It will have a shorter lunch break of 1½ hours rather than the old two hours. It will finish at 6 in the evening. All up, we will have an extra hour of sitting each day, which means an extra three hours per week. Add to this an extra sitting session from 7.30 to 10 on the Tuesday of each sitting week. This is another 2½ hours for each sitting week. Add this to the extra three hours a week I just mentioned and we have an extra 5½ hours of sitting each sitting week. Considering that a sitting day was only six hours, the new sitting hours of this Assembly gives us almost an extra sitting day per week. All up, this will be the equivalent of an extra four sitting weeks per year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .