Page 51 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
situation where one non-government party will have the monopoly on scrutiny and on engagement in debate in this place. In particular, the changes proposed to the standing orders reflect the fact that, with the emergence of another major non-government party in this place, it is necessary to amend the standing orders to take that into account.
I would draw members’ attention first and foremost to changes in this regard. My proposed amendment No 2, for example, recognises that, in relation to bills being agreed in principle and time limits on debate for those bills, the mover and the member next speaking will each be accorded periods not specified in the standing orders. This will, for the first time, formalise an arrangement that has been in place in this Assembly for some time whereby the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow treasurer and the leader of the crossbench party will each be able to speak in reply to the budget bills for the same period of time as the Treasurer.
In relation to other bills, the proposal is, again, to accord equal status not only to the opposition member responding to a bill proposed by a minister but also to the crossbench member responding. Each is being given equal periods of time. So these are important changes that reflect the fact that, for the first opposition member next speaking and the first crossbench member next speaking, each is entitled to equal periods of time in debate.
There are also changes to the meeting times of the Assembly itself. The government proposes that, instead of the Assembly meeting at 10.30 on a sitting day, it meet at 10 am and, in relation to question time, that that occur at 2 pm rather than the previous arrangement of 2.30.
There are a number of other changes that are worth reflecting on. There is provision, for example, in relation to the notice period that members are required to give for matters of public importance. Previously the requirement was that that be given two hours prior to the commencement of the sitting. The change, which has been discussed across the parties, is to provide for 1½ hours. I think that reflects the ongoing practice of requiring an MPI to be notified to the Speaker’s office by 8.30 am on a sitting day. There was previously a proposal to make that 9 am, but I think members have agreed to split the difference and to make it 1½ hours.
There are also important changes to the procedures for question time itself, and these will be the matters that, I think, will be of most interest to many people outside the Assembly. The first change is a change in relation to the rule relating to relevance. Currently, answers to questions must be relevant to the question that has been asked. The change to standing order 118(a) is to make it clear that, rather than the answer being confined to the subject matter of the question that was being asked, it must be directly relevant. This will be an important change and one that will still require significant discretion and judgement on the part of Mr Speaker during question time. Nevertheless, it is one that we believe will help clarify the arrangements for ministers answering questions in this place.
A new paragraph in standing order 118 is also worth drawing to members’ attention. This change recognises that, where a member believes that an answer to a question
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .