- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 1 March 2005
Consideration of Urgent Motions
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 19 of 38
| Next Item »
Page: 14322
Penalty Rates
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [3.31 p.m.]: This motion is urgent due to the attempt by the employer association Employers First—
Mr Andrew Humpherson: Point of order: I understand that there is one motion of urgency for which notice has been given, which is valid. So therefore, by default, that becomes the motion of urgency. I am just seeking guidance from the Chair. Is the member for Drummoyne debating urgency, or is she speaking to the substance of the motion?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am aware that there is only one valid notice of urgent motion before the House, but the honourable member for Drummoyne is still required to tell the House why her motion is urgent.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: This motion is urgent due to the attempt by the employer association Employers First to reduce and remove penalty rates for employees in a number of industries. This motion is urgent as this House must express support for the successful and co-operative New South Wales industrial relations system that is based on the ability of employers and employees to negotiate rates of pay, including penalty rates—
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I am loath to raise this point of order, which members on the other side take from time to time, but the member for Drummoyne has been here, and away from the union office, long enough to know that the point of this debate is to establish why this is a matter for urgent consideration, not to go through a rehearsal of the arguments that she will no doubt put when this motion is moved and debated. I would urge you to bring the member—the union hack—back to the leave of this part of the debate, to bring her to the standing orders, to the notice of motion and to the rulings of previous Chairs, about what this part of the debate is for: it is not about restating the arguments she will put for final consideration of this matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the honourable member for Drummoyne further before I rule on the matter.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: This motion is urgent because penalty rates and shift loadings for work in ordinary time during weekends and outside the span of hours are intended to compensate for the inconveniences associated with working unsociable hours. This matter is urgent due to the manner in which the Federal Government is moving to largely eradicate the New South Wales State industrial relations system. This matter is urgent as any attempt by Employers First to reduce rates of pay by cutting weekend penalties will disadvantage thousands of women and part-time workers in the work force. This matter is urgent, particularly in the current climate of rising interest rates and high mortgage repayments.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: Successive Speakers have ruled that just because a member says at the start of each sentence, "This matter is urgent", does not actually make it urgent. I again make the point that decisions on interest rates will not be announced until tomorrow. The Federal Government does not have control in the Senate until 1 July. None of the issues that the member for Drummoyne is arguing demonstrates any sort of urgency of this motion. I say again that this debate previously has been restricted to why this matter should have urgent consideration. The member is simply rehearsing in a rote fashion—the sort of fashion she learnt in the union office—arguments designed to deceive the public, and she is not taking account of the processes of this House.
I say again, we have rulings from the Chair and we have standing orders that do not allow the member for Drummoyne to make the sort of speech she is making. I simply say, would you please put us out of our misery, draw her back to the leave of this motion and get on with the proceedings.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised some relevant points.
Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I draw your attention to paragraphs (3) and (4) (a) of Standing Order 120. Paragraph 3 provides:
(3) The notices shall be set down for consideration immediately after Questions without Notice with precedence of all other business.
If more than one notice is given, paragraph (4) (a) provides:
(4) (a) The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.
If there is only one motion—you have ruled the other one out of order—there is no reason to establish priority; the debate should continue. If you are going to rule that the member for Drummoyne may continue, you must therefore give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to argue his motion that was notified as an urgent motion prior to question time. The standing order specifically states that we are arguing priority, not urgency. Therefore, if you are ruling there is only one motion, there is no need to argue priority, so the member for Drummoyne should not have the tolerance of the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour clearly misunderstands the standing orders. I have ruled the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition out of order, but the honourable member for Drummoyne is still required to show that the motion of which she had given notice is urgent. In any event, the honourable member's speaking time has expired.
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Drummoyne be proceeded with—agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:33 : Update this page