Business of the House

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended at this sitting to permit the moving of a motion to adopt a new sessional order on Maximum Time Limits for Debates and Speeches and amendments to the following sessional orders that were adopted on 6 December 2007:

Routine of Business;
Friday Sittings;
Adjournment and Next Meeting;
Program for General Business Days;
General Business Notices of Motions and Private Members' Statements;
Consideration of Motions Accorded Priority;
Matters of Public Importance; and
Timing of Bells.

As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, members on both sides of the House have been working hard to ensure that the new sessional orders provide the maximum opportunities for all members to participate in the many different issues that are important and relevant to members of the House. We deal with government business, but members must have the opportunity to raise matters of importance to them and to their electorates in a timely way to ensure the House is able to respond appropriately and satisfy their needs. We have had a number of meetings since the new sessional orders were introduced to ensure that they are appropriately refined to improve the operation of the House. I introduce these amendments to sessional orders to ensure we can discuss a matter of public importance on both Tuesday and Wednesday.

As members know, because of the way the business of the House has been operating since the new sessional orders were introduced, there have been times when a matter of public importance has been severely truncated or has not been discussed at all. Under the amended sessional orders, at least 30 minutes will be guaranteed for a matter of public importance on both Tuesday and Wednesday. Under the old sessional orders, although we debated a motion accorded priority on both Tuesday and Wednesday, there was no such motion on Thursday. The Government acknowledges that motions accorded priority are an important way to express a point of view, which is why, under the new sessional orders, there will also be an opportunity to debate a motion accorded priority on Thursday.

There are a few other relatively minor changes but one is of importance. Previously, private members' statements were noted early on Wednesday and government business was then deferred to a later stage in the day. That has created some problems in ensuring the legislation reaches the upper House and is dealt with without delay. If the House passes legislation late on a Wednesday afternoon and the legislation proceeds to the other place on Thursday, when there is no opportunity to deal with government business, it quite often ends up being delayed for a week or, if Parliament goes into recess, it can be several weeks or a month before the legislation is passed through both Houses. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We thank all those who have contributed to this process to ensure we have an orderly procedure for government business and private members' statements, and an increased opportunity to debate motions accorded priority and discuss matters of public importance.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [3.38 p.m.]: Some commonsense prevails. I thank the member for Liverpool for intervening with the Premier's Department. I still cannot understand why it had any leave to buy into the sessional orders of this House. The program was ostensibly agreed to weeks ago. It was sent to the Premier's Department, which did not want us to discuss a matter of public importance or debate motions accorded priority on Thursday, all because of family friendly hours. I take the opportunity to point out that the unfortunate thing about family friendly hours is that any member who does not reside in the Sydney metropolitan area still has no opportunity to go home to see their family for the week during which the House is sitting.

Even those in the western districts of Sydney do not get that opportunity or, if they do, they get home fairly late even with family friendly hours. At the end of the day it is a farce. On numerous occasions since we have resumed the House has risen about 6.00 p.m. because there is no work. The schedule of this House was rearranged purely for a headline and not to give the Opposition the opportunity, as the Leader of the House said, to raise matters of public importance. It seems that a matter of public importance is debated on a Tuesday but not on a Wednesday, when it should traditionally come from a member of the crossbench or the Opposition, because of the filibustering during question time.

Answers during question time are notoriously so longas happened again todaythat we end up running out of time. This eats yet again into time allocated for private members' business, matters of public importance or motions accorded priority. This motion proposes a better schedule than the present one, but still is nowhere near the schedule I would expect as a member from a rural electorate. Members are here already: we are quite happy to sit here until 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night and debate matters to make sure business gets through the House. But this Government does not give the House much business to debate. Numerous times again this week leave was sought to suspend standing orders to bring on government business, yet we are knocking off at 6 o'clock, as we have done in previous weeks.

This Government has run the routine of business poorly. It is lunacy to get a headline by saying, "Look, we'll have family friendly hours and mothers and fathers can get home to their families." The vast majority of members here, regardless of whether they are Liberal, Labor, The Nationals or the crossbenchers, do not have the opportunity enjoyed by city members of going home to their families. Costa's budget cutting probably caused this in the first place. We are here; we are willing to do the business of the House. I would much prefer to see us go back to the schedule we had prior to family friendly hours because it meant that we got the work done.

One thing I do not like about the proposed schedule, which I raised during the meetings, is that on Friday we will have notices of motion for private members' bills. This means that if a member wants to introduce a private member's bill, he or she must be present on Friday morning. Under the current schedule, government business is conducted on Fridays and there is no question time. We do not get an opportunity to hold the Government to account. Yet, if we want to introduce a private member's bill, we are stuck here doing private business when Thursday was always traditionally private members' day, and Government members are off in their electoratesor perhaps in our electorates. The proposed schedule is not perfect by a long shot. The Government is responsible for causing these problems.

Mr Daryl Maguire: And Costa's budget cuts

Mr ANDREW FRASER: And Costa's budget cuts, as the member for Wagga Wagga said. The budget cuts have forced us to adopt these sessional orders. This proposal is not for the good governance of the State; it is not for the benefit of the majority of members. I seek assurances from the Leader of the House that if we have problems with this schedule, as we found we did with the last one, he will refer it to a committee and this House for further discussion.

Question—That the motion be agreed—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.