1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Council
  4. 13 October 2000
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Business Of The House

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 32 of 41 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers - Wong The Hon Dr Peter; Primrose The Hon Peter; Burnswoods The Hon Jan
Business - Business of the House, Private Members Statements, Suspension of Orders, Suspension of Standing Orders


    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Page: 9297

    Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

    The Hon. Dr P. WONG [4.38 p.m.]: I move:
        That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that private members' business item No. 77 outside the order of precedence , relating to the Roads Amendment (M5 East Road Tunnel) Bill, be called on forthwith.
    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [4.39 p.m.]: I oppose this motion.

    The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Just a moment. Have we gone through all the procedures?

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile): Order! The Hon. P. T. Primrose may proceed.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: I am speaking to the motion that standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the Hon. Dr P. Wong to call on item No. 77 forthwith. Last April I listed an item of private members' business on the notice paper.

    [Interruption]

    I am concerned that members opposite are interjecting. Last year, along with others, I sought to introduce a more rational system of dealing with private members business in this House.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: I know a good reason why you would not want to bring your motion on.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: I am seeking to bring on a motion and it is the Opposition and some members of the crossbench who have been stopping me from doing precisely that for many months. Every Friday that we sit I come here expecting to move my motion, because it is listed as No. 2 on the order of precedence, but I abide by the decisions.

    [Interruption]

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Members will remain silent and allow the Hon. P. T. Primrose to continue.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Many members of this House unanimously decided to bring in what we believed to be improvements to the sessional orders. The sessional orders provide that we allow members to enter a ballot to decide on the order of precedence. I am not speaking on behalf of the Government, but as a private member.

    The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That's bullshit!

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: I acknowledge the interjection, so it is in Hansard. As a private member I placed a matter on notice and waited. I won a balloted position. Every week that we sit I come here and another member seeks to jump in. We have a rational system, which I thought everyone had agreed to abide by, with some reasonable tolerance. It is 20 minutes to five and, again, it is suggested that I will not be able to bring on this motion which I put on notice in good faith. Either we have a rational system that allows private members to bring on matters that are of concern to them or we do not. My matter concerns the implementation of the goods and services tax, which is as important to me as a citizen of this State as are other matters to other members.

    The Hon. P. J. Breen: But not to the people in the gallery.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: The Hon. P. J. Breen is suggesting that the people in the gallery, members of the community, are not concerned about the goods and services tax.

    The Hon. P. J. Breen: It is not a matter of contingency today.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: It is second in the order of precedence. I won the ballot.

    The Hon. P. J. Breen: What is first?

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: First is a matter concerning firearms. If that were to come on I would fully accept it. But the Crimes Amendment (Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons or Instruments) Bill was adjourned until Friday 3 November. The next item in order of precedence, about which notice was given on 4 April, is No. 2, which is mine. It states:
        That this House expresses its serious concern at the Federal Government's mishandling of the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax, and the negative impact of the tax on the citizens of this State.
    I am suggesting to the Hon. P. J. Breen and others that as a private member I awaited my turn. I put my name in a ballot and won that ballot. My item is due to come on today, as it was on the last Friday that we sat. Every time we go through this someone jumps up and seeks leave to bring on another matter. I have not objected, for the most part. I have not stood up and said that my matters should take precedence. But it is getting beyond a joke. If we want to go back to the old system, that is fine. We can amend the sessional orders and not have a ballot. Then it will be everyone for themselves.

    However, we all agreed on a balloted system which I, along with other members, was prepared to accept. I took my chances, I won the ballot. The goods and services tax as it relates to small businesses would be a matter of concern to citizens. I know it is of concern to members of the Government and I believe it would be of concern to a number of members of the crossbench. It is probably not of concern to the members of the Opposition and certainly not to the Australian Democrats who inflicted this insidious tax on us. This matter is equally worthy of debate in this House. Having participated in the ballot I should be allowed my turn to speak.

    The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Yes, you are right. It is a rort.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Yes, it is a total rort. I am not arguing this matter on behalf of the Government, I am simply suggesting that along with other private members I took my chances. I express my concern that as a private member—

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are filibustering.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti suggests that I am filibustering.

    Ms Lee Rhiannon: Brian is accurate.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: That is interesting. Am I filibustering? This is the first time that I have stood up and suggested that I should be allowed to bring on an item in a ballot that everyone agreed to. We have a principle.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 85, which states:
        The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the House or the Committee to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member, and may direct such Member to discontinue his speech, provided that the Member so directed shall have the right to require the President or Chairman of Committees to put the Question that he be further heard …
    The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: To the point of order: Mr Chairman—

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: Sit down.

    The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: I have the call.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: I had not finished.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I thought the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had concluded his point of order.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: No. The honourable member is deliberately wasting time. He has repeated himself no fewer than three times.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Because you keep interjecting.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: I have not interjected even once. He has become repetitious and tiresome.

    The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: To the point of order: To my knowledge the Hon. P. T. Primrose had not repeated himself during his remarks and was speaking to the order of business.

    The Hon. P. J. Breen: To the point of order: This is a case of tedious repetition. We have heard from the honourable member as to why he is concerned about the ballot system and that it is not working. We have not heard about the contingency. What is so important about the GST that is more important than the construction work by the RTA in relation to the M5 East ventilation stack?

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile): Order! The Hon. P. T. Primrose may continue his speech, provided he introduces new material.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: I also believe that a range of other items would be equally important. For instance, why does the Opposition not believe that Sydney's water supply, listed by the Hon. J. H. Jobling, is equally important? Other matters listed include the Technical and Further Education Commission under the name of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and Telstra. Obviously the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti does not think that reports by the Health Care Complaints Commission are important.

    [Interruption]

    The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti may not support his leader on the last matter but he certainly believes that this item is of concern. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones raised a matter concerning working groups at the salinity summit. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods has listed a matter in relation to residential parks.

    The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: The Hon. P. T. Primrose is definitely trifling with your ruling. I again remind you of Standing Order 85.

    The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: To the point of order: The Hon. P. T. Primrose is showing utter contempt for the people who live near the proposed stack at Turella, whose lives are at risk because the Government refuses to put in electrostatic precipitators, and he is doing whatever he can to prevent that legislation from being brought on. He is showing utter contempt for the residents of Turella and for the House.

    The Hon. H. S. Tsang: To the point of order: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones' interjection does not relate to the point of order. It makes no reference to the point of order that the Hon. P. T. Primrose is not speaking to the subject. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones is speaking about a matter that is not relevant.

    The Hon. A. B. Kelly: To the point of order: The Hon. D. J. Gay said that the Hon. P. T. Primrose was trifling with the ruling. The ruling was that the Hon. P. T. Primrose could continue to speak, provided he did not go over old material. The Hon. P. T. Primrose then spoke about other motions, which he had not spoken about before, so it is entirely new material. He certainly was not trifling with your ruling.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. P. T. Primrose may continue his speech, provided he introduces new and relevant material.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: The argument here is that a member is seeking to queue jump. I am simply suggesting—

    The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You supported John Tingle's queue jump, didn't you?

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Yes, and I have supported many others. Honourable members do not seem to understand that my simple argument, as I have said clearly, without repeating myself and going against the ruling, is that I have been extremely tolerant as a private member.

    The Hon. Dr P. Wong: Until now.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Until now—because we go on, and on, and on.

    The Hon. Dr P. Wong: You have such honesty, such integrity and such principle!

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Yes, such principle.

    The Hon. Dr P. Wong: You have integrity, you are honourable—you are fantastic!

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Thank you.

    The Hon. Dr P. Wong: I was being sarcastic.

    The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: Oh, you were being sarcastic. I am sorry, I did not pick up on that. I presume the Hon. J. M. Samios believes that his item, item No. 9 in the order of precedence, relating to the Howard Government's strategy to develop Sydney as a financial hub of the Asia-Pacific region and applauding the recommendation of a Regional Financial Centre Task Force, is a matter that is a worthy of consideration in this House. I do not seek to trifle with the ruling, so I will conclude. I simply emphasise that motions to be moved by private members who are members of the Government in this place, which pursuant to the sessional orders of this House are drawn out in the ballot, are of equal relevance and importance to all other matters.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that the House is in charge of its own business and that members may either accept or reject the motion moved by the Hon. Dr P. Wong.

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.53 p.m.]: I also strongly oppose the motion to bring forward this item out of the order of precedence. That is partly because I too have a notice of motion within the order of precedence, item No. 8, which relates to the very important issues facing permanent residents of residential parks. My concern is that I, like the Hon. P. T. Primrose, have for the whole year operated under a system that members agreed to unanimously, and I want to debate my motion. I remember the discussions we had when most members of this House, but particularly members on the crossbenches, said how unhappy they were with the system of conducting private members' business. A number of discussions took place, and we came up with a new sessional order which everyone agreed to, which involved a system of members giving notice of items they wished to discuss and then every so often having a ballot to determine 12 items in the order of precedence.

    As I said, that motion came predominantly from members on the crossbenches who were unhappy about the way in which items they wished to discuss often were not reached, for a variety of reasons. I noted today, for example, that the first matter we debated and on which we spent so long, the Hon. J. S. Tingle's matter, was item No. 49 outside the order of precedence, even though the Hon. J. S. Tingle also has item No. 1 in the order of precedence. I know that that matter had been adjourned until 3 November, but of course so often those adjournments are themselves a tactical move.

    We are now debating whether to suspend standing orders to debate item No. 77 outside the order of precedence. I remind the House that only the first nine items are in the order of precedence; the others are on the list but are outside the order of precedence. It was also my understanding that there was to be a competitive situation because the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans intended to attempt to bring forward item No. 84, relating to fish, in competition with the Hon. Dr P. Wong bringing forward item No. 77, relating to the M5 East. The whole situation has got out of hand. We no longer know from one week to the next what the House is going to debate. We have all of this horse-trading—basically, "You scratch mine and I'll scratch yours."—and we continually have a complete failure to deal with the items in the order of precedence in the way that the entire House agreed on last year.

    Last year the House debated a bill that I introduced to equalise the age of consent between heterosexual and homosexual men so that the law applied equally to homosexual men and heterosexual men. I do not wish to canvass the issues of that important debate here, but I wish to remind members that that matter was a bill rather than a motion, and we discovered that the sessional order that had been drawn up earlier last year was deficient and defective in a number of respects. Again, with the unanimous agreement of the House, the sessional order was rewritten quite substantially in the latter part of the year to deal with issues such as whether there could be a debate on the first reading, whether time limits applied to the first reading, and so on. All of those matters are now relevant to the motion of the Hon. Dr P. Wong. They were discussed officially and unofficially among all of the groupings in this House, and the sessional order in relation to private members business was amended and adopted again in the latter part of last year.

    On two occasions last year this House discussed, and unanimously agreed to, a sessional order that prevented the Rafferty's rules we have had for so many years in this House. Every member of the House—including the Hon. I. Cohen and all the other member s who have been interjecting while I have been speaking, as well as the members who tried to waste the time of the House by trying to stop the Hon. P. T. Primrose speaking—agreed that the procedures relating to private members' business were very unfair and needed reform. Twice last year we went through the whole process. I am fairly certain that on no occasion this year have we followed the sessional order.

    The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is being extremely boring and repetitious. We are all falling asleep listening to her appalling speech. She is showing utter contempt, as is the Government, for the people who will be affected by the stack at Turella. The Government does not care about the people's lives who will be affected. People will die because of that stack, and this Government will pay the price. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is now filibustering and taking all the time she can to make sure that the matter is not reached tonight. The Government is showing contempt for the residents of Turella. It does not deserve to have any seats anywhere near that stack. I am sure that the people of Turella will make sure that Labor loses some of those seats at the next election, given how they are being treated with such contempt.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile): Order! The Hon. Jan Burnswoods may continue.

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: That was a very interesting speech from a member who has item No. 7 in the order of precedence. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones thought on 4 April that salinity might be an important issue in this State, but apparently he no longer thinks that. The 86 items on the business paper include a very large number from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, but apparently he no longer considers salinity, or Sydney's water supply, or any of the other issues on the business paper in his name to be important.

    The Hon. Dr P. Wong: Point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is flipping around her notes and going nowhere. She is making nonsensical statements. This is ridiculous. The member is supposed to be pro-environment but she is showing a total disregard for the environment. Her comments are irrelevant and she is not making any sense at all.

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The Hon. Dr P. Wong was not taking a point of order. It may have been offensive, but it was certainly not a point of order. I assume, therefore, Mr Deputy-President, that you will rule that it is not a point of order. May I continue?

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Members should not take points of order merely because they do not agree with another member's contribution. There is no point of order.

    Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:30:45   :   Update this page