Budget Estimates 2008-2009 Take-note Debate: Sessional Order

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.52 p.m.]: I move:

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered:

(1) Each speaker on the motion to take note of the budget estimates is to be limited to 10 minutes.
(2) Debate on the motion to take note of the budget estimates for 2008-2009 is to take precedence after debate on committee reports on Wednesdays.
(3) The debate on the budget estimates is to be interrupted at such time so that debate on committee reports and debate on the budget estimates does not exceed two hours. The interrupted debate is to stand adjourned and be set down on the business paper for the next day on which it has precedence.

The tradition over the past couple of years has been that members do not speak at length to the second reading of the appropriation bills; they have reserved their remarks for the take-note debate on the budget. Consequently, each year the take-note debate on the budget has commenced as soon as possible after the Treasurer has delivered his Budget Speech. Some members opt to speak on the budget as soon as they are given the opportunity after the presentation of the budget, while others choose to make their remarks later in the year. The motion seeks to have the take-note debate on the budget start tomorrow in the hour following debate on committee reports. That is the position of the Opposition and, as I understand it, that of many members of the crossbench, who I am sure will speak for themselves on this motion.

I am advised that the Government will move an amendment to seek to have the take-note debate start in September. It is suggested that the reason for doing so is to maintain maximum flexibility on days that are reserved for Government business so that the large workload before the House can be dealt with. In that respect I make two comments. First, every member of the House is well aware of how often the House has not sat after dinner on days when we have dealt with Government business simply because so little Government business has been brought before the House. The idea that we should not start the take-note debate until September or October, merely because the Government cannot get its act together to deal with the flow of legislation, is, in my view, ridiculous.

I apologise to the Leader of the House for anticipating the Government's proposed amendment, of which he was kind enough to show. I thank him for that courtesy; it will make my reply speech much shorter. However, if he proceeds with the amendment and is able to secure the support of the crossbench for it—which will result in it being agreed to—he will succeed only in causing those who would otherwise speak briefly in the take-note debate on the budget, contributing tomorrow to debate on the appropriation bills with no time limit. I suggest that he reconsider his rather ill-considered amendment. I think if he reflects upon the matter for just a moment, he will realise that commencing the take-note debate on the budget within the limits set out in my motion is a course that will use the time of the House more economically than that which he proposes should be adopted. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, Acting Minister for the Central Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.57 p.m.]: I support the matters set out in the motion of the Hon. Don Harwin with one exception—to which he has alluded. I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting the words " during the present session" and inserting instead "from the first sitting day of September and for the remainder of the present session".

As the Hon. Don Harwin said, over the next two weeks the Government has an enormous amount of legislation to present and the House will be pushed for time to have it dealt with. An additional two hours will not make a great deal of difference to the members speaking, but the addition of even one hour to what are likely to be very long sittings will have an enormous impact on others in the House. I say that not just for the information of members, but also to advise the parliamentary staff who will have to endure it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.58 p.m.]: The Greens support the motion. We are concerned that the take-note debate on the budget is often pushed back. It is an important debate that gives members an opportunity to discuss the budget in detail. As the Hon. Don Harwin noted, so far this session the Government has delayed and great deal of business that should have been dealt with. We should not sacrifice the opportunity to debate the budget now. Otherwise we could have a repeat of the ridiculous situation of a couple of years ago when the budget was debated a year after it was delivered. The Greens supports the motion moved by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.59 p.m.]: The Hon. Don Harwin spoke to me recently about this motion. Because of time pressures I thought a solution would be to replace the hour set aside for debating committee reports on Wednesdays with time to conduct a take-note debate on the budget. I am happy to move amendment to that effect if the Clerk would care to draft it.

The Hon. Don Harwin: We will not support it. My instruction is to stick with what we have moved.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: In that event, I support the Government's amendment.

The PRESIDENT: Does Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wish to move an amendment?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No, I thought it might be helpful, but I will not move it.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.59 p.m.]: The Government is displaying a certain air of contempt for the House in this matter. The budget is an important document and we have a right to debate it in a timely fashion. Putting off debate for two and a half months takes all the timeliness out of the document and the debate. It seems to me the Government is displaying a certain fear of the scrutiny to which it would be exposed in the upper House. As my colleague said, we support the motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.00 p.m.], in reply: In response to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, there was a bit of noise in the Chamber and I might not have entirely understood the amendment he foreshadowed but did not move. As I heard it, it was to dispose with debate on committee reports until the take-note debate had concluded.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No, I said because of the time pressure in the next two weeks, we could replace the hour set aside for committee reports on Wednesdays with take-note debates on the budget.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: There is no reason that this sessional order could not be put in place and by agreement the House might adopt that position. The Opposition will maintain the motion it has moved. It listens to any suggestion the Government makes about how it would like to deal with Government business. If this motion is adopted and the Leader of the House comes to us with a proposal tomorrow we will consider it. If a case is made, we will support it. There is no reason that the concern raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile could not still be addressed even if this particular sessional order is adopted. I encourage the House to support it.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Tony Kelly be agreed to—put.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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

Motion agreed to.