Urgency

I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of Government bills. It is the Government’s intention to bring to the House two bills under this urgency motion for consideration by the House. One of them, as is well known, relates to the employment status of persons employed—or, I should say, engaged—in the film industry. [Interruption] There is so little joy among Labour these days that its members take any opportunity for a little bit of light relief in their life. The second bill deals with matters relating to provisions of a legal nature. I am sure that the need for urgency in the second case will be apparent when the bill is introduced.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you for some clarification as to whether Standing Order 55(2)(b) applies in this particular case. I will not go into the matter surrounding the second bill, but you will remember that at the Business Committee there was discussion of a bill on legal matters. An undertaking was given by the Labour Opposition—and, I think, by all Opposition members at that committee—that because it was an important but not contentious piece of legislation we would get it through the House by 6 o’clock, and I think it followed some discussions on the bill that were led by Nathan Guy. The Business Committee was given notice of the intention to move one piece of urgency for a specific matter, and it was agreed that there is not any intention to sit between 7.30 and 10 tonight.

The problem with the suggestion made by the member is that the assumption behind what he is suggesting is that there had to be agreement about whether there was urgency. There was, in fact, and the effect of that is that the House can sit till 10 p.m. tonight.

I think this matter goes to the purpose of Standing Order 55(2)(b), to the discussions before, and actually, to a certain extent, to the integrity of the Business Committee. If the Business Committee is led to believe that there is to be urgency for a particular item, as we were—without going into it, because it is not appropriate to go into detail at this point as to the item—and urgency is used for another purpose, it is my strong view that Standing Order 55(2)(b) does not apply, because otherwise the Business Committee could be consistently misled as to the nature of urgency. I think that would lead to a breakdown in the trust that we have developed—and I have seen, in my experience over the last 18 months or so, a committee that works very much on the basis of trust.

I appreciate the comments the member makes about the need for trust in these matters. None the less, Standing Order 55 accords the opportunity for the House to sit till 10 o’clock on a Thursday night if the intention of the Government to move urgency is notified to the Business Committee at the meeting earlier in the week, which it was.

There is no requirement for the Government to negotiate what the urgent business will be. The mere fact that it is a matter of urgency would tend to indicate that it is one of those matters that come up from time to time and need to be dealt with in such a way—quickly. Therefore I do not think there can be any contradiction here.

Conventions on how the House operates are changing, and I am very supportive of those changes. For example, we know that in the second week of the November sitting the House will be taking urgency, and everyone will know well ahead of time what work we are doing. There is a notice of motion on the Order Paper—it has been there all year—looking for a way to extend the hours of the House, because we think that would be worth considering. The halfway house that I have introduced—by indicating a long time out when urgency for the purpose of getting additional hours is required—is, I think, a good development, but it is a halfway house and it has no standing in Standing Orders.

Standing Order 55(2)(b) is specific: “if the Government has advised Business Committee of the intention to move on a Thursday to accord urgency to business, the sitting on that Thursday is suspended between 6 pm and 7.30 pm and between 10 pm and 9 am,”. There is no requirement in that Standing Order for the Government to notify what business it is taking urgency for at that time.

I have heard sufficient on this matter. I think the matter is quite clear. The Standing Order, as the honourable Leader of the House has pointed out, does not require the Government to advise the Business Committee of the precise nature of the business. If the House is to sit between 7.30 and 10 p.m., all that the Standing Order requires is that the Government has advised the Business Committee of its intention to accord urgency to business. The Government did that, and it has successfully moved a motion to take the House into urgency. As I see the Standing Order and the advice I have received, that is the situation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not litigate your ruling, but I suggest that at some stage the Standing Orders Committee could look at this matter, in this particular circumstance. As I remember, the purpose of this Standing Order was to allow members to plan later in the week—to get notice early in the week of a change that was going to occur late in the week, and plan their arrangements in their electorates. It was on that basis that, as you remember, I left the room in order to seek an assurance from our member that we could get the legislation through the House by 6 and therefore not notify. In the end, I think the Standing Orders Committee has to look at whether this Standing Order, as it is now written, achieves the purpose of giving members notice when it is brought into effect.

It is certainly something that the Standing Orders Committee can do, and I hear what the honourable member is saying with regard to members’ ability to plan their business. It is a significant issue.