Thursday, 19 March 2020

IT update

The SPEAKER (09:33): Before members abscond, just a quick reminder. I have just emailed members of the Assembly with a really important piece of IT update advice. I will not go into too much detail in a public environment, but if members can please check their emails and take the actions that have been set out in that email.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, in regard to the amendment to the motion and the motion put forward by the Leader of the House yesterday, I draw your attention to standing order 33(1), which talks about the adjournment debate and provides that it will last for a maximum of 30 minutes or until 10 members have spoken. Also, in regard to members statements, standing order 40 sets out the time limit as a maximum of 30 minutes. They are part of the standing orders, but when we look at the amendment to the motion and what was agreed to overall by the house there are no limits in regard to members statements for Thursday and the adjournment matters for Wednesday and Thursday. Do we take it, because of the way the motion has been written, that there are no limits on members statements and adjournment matters that the opposition can put forward?

The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for raising the point of order. The resolution of the house was to suspend so much of standing and sessional orders, so I would rule that—and this is for the clarification and guidance of the house—the numbers of adjournments and members statements should be those that have been previously accepted through custom and practice. That would be 10 adjournment items and 20 members statements.

Mr WELLS: On a further point of order, Speaker, from that ruling do we take it that in future amendments in regard to motions they will actually have the numbers put in, so that there is clarity for the opposition when we are actually debating these motions?

The SPEAKER: I did not draft the motion that was put to the house yesterday. It was carried by the house. I am providing some clarity to the Manager of Opposition Business on the issue that has been raised.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, on the ruling that you have just made, normally while there may be certain speaking lists, for example, the practice of the house is that you stand up and you make your adjournment or your members statement, and if you miss the call then you miss the call. Given that there is no call, what is the practice—given that it is not in the motion—if they are now limited by the previous practice? Do you understand what I am saying? How do you pick what are the 20? Do we get 20?

The SPEAKER: I would imagine that the same practices that occur at the moment, where the clerks provide proportionate listing to each side of the house, will continue. I just remind members that, firstly, if the will of the house is different to my ruling, I am happy to accommodate that. This is a change to the way we operate—mind you, for today only—but I am happy if the house has come to an agreement to change that approach. I do remind the house that if there were a significant number of members statements or adjournments lodged it would create some difficulties for the Assembly department to process, but we will endeavour to do our best if there is indeed a change. My ruling would be that we stick to the 10 and 20 respectively.

Mr Battin: On a point of order, Speaker, yesterday the motion put before the house was to delay, to move off or to finalise the sitting from 3 o’clock yesterday, taking away the opportunity for our side of Parliament to have grievances or for any member of Parliament to put things on the record. I went through in detail during my contribution the things that we will miss out on and how we cannot stand up for our electorates during this time. During that I had an interjection from the other side of, ‘It’s because we should be back in our community’, and I seek your guidance. When we finished at 3 o’clock yesterday was the position of the government that we should be going back out into our communities and continuing our work or having a gathering on the rooftop of the new building out the back and having a beer? Five Labor members decided not to separate or to stay in isolation but actually to sit up there and to have a beer. The community do need to know that if the Parliament and the government want to go outside and have beers at 3 o’clock, when they have adjourned the house and silenced this side of the house, that is a disgrace.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House! There is no point of order.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, if the government wants to shut down Parliament to go and have a beer, and if the member for Mordialloc—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrandyte will resume his seat.

Mr R Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrandyte can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Mr R Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! Ninety minutes.

Member for Warrandyte withdrew from chamber.

Mr Battin: On a point of order, Speaker, in relation to the point of order that I just raised, we did not actually get a ruling from the Speaker in relation to—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Battin: Maybe we can talk about—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gembrook will resume his seat, in silence. I ruled that there was no point of order.