Wednesday, 8 March 2023

 The PRESIDENT (09:36): I wish to advise the house of my thinking in relation to Mr Limbrick’s intention to debate a petition today. Mr Limbrick tabled a petition last sitting week which calls on the house to amend the Health Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. The petition received more than 10,000 signatures, and under our new standing order 11.03(10) Mr Limbrick is entitled to list it for debate today, and he has done that. I note that debate has commenced on this bill and the government has indicated that the bill will be further debated this week. The question I am considering is whether the petition debate would anticipate debate on the bill itself.

Standing order 12.17 prevents a member from ‘anticipating discussion of a subject listed on the notice paper and expected to be debated on the same or next sitting day’. This is known as the anticipation rule. In essence, the anticipation rule is about ensuring that matters set down for debate are not pre-empted by unscheduled debate. Practice in most jurisdictions is that it is not anticipation to use a more effective procedure, and a bill is considered a more effective procedure than a motion.

Over time the house has somewhat relaxed its enforcement of the anticipation rule. Incidental reference to matters is permitted. There is also more leeway in relation to the budget. However, in this case the debate we would have on Mr Limbrick’s petition today would be fundamentally the same debate as we will have in the second reading and any subsequent stages of the bill. The questions put to the house on the two occasions would be different, but the debate would be on the merits of the bill. It would therefore pre-empt that debate.

I have considered whether we could limit today’s debate to matters around the tabling of the petition, the number of signatures and so on. However, I have decided that would put speakers in a difficult position. I also note that Mr Limbrick will have 30 minutes to speak on the second-reading debate and he could, if he wishes, make note of the petition at that opportunity.

I have sympathy for Mr Limbrick’s position. His intention is to recognise the large number of people in the community who contributed to the petition. When he gave notice of this motion the bill was not on the notice paper and he was not aware of the government’s intention to debate the bill this week. This is also the first time that a petition has been listed for debate under the new standing order. It is an unfortunate situation, as I think that debating large petitions shows the house’s responsiveness to the community. Nevertheless, the anticipation rule is clear here, so I advise that, unless the house resolves to suspend the anticipation rule, debate cannot proceed today on Mr Limbrick’s motion to consider the petition.