Thursday, 23 March 2023
Committees
Parliamentary committees
Committees
Parliamentary committees
Membership
Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (10:06): I move on behalf of Minister Thomas:
That Ryan Smith be a member of the House Committee and that Belinda Wilson be a member of the Standing Orders Committee.
Just briefly speaking to this motion, I commend both those members for nominating for service on those two important committees and also just for the benefit of the house, whilst I cannot move an amendment at this stage of this motion, foreshadow that the next government speaker will move that the member for Bayswater Jackson Taylor be a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee and also that Mr Maas be a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:07): In speaking to that motion and amendment, my view and the coalition’s view is that when it comes to committees and procedural matters in this house we should work outside this chamber to come into this chamber in a bipartisan way and have both sides of the chamber put forward their members without any partisanship in the way that we do that. I have spoken to the Leader of the House several times about that approach, and that is my approach. There have only been two instances when I had a different view – one on the chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which was a subject of debate in the previous sitting week, and that, fortunately, though at the time it was not successful, has been accepted by the government since.
But today, in relation to the motion, the government initially moved forward its motion joining the question of two of the changes that were being put forward, and that was difficult for the opposition, because one of the changes is intended to increase the proportion of the government’s representation on the Standing Orders Committee. It is increasing the proportion beyond where it was in the last Parliament, effectively meaning that the government will have an absolute majority on the Standing Orders Committee without the chair being required to use their casting vote – and that is in my view the purpose of the increased proportionality that the government is seeking on that committee – but then linking that question to a change putting one of our members onto a committee, and I feel obviously concerned about the linking of that question.
Setting aside the politics of that, house practice has always been, when it comes to these issues, that the questions be considered separately, and I take it from the government speaker that the government does intend to have those questions dealt with separately. In looking back through parliamentary history, through Hansard, there are only two instances that I am aware of in the last hundred years where the question has been dealt with jointly, and that is in 1921 and 1972. House practice has always been that when it comes to these matters the house would deal with them separately so that politics is taken out of those debates and the matters are dealt with as they should be. So I welcome the government speaker indicating I believe in his contribution to this debate an intention for the issue to be dealt with separately. I welcome that, and I would hope that you in the chair will be dealing with that issue separately.
I hope in moving forward that we can deal with these questions in a straight way, where both the government and the opposition can make changes to committees without politics being involved in it and one-upmanship. I hope the house will understand why, when it comes to the standing orders question, I have clearly put the case as to why we will not be supporting it. As I say, I would normally not be wanting to seek to play politics in dividing on questions of this nature, but on this particular one, on the Standing Orders Committee, the government is seeking to increase its proportion of the committee into an outright majority. There are things this Parliament will want to consider when it comes to changes to the standing orders that should be up for vigorous debate, and having an increased majority on that committee in this Parliament at the same time as the government saying it wants to review the standing orders, in my view, cuts against the spirit of doing that in a bipartisan way.
That after the words ‘House Committee,’ the following words be inserted: ‘that Jackson Taylor be a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, that Gary Maas be a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee,’.
If I could just speak further to those points, obviously the member for Bayswater not only has an extremely strong work ethic, as represented by the fact he was returned to this Parliament, but also as a former police prosecutor, will make a great contribution to the Integrity and Oversight Committee. Just as I want to acknowledge the contribution and commitment of the member for Narre Warren South, who is also a legal practitioner and of course will continue to provide not only his legal acumen but his broader skills to the role as a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee.
Also, in picking up on the honourable member for Bundoora’s earlier matters in relation to the member for Warrandyte moving to the House Committee to ensure the sausage rolls are reasonably priced and are hot, which is important, the further work of the House Committee and the running of this place is particularly important and not to be underestimated, and his experience will be brought to bear I am sure in relation to that work. I would like to acknowledge the member for Narre Warren North, the Deputy Government Whip. It is a very good opportunity and makes a lot of sense of course in the practice of this house that the deputy whip would be on the Standing Orders Committee – an opportunity to review the procedural rules of the Assembly and make recommendations for change.
If I could also just quickly pick up on a couple of the points raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Brighton, I would say a couple of things, one of those being that, as I just touched on, the Standing Orders Committee will only ever make recommendations that come back before this house, whether they are either affirmed or rejected. It will always be this house and all members of this house that will make determinations with regard to any recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee. It is not lost, I do not think, on this side of the house, that the government did increase its majority at the last election. It is not unusual. And in fact the Manager of Opposition Business touched on the fact and pointed to two examples of past practice – two occasions where what is being proposed here has been affirmed by this house in the past. And 1972, I think, was the other year that was mentioned by the Manager of Opposition Business. So past practice and customs of the house are very clear that these matters are not unusual and are very much within the order of the way in which these things are run here in this house. I commend those matters to the house and will conclude my comments there.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before putting the question I will make a statement on how the debate on the committee membership motion will be conducted. Because there are multiple questions in the motion and an amendment to it and because the member for Brighton has requested in his contribution that the question be split, I have decided that in accordance with best practice I will split the questions in the motion and the amendment to the motion.
The Minister for Police has moved an amendment to this motion. He has proposed to insert after the words ‘House Committee’ the words which have been circulated. As the amendment adds two members to committees, I will also split these questions.
The question is:
That Jackson Taylor be a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee.
Motion agreed to.
The next question is:
That Gary Maas be a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee.
Motion agreed to.
The question is:
That Ryan Smith be a member of the House Committee.
Motion agreed to.
The question is:
That Belinda Wilson be a member of the Standing Orders Committee.
Assembly divided on question:
Ayes (47): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Question agreed to.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I distinctly heard the Government Whip read out 48 and then you read out 47.
The SPEAKER: The Clerk clarified and asked her to repeat it. You may not have been listening at the time.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! To clarify with the Manager of Opposition Business, who may not have been paying attention, the Clerk clarified with the whip that 47 was the correct count.
Amended motion agreed to.