During Estimates Hearings on 22 July 2024, I asked the Clerk of Parliament about the Government cutting debate on bills short and combining debates on multiple bills.
You can read my questions and the Clerk's answers below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
Mr BERKMAN: I will direct my question to the Clerk, if I might. It relates specifically to question on notice 21, Mr Laurie. First of all, thank you sincerely to the Table Office for all the work they did in putting that data together. I am specifically interested in the statistics around how often the business program motion has caused the guillotine of the second reading debate, which is more than 50 per cent in the last three years and more than 50 per cent for five of the last seven years, and, additionally, the statistic that for this sitting year—so only half a sitting year so far—we have had 16 bills debated in cognate and an average of four minutes for consideration in detail of each bill. Mr Laurie, you have been Clerk for a lot longer than the 6½ years for which data has been compiled.
CHAIR: The preamble is a bit long.
Mr BERKMAN: Have you ever seen so little time for consideration in detail or so many bills debated in cognate?
Mr Laurie: I will treat them separately. Bills debated in cognate: I would say that is not an unusual statistic, from my memory. Certainly, what I have noticed is a considerable decline in the use of consideration in detail. When I first started at the table it was called the committee of the whole. This has been a change that has occurred over the years. It has become obviously much more marked since we have had a business program motion.
I think that there is a trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness sometimes. Obviously the business program motion is put in place and its whole reason for being is to have bills go through in an efficient passage of time, but there is a trade-off in time for that. I suspect that on most occasions the quantity of members want to talk on the second reading debate rather than about the detail of clauses. Therefore, the second reading debate is preferred in terms of the allocation of time as compared to consideration in detail. Certainly, since the business program motion came into being, there has been a dramatic drop off in the amount of time spent in consideration in detail.
Mr BERKMAN: If I could ask a brief follow-up question, Mr Clerk: in your experience, what are the consequences of that limited consideration in detail for the quality of debate and legislative scrutiny in the Assembly?
CHAIR: You might be seeking opinion. Mr Clerk?
Mr Laurie: I think the purpose of consideration in detail is as it says: it is an opportunity for the House to consider the bill clause by clause. If I recall back to the time when consideration in detail and/or committee of the whole processes used to work, we used to spend an awful lot of time in that process where members would be asking questions about clauses and their effects and ministers would be providing answers. That process does not occur anymore. I guess that if you do not have a consideration in detail then you are not really considering the clauses in a great amount of detail; rather, you are only looking at the wider policy issues in the second reading debate.